One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Ekto on February 14, 2010, 03:02:41 PM
-
If there ever is any PROOF that the AFL Umpires selectors have no idea, just replay last night's game and watch umpire No 38 pay many INCORRECT free kicks to HAWTHORN and not pay A SINGLE incorrect decision against them.
Umpire no 38 was just as poor at TAC and VFL levels and although he is very good at LOOKING LIKE an umpire with his hand signals, whistle blowing, directing the boundary umpire, signalling ALL CLEAR and expert backward running, he cannot bounce the ball, he does not understand the game of FOOTBALL and is OBVIOUSLY BIASSED against lower teams on the ladder.
I asked the Victoria Police (who were escorting him off the groundafter a game between Coburg and Port Melbourne, in which Coburg won narrowly won) to arrest him for IMPERSONATING A VFL UMPIRE, but they refused to do so as he was wearing the correct and his game day pass was in order.
This umpire crucified Richmond last night, right from the first bounce. The other umpires noticed it too and tried to keep him out of the way. He has had his chance now GET RID OF HIM.
I am going to call him PONTIUS, because he is a CRUCIFIER of our great game of footy.
Surely the good umpires in the game don't want this sort of performance to bring down their own reputation ans will stand up and say that they don't want to appear on the same ground as PONTIUS the Crucifier. You wouldn't even want him as a boundary umpire would you.
No matter how desperate the AFL say they are with umpires, this maggot falls so far below the acceptable level that if he ever gets to umpire an AFL premiership points game, it will show that the umpiring department and the AFL has no idea and are ruining the game.
-
i understand Richmond were rubbish last night but the umpires are a stuffing joke.
holding the ball when you are tackled as soon as it goes into your hands & the '5 meter protection' rule are no good.
Australian Rules Football is getting more shyte each year.
-
I agree with your point Ekto.
If one of the 3 umpires is crap then all 3 get labelled as crap even if the other 2 were very good.
With more umpires needed per week when the 2 new teams come in and stringent fitness requirements meaning many good umpires will never make the VFL and AFL squads there will likely be some not so good ones getting games and being the cause of inconsistency in decisions.
-
Even Collingwood and Hawthorn fans are complaining about what happened to us regarding the umpires last night.
I will say that they copped the worst end of the umpires that I have ever seen. I've seen teams get a bad call that has changed a game. Richmond copped about 25 bad calls.
That protected area rule cost them. Realistically, they shouldve lost by around 50 points.
Yeah absolutely disgraceful umpiring, Richmond copped it badly.
Never ever seen a team treated so badly by the umpires before.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16876821&postcount=117
-
Teams and coaches are to afraid to say anything about umpires these days and rightfully so but why isnt there a stuff link on the AFL site. I know they would get a LOT of posts but are they not in this business because of the fans? Surely they need to hear what fans have got to say about the varouis changes and below standard umpiring that is happening not only during the dud cup but also the regular season.
Im sur they wouldnt go onto bigfooty to see what people have to say, they have their heads to far up their own asses. :wallywink
-
They need to get ex players to take up umpiring. At least then they will have some understanding of the game.
What I find frustrating is that the while rules/interpretations have changed to protect the head of the bloke over the ball, in terms of getting the benefit of umpires decisions it is just about better to hang back and tackle the bloke going for the ball rather than go in and get the thing yourself. :chuck
I wonder when they are going to crack down on the chicken wing tackles? Is it going to take a shoulder or elbow dislocation before this happens. Gee I cringed when Franklin grabbed cotchin's arm and leaned back while he was already being tackled.
-
The umpiring was terrible! How can the only bloke going for the ball be penalised? Players take the soft option by waiting for someone else to make the play, tackle them and get rewarded! Unfortunately umpires are becoming a showpiece of the game when they should just be a controlling factor!
-
I seen a new level of stupidity last night in the way that these new rules are destroying our game.
Utter joke although to a little extent it did take the focus off how bad we were and how long it will take for us to come good with all these young kids.
-
They need to get ex players to take up umpiring. At least then they will have some understanding of the game.
