Hands in the back rule

[one-eyed]

Richo says push rule is 'pathetic'
Rohan Connolly and Stathi Paxinos | May 27, 2007 | The Age

RICHMOND veteran Matthew Richardson last night slammed the push in the back rule as "pathetic" after being penalised in the dying minutes of the Tigers' heartbreaking loss to Essendon at the MCG last night.

With scores level on 84 points, Richardson appeared to mark the ball behind Essendon defender Mal Michael. He played on and kicked what might have been the winning goal for the Tigers but was penalised by umpire Brett Allen for a push in the back and, to add insult to injury, was then given a 50-metre penalty for playing on.

"It's spoiling the contest between to guys going for the mark," an emotional Richardson said on radio 3AW after the match. "I don't think it's in the spirit of the game."

Richardson declined to comment further but faces AFL sanctions for criticising this year's controversial new interpretation of the push in the back rule.

After Richardson's disallowed goal, Bombers Jason Johnson and Bachar Houli scored behinds and their captain Matthew Lloyd goaled after the siren to score a dramatic eight-point victory over the winless Tigers.

Richardson, who kicked four goals, had defied the odds to even line up last night after having sustained a fractured eye socket, a broken nose and a lacerated forehead last week when teammate Andrew Krakouer accidentally kicked him in the face during the loss to Port Adelaide.

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/push-rule-is-pathetic/2007/05/27/1179601748219.html

[one-eyed]

Richardson slams rule after cruel loss
27 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Jackie Epstein

 RICHMOND forward Matthew Richardson launched a scathing attack on the hands in the back rule after last night's heartbreaking eight-point loss to Essendon.

Livid after he was denied what he thought was a match-winning goal, Richardson called for the rule to be scrapped after the umpire disallowed a mark in the dying minutes.

He played on and celebrated what would have been his fifth goal, but was penalised and received a 50m penalty after remonstrating with the umpire.

The incident overshadowed what had been a remarkable performance after last week's injury when he suffered two breaks to an eye socket, a broken nose and 13 stitches.

Richmond fans were incensed at the loss and security staff had to restrain one spectator after the final siren when he tried to run onto the ground at the Punt Rd end.

"It's disappointing to say the least," Richardson told 3AW.

"I probably haven't been that disappointed after a game in my whole career. I nearly lost it. I've been playing footy for 15 years and in any other year it's a mark. I think it's a pathetic rule.

"I think it's spoiling the contest. It's not in the spirit of how the game's played and I think the crowd like seeing two bigger guys going for a mark.

"You nearly saw someone completely flip out. It would have been a good spectacle."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21801383%255E20322,00.html

[julzqld]

What a joke.  If Richo gets fine, it's even a bigger joke.  The AFL need to have a good look at themselves.

[Stephanie]

We got stooged and now Richo is going to get punished, that is pathetic!

 

[bluey_21]

LMFAO if Richo gets fined 

[WilliamPowell]

Yeah Richo's in trouble.

Look at Johnson since he gave the umpires a whack he just has to put a fingernail on a bloke and it's a free.

[Fishfinger]

Richo hasn't commented on the umpires, only the rule.

[julzqld]

Why not fine the media as well?  Why do they get off scott free, if the umpires are such a protected species?

[Tigermonk]

Richo hasn't commented on the umpires, only the rule.

thats right he's talking about the rules but stuff the white maggots who cannot umpire properly they & goal umpires ruin games every week

[mightytiges]

Given it's not the club's first "offence" Richo will probably cop a large fine as well. Does $5-10k buy silence  .

[Fishfinger]

If Richo gets fined then I think the AFL is bordering on a dictatorship with its censorship.
He hasn't critcised the umpires and, as a player, is surely within his rights to point out something that he doesn't understand or like.
Glenn Archer has said numerous times that the current holding the ball rule is not right and confuses him. Pretty sure he hasn't been fined, and rightly so.

[tiga]

More often than not this rule is rewarding players who are out of position and not judging the flight of the ball as Mal Michael did. There was also one early on that Lloyd got where thirsty was doing nothing stronger than picking pills of the back of his jumper and got penalised for it. 
I believe that the rule should be modified to state that if a player is caught under the ball and is forcing their way back into position, the player directly behind in better position should be able to use his arms to maintain his position. This was the old rule wasn't it??

