The free kick was there & we didnt deserve to win

[WilliamPowell]

Sadly under the the new interpretation of the rule it was a free kick. And finally the one thing everyone has spoken about adnauseum for 9 weeks has happened it has impacted on the result of a game.

However, it was the 50m penalty that is as great an issue. Let's just make that one up as we go along shall we

Kane Johnson tackles a bloke who is off and the emu flapping umpire says "50m mate".

We get a free inside 50m and the Bombers play on (McPhee kicks it 40m away - identical to what happens with Richo) the emu flapper says "no 50m mate".

Krak takes a mark gets ridden into the ground after completing the mark the emu flapper says "no 50m mate, marks here"

I could go on ..

Personally the hands in the back rule is a shocker but it's there and we still haven't one a game thanks emu flappers and the rules committee

FWOY you are right these "rules" are turning people off going to the footy. I mean I am spending as much time worrying about what the decision is going to be in every contested marking competition rather then enjoying the contest

However, got to say the absolute worse decision of the night was the play on call in the final call after Wunderlich (sp?) took everyone on and Newman ran him down and he didn't dispose of it correctly and the emu flapper called play on.What is that rule about prior opportunity

[Bulluss]

I just drove down to Bunnings and was listening to SEN.

They are doing their pre-match before the Dogs/Swans game.

KB is calling today and is getting bombarded with callers about how crap the rule is.

KB is full of poo. He keeps saying that they bought the rule in to create a fair contest and he kept saying that theres no doubt Richo pushed Michael. He stated that Michael got pushed forward just prior to Richo taking the mark.

I agree that it was a free kick under the new rule, but as for Richo pushing Michael forward

Get your hand of it KB, this rule is going to ruin football as we know it.

Even Essendon supporters were calling in and saying it stinks.

[Tigermonk]

Big Mal was infact pushing backwards to get under the ball

[WilliamPowell]

Get your hand of it KB, this rule is going to ruin football as we know it.

Even Essendon supporters were calling in and saying it stinks.

Last night on SEN even Collingwood supporters were ringing up saying we were "dud"ed

[mightytiges]

Forget about the free kick.
What about when Tambling was coming of D50 with a minute to go and had a player 25 metres ahead of him, his kick missed his teammate and sailed over his head. Couldnt hit a target 25 metres away. Hits the target and they were away.
Thats Richmonds problem,too many players who cant hit a target 25 mtres in front of them

True Jack but this issue is bigger than Richmond. It's about how the new interpretations are no longer in the spirit of how the game is meant to be played.

Of course Adrian Anderson says today there's nothing wrong with the new interpretations  . This guy is a walking disaster zone for Aussie Rules.

[Tigermonk]

Of course Adrian Anderson says today there's nothing wrong with the new interpretations  . This guy is a walking disaster zone for Aussie Rules.

hear hear aint that so true

[mightytiges]

#5 If the AFL didnot act on a presented petition than the fans should act show them with a non attendence & support to games until changes are made

The problem with non-attendance is it affects your own club moreso than the AFL  . Better off not buying food inside the ground, the AFL Record, AFL sponsor products that aren't RFC ones etc... Also contact these sponsors telling them why. Anything that doesn't hurt the RFC in the process of targetting the AFL.

[one-eyed]

Here's a still of the incident from the Age:

[GoKent!]

The free kick against Richo was certainly there, he didnt have to push Michael just touch his back and its a free kick.

Stupid rule, but thats the rule.

We should have been down by 6 goals at half time.

Our game plan sucks, too many short kicks and turnovers because we allow the opposition to push back and block up the holes.

We need to be more explosive, Lids showed how to break it open tonight but we kept running into traffic and over using the footy.

If we change our game plan to a more direct style with more risk taking and fast moving footy, we could be a very competitive team.

our game plan the past 2 weeks have been great. we have moved the ball quickly and only bad luck coast us the win.  we should have been up by 6 goals at half time not down.  the umpires(not the Richo incident BTW) had 2 sets of rules out there on sat night. we have no hope when the umpires deliberately help opposition teams

[GoKent!]

Here's a still of the incident from the Age:

it was never hands in the back, it was hands in the side!