What I find frustrating is that the while rules/interpretations have changed to protect the head of the bloke over the ball, in terms of getting the benefit of umpires decisions it is just about better to hang back and tackle the bloke going for the ball rather than go in and get the thing yourself. :chuck
I wonder when they are going to crack down on the chicken wing tackles? Is it going to take a shoulder or elbow dislocation before this happens. Gee I cringed when Franklin grabbed cotchin's arm and leaned back while he was already being tackled.
is Jordan Bannister considered an ex footballer?
As per todays HUN he is the next umpire to be fast tracked
-
Know Jordan very well, will make a great umpire :thumbsup
-
Tigers caught short on rule change
Mark Robinson
Herald Sun
February 15, 2010
THE 5m rule which angered Richmond supporters on Saturday night is a feature of an umpire crackdown on protected areas this season.
While some Tiger fans were confused by why so many 50m penalties were awarded to the Hawks, the AFL yesterday revealed umpires had been instructed to be severe on any opponent encroaching within 5m of the player with the ball who is about to take his kick after being paid a mark or free.
The rule will be policed through the 2010 season.
One free kick was paid on Friday night between Essendon and West Coast, reportedly two in the Adelaide-Port Adelaide game and up to 10 in the Tigers-Hawks game.
AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday clubs had been warned of the clampdown on players who impeded the decision-making of the player who had the ball.
"The reason being is the guy who has the ball has the right to do what he likes," Keane said. "Simple, you can't be within 5m unless the player goes off his line.
"The umpires have been told to call play-on more quickly, but there will be zero leniency for going inside the protected area."
The 5m rule has long been a part of the rules, Keane said, but the Laws of the Game committee this year instructed umpires to police it severely.
"We will hit them with it in the NAB Cup to prepare them for the season," Keane said.
"It will take them a couple of games to get used to it, but instructions have been given to all clubs and to the media outlets and that's why the broadcasters were aware of it."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-caught-short-on-rule-change/story-e6frf9jf-1225830262414
-
The rule will be policed through the 2010 season.
AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday clubs had been warned of the clampdown on players who impeded the decision-making of the player who had the ball.
stuff me Patrick the puppet, this is the worst rule ever.
I cannot for the life of me see this creating anything but chaos, confusion and controversy.
The lunatics are running the asylum! >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
If that's going to be the rule then fine, however it has to be applied with common sense
1) If a player is running full tilt towards the player when they take a mark or receive a free, it is physically impossible for them to stop on a dime before reaching the 5m zone. If they adjust their course to run past them and avoid contact then the player has done everything they can, this is and never should be a 50m penalty
2) If the free kick is near the interchange bench and a player is out of the contest running off the ground, it should not be a free kick. If this is allowed to continue then sides won't be able to change players at a stoppage because running onto/off the ground is considered breaching the 5m zone.
3) Often a defender will run forward to take the mark to release a midfielder up the ground. Under this rule this is a 50m penalty.
Worst rule EVER!
-
Tigers caught short on rule change
Mark Robinson
Herald Sun
February 15, 2010
THE 5m rule which angered Richmond supporters on Saturday night is a feature of an umpire crackdown on protected areas this season.
While some Tiger fans were confused by why so many 50m penalties were awarded to the Hawks, the AFL yesterday revealed umpires had been instructed to be severe on any opponent encroaching within 5m of the player with the ball who is about to take his kick after being paid a mark or free.
The rule will be policed through the 2010 season.
One free kick was paid on Friday night between Essendon and West Coast, reportedly two in the Adelaide-Port Adelaide game and up to 10 in the Tigers-Hawks game.
AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday clubs had been warned of the clampdown on players who impeded the decision-making of the player who had the ball.
"The reason being is the guy who has the ball has the right to do what he likes," Keane said. "Simple, you can't be within 5m unless the player goes off his line.
"The umpires have been told to call play-on more quickly, but there will be zero leniency for going inside the protected area."
The 5m rule has long been a part of the rules, Keane said, but the Laws of the Game committee this year instructed umpires to police it severely.
"We will hit them with it in the NAB Cup to prepare them for the season," Keane said.