[Ox]

Richardson slams rule after cruel loss
27 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Jackie Epstein

Richmond fans were incensed at the loss and security staff had to restrain one spectator after the final siren when he tried to run onto the ground at the Punt Rd end.

FROFLMFAO.

We rock !

[one-eyed]

Change dangerous hand-in-back rule: Tiger chief
Sarah-Jane Collins | May 28, 2007 | The Age

RICHMOND president Gary March yesterday called for an overhaul of the controversial hand-in-the-back rule, slamming the existing interpretation as dangerous and predicting it could lead to serious injury.

"I really do think it's time there was a radical overhaul of that rule because it is making the game so frustrating for forwards and ruckmen because there's no opportunity (to protect yourself if someone is) backing back any more," March said.

The call came on the heels of Richmond's heartbreaking loss to Essendon on Saturday night, in which Matthew Richardson was penalised for pushing Mal Michael in a last-quarter marking contest, with the scores tied and only minutes remaining.

"(If Richardson had not) put his hands up … he could have ended up with a broken nose, fracture or whatever, there's really no room," March said.

"If you take that out he can't protect his body, so it opens up a lot of accidental head clashes and other things and I just think they really need to look at the rule. I'm all for giving a free kick where a guy is legitimately pushed out of the contest, but in circumstances like where (Michael is) running back quite quickly and (Richardson) is really just stopping him to protect himself, there's no push in the contest. It's just to stop him cannoning into him."

March said he did not think the free kick awarded to Essendon, and subsequent 50-metre penalty after Richardson unknowingly played on and kicked a disallowed goal, had caused the Tigers to lose the match.

"(Saturday night) there was probably a number of those sort of free kicks that were paid against forwards, so I don't think it really influenced the outcome of the game," March said. "But I do think the rule needs some overhaul."

But the AFL's general manager of football operations, Adrian Anderson, was adamant yesterday that Richardson would have been penalised in any year.

"We have an interpretation this year of the hand in the back which is merely a signal to the umpires of when a push in the back has taken place, and regardless of that interpretation that was the case when Matthew Richardson placed his hand in the back and pushed his opponent under the ball, and that's exactly what the rule push in the back is designed to avoid," Anderson told ABC's Offsiders.

"(Saturday night) was a case of a free kick for a push in the back whether or not you've got the interpretation which simply assists the umpires in doing their job."

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/handinback-rule-dangerous/2007/05/27/1180205077212.html

[one-eyed]

Right call, but tough penalty
28 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Mike Sheahan

RICHO as hero would have been the perfect climax of a brilliant production on Saturday night, Mike Sheahan writes.

Sadly, for the gallant Richmond full-forward, field umpire Brett Allen applied the most contentious interpretation in the rules, denying player and club one of their finest moments.

In a double-whammy for Richardson, he was penalised for putting a hand on Mal Michael's back and then copped a 50m penalty from Allen as he celebrated what would have been the winning goal, and his fifth.

Romance aside, it was the correct decision under the new interpretation.

Even Richo was willing to concede as much after the game. Where he was desperately unlucky was to incur a 50m penalty.

Allen, a reasonable man, reasonably might have taken the view Richardson was entitled to turn and take off after taking what he believed/hoped was a legitimate mark.

It was one of those situations where common sense suggested Richo would get an explanation and a warning.

Predictably, there has been widespread endorsement of the player's view that the interpretation is "pathetic".

The reality is the interpretation is in place, and must stay in place for at least the 2007 season.

Yes, it was introduced in haste, but it is in place, and it also has undeniable merit.

Of course it should have been trialled in the pre-season competition at least once, maybe even twice, but it wasn't.

Richardson did have a hand in Mal Michael's back. The Essendon full-back was pushing back hard, Richo was entitled to hold his ground, yet the new ruling says players can't use hands in the back to hold an opponent out, and many of us agree.

The on-going problem is the consistency of the implementation. Hopefully, Richardson didn't watch the Geelong-Port Adelaide game last night, when Damon White had two hands in Kane Tenace's back in the last quarter and was paid the mark.

Richo got caught for what has been missed with so many others. This time, the game was in the balance.

He, though, knows what the new interpretation says, and knows how to use his body, too. He could have held his ground legally with his hip or his shoulder, even his forearm.

He didn't, and paid the price.

What shouldn't be lost in the debate is Richardson's contribution to a magnificent event.

He had 15 possessions and took 11 marks, and kicked 4.2. Or, 5.2 if you are a Richmond supporter.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21804167%255E19742,00.html