[Tigertailz]

Richo didn't push Michael in the back. In fact if anything it was to Michael's side. Richo's left hand was in Michael's back but he was holding his ground as every forward should be allowed to and has been allowed to for 100 years until this year  .

It's a dud rule. It was a dud rule from day one  .

Everyone should email KB at SEN. He's on the rules committee. His new interpretation has just cost his own club a game.

hungryforsport@sen.com.au

0433 981 116 is the SEN mobile number to text to as well.
Let KB have it!
There is a chance that through public weight of numbers in opposition to this rule that it wil be thrown out and possibly good ole pig headed KB will get the ar se as well from the committee.

[mightytiges]

What's the use debating this after hearing KB and Patrick Smith patting each other on the back this morning  .

KB said he had received 250 mostly negative emails but funnily enough most of those that calledthrough  just happened to be in favour of this new rule  .

Smith was blaming all this "frenzy" on a "media beat-up". They both kept going on about how it was a clear push in the back by Richo because Michael was propelled forward  ??? and it would have been a free under the old interpretation anyway. They were even adament the 50m was clearly there too because Richo should have realised the ump hadn't called play on.

A caller rang up about why McPhee didn't have 50m paid against him and their excuse was the time delay for Richo must have been longer than McPhee's because Richo ran away.

The only they said was a mistake was that 50m against Sugar for holding up Monfries. Of course there was an excuse for that too - "Oh yeah but that umpire was from WA and inexperienced"  ???.

 

[wayne]

Simon Beasley gave KB a good throttling on SEN this morning, saying the rule was just wrong and that he told KB that it would decide the result of a game eventually.

I think what happens is that the umpires don't want to miss out on the excitement and the players getting all the attention, so they start paying 'crowd' free kicks near the end of a game.

One thing i'll say though, after just hearing KB's bulls*#t monologue, is that WE ARE NOT saying the free kick wasn't there, it was there. We are saying it's a dumba$$ rule that ruins the game. Do you actually listen to criticism KB! It's the same as when Sugar bagged the umps, we were told the decisions were correct, WE WANTED TO know WHY the ones that were missed weren't free kicks.

It's to be expected though, KB and Giesch probably have the Richmond 'cancer' which makes them do a sh*t job.

[Fwoy3]

What's the use debating this after hearing KB and Patrick Smith patting each other on the back this morning  .

KB said he had received 250 mostly negative emails but funnily enough most of those that calledthrough  just happened to be in favour of this new rule  .

Smith was blaming all this "frenzy" on a "media beat-up". They both kept going on about how it was a clear push in the back by Richo because Michael was propelled forward  ??? and it would have been a free under the old interpretation anyway. They were even adament the 50m was clearly there too because Richo should have realised the ump hadn't called play on.

A caller rang up about why McPhee didn't have 50m paid against him and their excuse was the time delay for Richo must have been longer than McPhee's because Richo ran away.

The only they said was a mistake was that 50m against Sugar for holding up Monfries. Of course there was an excuse for that too - "Oh yeah but that umpire was from WA and inexperienced"  ???.

 

I almost had to turn the car around and go home sick, such was the nauseating dribble between KB and Fatprick Smith this morning. As I got out of the car a caller had just commented that the KB and Fatprick show was compromised...hard to argue that. Quite a well scripted opening to the show.

KB: The sky...I say the sky is green Fatprick
Fatprick: Why I do concur KB sir, 'tis indeed green. 

Heaven forbid Mal Michael played for a free    :banghead

Now I may be slightly mistaken, but didn't the NRL decide to scrap a rule change earlier this year (after a couple of rounds) for obstruction, because it was seen not to work? Why can't the elite few realise that the VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority think the rule is garbage?

[mightytiges]

As I got out of the car a caller had just commented that the KB and Fatprick show was compromised...hard to argue that. Quite a well scripted opening to the show.

You are spot on fwoy about it being scripted. I would say they had clearly read the emails KB got and to try to defend that idiotic rule they decided to come on and claim Richo had pushed Michael in the back so they could say it would have been a free kick last year anyway. Weak as and so contrived  .