"It will take them a couple of games to get used to it, but instructions have been given to all clubs and to the media outlets and that's why the broadcasters were aware of it."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-caught-short-on-rule-change/story-e6frf9jf-1225830262414
what a fcking stupid rule
-
Just as bad as the hands in the back rule, it won't be long before there is so much stoping and starting in this game that it will be un watchable. These rule makers and enforcers are killing this game.
-
Just as bad as the hands in the back rule, it won't be long before there is so much stoping and starting in this game that it will be un watchable. These rule makers and enforcers are killing this game.
The two rules couldn't be further apart in my opinion WAT. The hands in the back 're-interpretation' was the single best decision that has come from the hallowed halls of the numbskulls who decide on these issues. The 5mt protection zone applied in the manner it was on Saturday night is nothing short of a disgrace and blight on our game.
-
While some Tiger fans were confused by why so many 50m penalties were awarded to the Hawks, the AFL yesterday revealed umpires had been instructed to be severe on any opponent encroaching within 5m of the player with the ball who is about to take his kick after being paid a mark or free.
AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday clubs had been warned of the clampdown on players who impeded the decision-making of the player who had the ball.
"The reason being is the guy who has the ball has the right to do what he likes," Keane said. "Simple, you can't be within 5m unless the player goes off his line.
"The umpires have been told to call play-on more quickly, but there will be zero leniency for going inside the protected area."
The 5m rule has long been a part of the rules, Keane said, but the Laws of the Game committee this year instructed umpires to police it severely.
"We will hit them with it in the NAB Cup to prepare them for the season," Keane said.
"It will take them a couple of games to get used to it, but instructions have been given to all clubs and to the media outlets and that's why the broadcasters were aware of it."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-caught-short-on-rule-change/story-e6frf9jf-1225830262414
Whenever Richmond cops the rough end of the pineapple with the umpires (which, let's face it, is about 90% of the time right?), the AFL apologists always wheel out some overpaid muppet to justify the anti-Tiger bias. In this case it's Patrick Keane trying to convince us that we copped our fair whack.
Well tell me this Patrick: If the 5m exclusion zone around a player is so sacrosanct, then why wasn't Alex Rance allowed to take his kick without the Hawthorn player cribbing on the mark to such an extent that he was able to smother the kick, then waltz into an open goal?
It seems to me that, as always, the umpires are there to maintain the status quo between the elite sides and the strugglers, and once again Richmond are playing to a different set of rules.
-
i watched some parts of the Brisbane WB game and am sure that a player was warned to move out quickly after going towards the player who took the mark.
-
That happened to a richmond player too. Hodge got a free at a stoppage at half back and the bloke behind him looked like he went to move towards the mark and the ump warned him off, effectively allowing hodge to play on and deliver to franklin for their second goal
-
Just as bad as the hands in the back rule, it won't be long before there is so much stoping and starting in this game that it will be un watchable. These rule makers and enforcers are killing this game.
The two rules couldn't be further apart in my opinion WAT. The hands in the back 're-interpretation' was the single best decision that has come from the hallowed halls of the numbskulls who decide on these issues. The 5mt protection zone applied in the manner it was on Saturday night is nothing short of a disgrace and blight on our game.
Sorry smokey can't agree both rules are the same do you know why, because the fools that we call umpires cannot interpret either rule consistently. How many hands in the back decisions have you seen not awarded when they have been blatent, the same goes for this 5mt rule. I watched the Lions and the Bulldogs on Sunday and the exact same thing happened. A player took a mark near the interchange and an opposition player ran on, straight past him and nothing, not a thing. Same as the hands in the back, how many times last year did you see a player held off in the side shoulder/arm region only to be judged as hands in the back.
These rules are not clearly defined and that leaves the way for how individual umpires pay free kicks, lets just leave the freaking rules as they have been. Stop start stop start stop start football is what we will be watching soon, throw in about 10 goals a game via 50mt penalties and thats our game stuffed IMO.
-
Tigers caught short on rule change
Mark Robinson
Herald Sun
February 15, 2010
THE 5m rule which angered Richmond supporters on Saturday night is a feature of an umpire crackdown on protected areas this season.
While some Tiger fans were confused by why so many 50m penalties were awarded to the Hawks, the AFL yesterday revealed umpires had been instructed to be severe on any opponent encroaching within 5m of the player with the ball who is about to take his kick after being paid a mark or free.
The rule will be policed through the 2010 season.
One free kick was paid on Friday night between Essendon and West Coast, reportedly two in the Adelaide-Port Adelaide game and up to 10 in the Tigers-Hawks game.
AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday clubs had been warned of the clampdown on players who impeded the decision-making of the player who had the ball.
"The reason being is the guy who has the ball has the right to do what he likes," Keane said. "Simple, you can't be within 5m unless the player goes off his line.
"The umpires have been told to call play-on more quickly, but there will be zero leniency for going inside the protected area."
The 5m rule has long been a part of the rules, Keane said, but the Laws of the Game committee this year instructed umpires to police it severely.
"We will hit them with it in the NAB Cup to prepare them for the season," Keane said.
"It will take them a couple of games to get used to it, but instructions have been given to all clubs and to the media outlets and that's why the broadcasters were aware of it."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-caught-short-on-rule-change/story-e6frf9jf-1225830262414
What sort of snake oil poo is that?
Patrick Keane you wanker of the highest order.
-
Sorry smokey can't agree both rules are the same do you know why, because the fools that we call umpires cannot interpret either rule consistently. How many hands in the back decisions have you seen not awarded when they have been blatent, the same goes for this 5mt rule. I watched the Lions and the Bulldogs on Sunday and the exact same thing happened. A player took a mark near the interchange and an opposition player ran on, straight past him and nothing, not a thing. Same as the hands in the back, how many times last year did you see a player held off in the side shoulder/arm region only to be judged as hands in the back.
These rules are not clearly defined and that leaves the way for how individual umpires pay free kicks, lets just leave the freaking rules as they have been. Stop start stop start stop start football is what we will be watching soon, throw in about 10 goals a game via 50mt penalties and thats our game stuffed IMO.
That's just the thing WAT - the hands in the back rule has never changed. Years ago (purists will tell you when football was football but that's a debate for another day) you could not push (or even touch hard) the opposition player in the back with your hands - free kick every single time and as a result you had a skill to master in positioning your body and timing your contact in order to get the best position possible to attempt a mark. That all fell by the wayside during the 90's and early '00's and we were left with the eyesore of wrestling, players holding each other around the arms, shoulders and backs and taking away any aesthetically pleasing or skillful attributes of the marking contest. It has evened our game back up and brought the smaller guy back into play rather then being subjected to gorilla-based 'wrestle offs'. If I want wrestling I'll go to WWE or whatever the crap is called.
Now they have applied the same method to solving another issue - changing the interpretation of the 5mt protected zone - without changing the rule itself. Unfortunately, by applying it the way it was on Saturday night, it has completely distanced itself from fair play and keeping within the spirit of the game. Overkill like I didn't think possible from rational and sane people charged with looking after the interests of the game. Did they need to address the issue? Maybe, but I didn't see it as too great a problem. Did they even come close to getting it right? Couldn't have missed it by more if they tried.
And as for the umpires getting the hands in the back rule wrong? I think they get that rule right more than most others in the game, certainly much more than holding the man/holding the ball.
-
Smokey, as you said, the hands in the back rule has always been in place but never enforced (really) until a couple of years ago. From what I understand so has the 5mt rule and now they are enforcing it to the letter of the law same as hands in the back. I am not sure that they are interperating the rule differently they are just enforcing it, the same as the hands in the back. What other rules are there that are not enforced but free kicks are payed on interpretation??
I agree though the enforcement of the 5mt is a crock and IMO as you said it never was a problem.
-
So much for Adrian Anderson saying there'll be no rule changes ::). The guy is a clown needing to justify his own existence with this crap :banghead.
The 5m exclusion rule is farcical. If you have a player just a bit late to a contest where a mark is taken by the opposition then he is stuck within the 5m zone and a sitting duck for the new rule. As for pinging Lids when he was running off the ground to the bench and not involved in the play :scream. The game was bad enough to watch without the whistle being blown every 2 minutes for some inconsequential free to Hawthorn :scream
We all know what will happen now. They'll police the guts out of these new rules/interpretations for the first few rounds (I can't believe they are actually going with this in the season proper :help ) turning nearly every game into a joke. It'll rightly cause outrage, Mike will write an article in the Hun telling us the obvious, and then behind the scenes to save face dopey AA and Geisch will tell the umps to go easy on the whistle in the second half of the year and let it go again. The same thing happened with the hands in the back rule. They hardly pay it anymore unless there's an obvious push or the hands in the back are blatant.
-
I reckon the arse bandits must collect Richmonds games on dvd and invent a new rule which will stuff us up.
The Hawks had literally 5 goals from that farker number 38.
-
So much for Adrian Anderson saying there'll be no rule changes ::). The guy is a clown needing to justify his own existence with this crap :banghead.
The 5m exclusion rule is farcical. If you have a player just a bit late to a contest where a mark is taken by the opposition then he is stuck within the 5m zone and a sitting duck for the new rule. As for pinging Lids when he was running off the ground to the bench and not involved in the play :scream. The game was bad enough to watch without the whistle being blown every 2 minutes for some inconsequential free to Hawthorn :scream
We all know what will happen now. They'll police the guts out of these new rules/interpretations for the first few rounds (I can't believe they are actually going with this in the season proper :help ) turning nearly every game into a joke. It'll rightly cause outrage, Mike will write an article in the Hun telling us the obvious, and then behind the scenes to save face dopey AA and Geisch will tell the umps to go easy on the whistle in the second half of the year and let it go again. The same thing happened with the hands in the back rule. They hardly pay it anymore unless there's an obvious push or the hands in the back are blatant.
Totally agree with your statement on the same thing happened with the hands in the back rule and this is where I am coming from. They do pay it now though MT, it just depends on how they feel at the time and against which club they feel like paying it against. It all comes down to how the fools interperate the rule at the time... fools, leave the freaking game alone!!!
-
So much for Adrian Anderson saying there'll be no rule changes ::). The guy is a clown needing to justify his own existence with this crap :banghead.
The 5m exclusion rule is farcical. If you have a player just a bit late to a contest where a mark is taken by the opposition then he is stuck within the 5m zone and a sitting duck for the new rule. As for pinging Lids when he was running off the ground to the bench and not involved in the play :scream. The game was bad enough to watch without the whistle being blown every 2 minutes for some inconsequential free to Hawthorn :scream
We all know what will happen now. They'll police the guts out of these new rules/interpretations for the first few rounds (I can't believe they are actually going with this in the season proper :help ) turning nearly every game into a joke. It'll rightly cause outrage, Mike will write an article in the Hun telling us the obvious, and then behind the scenes to save face dopey AA and Geisch will tell the umps to go easy on the whistle in the second half of the year and let it go again. The same thing happened with the hands in the back rule. They hardly pay it anymore unless there's an obvious push or the hands in the back are blatant.
Totally agree with your statement on the same thing happened with the hands in the back rule and this is where I am coming from. They do pay it now though MT, it just depends on how they feel at the time and against which club they feel like paying it against. It all comes down to how the fools interperate the rule at the time... fools, leave the freaking game alone!!!
Hit the nail on the head.
They get away with it because they are right technically.Emotionally though(club bias),they aren't.
-
[quote author=RollsRoyce link=topic=10620.msg174117#msg174117
Tell me this Patrick: If the 5m exclusion zone around a player is so sacrosanct, then why wasn't Alex Rance allowed to take his kick without the Hawthorn player cribbing on the mark to such an extent that he was able to smother the kick, then waltz into an open goal?
[/quote]
Does anyone remember this incident in the first qtr? Rance had taken a mark, and the Hawk player was cribbing the mark, jumping up and down, and windmilling his arms, til he eventually smothered the kick, then goaled. The way the bias against us was going that night, if it had been a Richmond player doing exactly the same thing, you can bet that pr!#%! no. 38 would have whistled him back fifty metres.
-
Yeah, you could actually see what was going to happen. He may have a cribbed a bit, but rance just didnt give himself enough space by backing back before kicking it.
That wasnt long after Deledio entered the 'protected space' when running to the interchange. It was only the hawks player with the ball running backwards that meant delidio entered the protected space. He actally took the space to deledio, not the other way around
-
i understand Richmond were rubbish last night but the umpires are a effing joke.
holding the ball when you are tackled as soon as it goes into your hands & the '5 meter protection' rule are no good.
Australian Rules Football is getting more shyte each year.
ive complained for many yrs about both sides of the holding the ball rule. currently the player going to get it has no opportunity time to get rid of it this is happening in the name of keeping the game moveing stoppages are anathema which is a joke.
ive seen the opposite as well we went thru a period where the bozoes interfered and good tackles were never being paid.
the key ingredient is prior opportunity. if the umps cant consistently judge what prior opportunity is bring in a 2 second rule or some thing. where a player picks the ball up and the umps count to two or three and after that the player is fair game.if a player hasnt had those couple of seconds grace its play on or a ball up but hey ball ups are anathema.
the game is more and more being tailored to skinny quick outside players who rarely put their head over a ball.
one other point if you have had your 2 or 3 seconds to get rid of it you are tackled and you dont dispose correctly you penalised.
-
Laws of the game;
15.2.3 Holding the Football Prior Opportunity/No
Prior Opportunity
Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession
of the football:
(a)
has had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the
field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player
if the Player does not Kick or Handball the football
immediately when he or she is Correctly Tackled; or
(b)
has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the
field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if,
upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly
Dispose or attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after
being given a reasonable opportunity to do so.
(c)
Except in the instance of a poor bounce or throw, a Player
who takes possession of the football while contesting a
bounce or throw by a field Umpire or a boundary throw in,
shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.
Spirit of the Laws,
NO PRIOR OPPORTUNITY REASONABLE TIME
The player who has possession of the ball and is tackled
correctly by an opponent shall be given a reasonable time to or handball the ball or attempt to kick or handball the ball.
If the tackle pins the ball, a field bounce will result.
If a correct tackle or bump causes the player with the ball to lose possession, play on will result.
PRIOR OPPORTUNITY IMMEDIATE DISPOSAL
The player who has possession of the ball and has had an
opportunity to dispose of it and is then tackled correctly by
an opponent must immediately kick or handball the ball.
If a correct tackle pins the ball or causes the player
with the ball to lose possession, a free kick will result.
If a bump or knock to the arm causes the player with
the ball to lose possession, play on will result.
It's quite clear really, yet they get wrong again and again and again. A lot of supporters have no real idea of the law either.
-
basically what i said the problem being the upms are incapable of determining what a reasonable opportunity or reasonable time is to dispose of the ball. take it out of their hands put a time on it and everyone knows where they stand.
i was going to add but didnt that only effective tackles should be rewarded. so you have a bloke whos making the play taken 3 bounces and the ball is knocked out of his hand or hes only partially tackled it is play on.
it is all really common sense. the real problem is the direction the umps get from the imbeciles above them. as i said the game has to flow at all costs and they are instructed to interpret the rules in a way to accomodate this, no matter it makes no sense.
-
If there ever is any PROOF that the AFL Umpires selectors have no idea, just replay last night's game and watch umpire No 38 pay many INCORRECT free kicks to HAWTHORN and not pay A SINGLE incorrect decision against them.
Umpire no 38 was just as poor at TAC and VFL levels and although he is very good at LOOKING LIKE an umpire with his hand signals, whistle blowing, directing the boundary umpire, signalling ALL CLEAR and expert backward running, he cannot bounce the ball, he does not understand the game of FOOTBALL and is OBVIOUSLY BIASSED against lower teams on the ladder.
I asked the Victoria Police (who were escorting him off the groundafter a game between Coburg and Port Melbourne, in which Coburg won narrowly won) to arrest him for IMPERSONATING A VFL UMPIRE, but they refused to do so as he was wearing the correct and his game day pass was in order.
This umpire crucified Richmond last night, right from the first bounce. The other umpires noticed it too and tried to keep him out of the way. He has had his chance now GET RID OF HIM.
I am going to call him PONTIUS, because he is a CRUCIFIER of our great game of footy.
Surely the good umpires in the game don't want this sort of performance to bring down their own reputation ans will stand up and say that they don't want to appear on the same ground as PONTIUS the Crucifier. You wouldn't even want him as a boundary umpire would you.
No matter how desperate the AFL say they are with umpires, this maggot falls so far below the acceptable level that if he ever gets to umpire an AFL premiership points game, it will show that the umpiring department and the AFL has no idea and are ruining the game.
Top Post
-
A little voice in my head was telling me to throw hot grease on that umpire and it was hard not to comply. :banghead
-
A little voice in my head was telling me to throw hot grease on that umpire and it was hard not to comply. :banghead
Now now, If it wasn't for the likes of PONTIUS the CRUCIFIER we wouldn't have anything to rant about now would we. :)
Gee I'm glad I didn't see the game, sounds like a terrible rule.
-
A little voice in my head was telling me to throw hot grease on that umpire and it was hard not to comply. :banghead
Now now, If it wasn't for the likes of PONTIUS the CRUCIFIER we wouldn't have anything to rant about now would we. :)
Gee I'm glad I didn't see the game, sounds like a terrible rule.
After that loss of course we would tidy lol :rollin
-
No delaying umpires' crackdown
* Mark Stevens
* Herald Sun
* February 24, 2010
THE AFL has warned that a rash of 50m penalties is proof it is serious about stamping out stalling tactics.
Umpires awarded 30 50m penalties in the first round of the NAB Cup, almost double the average of 17 a round last year, and the crackdown will continue in the season proper.
AFL umpiring director Jeff Gieschen yesterday said players would face unprecedented pressure to avoid creeping over the mark and other illegal ploys to delay opponents from playing on.
"If the number of 50s is almost double what it was in the home-and-away last year it clearly shows were are serious," Gieschen said.
"It's a sign of things to come.
"We're going to be very vigilant. The teams who have won the ball need to be given every opportunity to move it on without opponents delaying or slowing down that process.
"Our job now is to be consistently strong in that area."
Players will no longer be able to slowly lob the ball back to opponents and there will be continued focus on players breaking the new 5m rule.
Umpires have been told to be severe on any opponent encroaching within 5m of a player who is about to take a kick after being paid a mark or free.
Although Gieschen conceded the officiating of that rule was overzealous in the Hawthorn-Richmond NAB Cup clash in Launceston, with up to three incorrect decisions, the AFL is hellbent on sticking to it guns.
With zoning creating more congestion through the midfield and slowing down play, the AFL wants to make the play more free-flowing.
During AFL club visits pre-Christmas, teams admitted to using slowing down tactics.
"We said we'd make it even and fair across the board and tighten it up for everybody and they (the clubs) accepted that," Gieschen said.
"We want to see more continuous movement of the ball. That's a team's right. They should be able to do that."
Clubs have in the past stalled by throwing the ball high into the air, so it takes longer to get to the opponent who has taken a mark or won a free kick.
Now, it must be delivered at a reasonable trajectory.
"It has to go straight back to your opponent in a manner you'd expect it to be thrown back to a teammate - you must throw it directly back," Gieschen said.
Throwing the ball a metre or two to the side of players is also illegal.
"When they've got to reach across, it creates a minor delay, but it is enough to allow a team time to push players back (to defend)," Gieschen said.
Gieschen said he expected clubs and players to adapt well to the tightening of the rules.
"From here, we'll see players get better at it," Gieschen said.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/no-delaying-umpires-crackdown/story-e6frf9jf-1225833640402
-
there will be continued focus on players breaking the new 5m rule.
Umpires have been told to be severe on any opponent encroaching within 5m of a player who is about to take a kick after being paid a mark or free.
Although Gieschen conceded the officiating of that rule was overzealous in the Hawthorn-Richmond NAB Cup clash in Launceston, with up to three incorrect decisions, the AFL is hellbent on sticking to it guns.
No issue with penalising the throwing the ball back but the 5m rule that we saw in round 1 is a stuffing joke.
Hopefully despite the AFL's front in this article they are dialling it right back.
Their quest to make the game more exciting is right now proving to be a double edged sword.
-
Totally agree Mr Magic. Cant quite work out how a bloke running to the interchange and the player with the ball runs backwards causing him to end up in the protected space can hold up play.
I the league really want to reduce congestion and have more free flowing game then perhaps removing the wings from the teams (ala VFA) and having an extra 2 interchange would go a long way to achieving this.