One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on June 25, 2011, 08:39:45 PM
-
From the AFL site...
Damien Hardwick said while his players tired against Melbourne, he didn't believe it had anything to do with their past month where they had travelled to Darwin, Sydney and Brisbane for matches.
"I don't think so. I think all our players just played to a below expectation standard on the same day, which doesn't help you and you can't win games of football when you've got too many passengers," he said.
"We've got a really big challenge next Saturday with Carlton who are one of the form sides of the competition.
"We've got to take stock of what we've got to fix up but we need to move on very, very quickly."
Hardwick said the Tigers' "fundamental errors" had cost them against Melbourne, which included 32 clangers and 12 turnovers in their defensive 50 that resulted in six goals.
He also said he was frustrated by his players' lack of understanding of certain rule interpretations, specifically regarding the deliberate rushed behind rule and holding the ball.
The former resulted in a costly goal late in the third quarter when Chris Newman had the ball on the goal line and rather than rushing it through, he handpassed to Bachar Houli.
Houli then lost the ball to Jack Watts, who steadied and kicked a goal with one second remaining on the clock.
It put the Demons up by 29 points at three-quarter time after the Tigers had worked hard to reduce an earlier lead of 38, and was labelled by Hardwick as a "12-point turnaround" for the Demons kicked the first goal of the fourth.
Richmond would have been within three goals had Newman conceded the point.
"We made a number of mistakes like that today. The errors that are costing us are the simple ones we shouldn't make," he said.
"I think the guys need to get better at understanding [the rushed behind rule]. We've been through it a number of times but we just seem to play that ball right on the goal line.
"It's just a simple decision and we need to step it over. Chris never normally makes those mistakes so it's a blemish you live with.
"There's a number of holding the ball decisions we have to look at because it's becoming a bit of thing with us a the moment.
"We tend to get pinned when we're not quite sure how that's going to go."
Hardwick said the fact the Tigers were still in the contest in the last term - despite only Tyrone Vickery winning his position - showed their "poor games have improved, if you're looking for a positive".
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/117065/default.aspx
"Footy as we know is a game of chance. If you don't take yours at the right time, the momentum goes the other way.
We thought we were pretty dominant in that first 10 minutes but we couldn't just quite get that scoreboard ascendancy we were after.
I just thought Melbourne's pressure around the ball was very, very good. The heat they brought was outstanding and we just couldn't quite … I think we had 32 clangers, which is world-record pace for us. That's normally a two-game total."
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/117062/default.aspx
-
From the AFL site...
He also said he was frustrated by his players' lack of understanding of certain rule interpretations, specifically regarding the deliberate rushed behind rule and holding the ball.
"There's a number of holding the ball decisions we have to look at because it's becoming a bit of thing with us a the moment.
"We tend to get pinned when we're not quite sure how that's going to go."
Maybe the players are confused like the fans, because there are two sets of rules for the two different teams. When a Melbourne player is tackled and disposes of the ball incorrectly it is play on. If it's a Tiger player it's holding the ball. The same set of double standards apply when a Richmond or Melbourne player finds themself lying on the ball at the bottom of a pack.
Edit: fixed quoting
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
:clapping
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
:clapping
Do any of you keyboard warriors actually ever go to the game? Perhaps if you did you might hear the resounding boo's emanating from the Punt Road End all day long. If you took your collective heads out of your backsides long enough.
-
There were a fair few decisions in the first half that were mindboggling. That free to Watts at the end of the first quarter where he leapt too early before the ball arrived and yet gained a free (ump pinged us for shepharding) was a joke. In fact the umps looked after Watts early on with the soft frees as if he was Nick Riewoldt ::).
After half-time the holding the ball frees which had our supporters almost jumping the fence were interpreted the way they are now these days but it just showed how far removed the current interpretations are from the old holding and dropping the ball rules most of us grew up with. Players now days can just let go and drop the ball as soon as they are tackled and it's classed as play on while going to ground going for the ball will mean you will get pinged for diving on the footy. I don't think many of our players understand the new interpretations which is why we get pinged a lot.
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
:clapping
Do any of you keyboard warriors actually ever go to the game? Perhaps if you did you might hear the resounding boo's emanating from the Punt Road End all day long. If you took your collective heads out of your backsides long enough.
I was at the game and there were good and bad decisions paid and not paid for both sides, as there is every week in every game.
I hear the boos, but to me for the majority of the time they represent the lack of understanding of the rules that many punters possess.
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
:clapping
Do any of you keyboard warriors actually ever go to the game? Perhaps if you did you might hear the resounding boo's emanating from the Punt Road End all day long. If you took your collective heads out of your backsides long enough.
I was at the game and there were good and bad decisions paid and not paid for both sides, as there is every week in every game.
I hear the boos, but to me for the majority of the time they represent the lack of understanding of the rules that many punters possess.
No.9 had both sides confused at stages. I'm not blaming the loss on the umps at all but it was an ordinary umpiring display yesterday. They were too whistle happy with technical frees and interferred with the flow of the game too often.
-
I thought we got done over again by the umpiring. Umpiring is in crisis IMHO.
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
If you honestly think that display of umpiring is acceptable you deserve physical harm. Dees were the better side but the display of umpiring both sides put up with was circus-like. Not good enough when you have billions of dollars being thrown around the sport to have officials incorrectly interpretating rules, awarding square ups to even out mistakes and over officiating. It's not good enough and anyone who argues against is just a waste of space.
I don't care how hard the job is, if they make a mistake which 50% of mistakes are obviously show on replays look at the screen cop it on teh chin hold your hand up and say i stuffed up give me the ball it's a ball up. The free kick against Rance was pathetic. The square up was just as bad. Deliberate against Deledio was a pointless over officiating decision, the countless 50/50 holding the ball decisions were terrible the free kick against Melbourne for a throw when it was a handball, the whistle being put away and Jurrah speccing Rance and failed to touch the ball... I could go on.
Ruined another spectacle.
-
The umps were by no means the difference, however, the frees that were paid and weren't paid in the second and third quarters were pathetic (especially in each sides forward line.)
Melbourne defiantly had the rub of the green in those two quarters, the other two were even.
-
Do any of you keyboard warriors actually ever go to the game? Perhaps if you did you might hear the resounding boo's emanating from the Punt Road End all day long. If you took your collective heads out of your backsides long enough.
Yep. I was there.
The umpiring was legless. Disgraceful.
In saying that, they still weren't an excuse.
-
Yeah, and in my original post I never said the umpiring alone was the difference between a win and a loss. I simply highlighted Dimma's statement that our players are confused by some rules by saying the fans are just as confused by umpiring interpretations.
There's a host of reasons why we lost yesterday, which have been covered ad infinitum in other threads. But for the last four weeks in a row (at least) we have copped the worst of the umpiring. And sometimes it has cost us the game, like in Sydney for example.
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
Thats correct,
People were going off with the Rance free in the 3rd quarter.
Reality is, if he plays in front , he would of got the free, and not the Melb player
-
Jackstar, If the Umpire cannot see at stuffing ground level right in front of him what the rest of the CROWD can see from the boundary line, he really does need stuffing glasses or he is blatantly helping the opposition!!! I don't think the umpiring cost us this game but it did cost us a few goals and momentum. The umpiring in the Sydney game did cost us the game imo and the umpiring in the Brisbane game was also pox. The umpiring in the St.Kilda game also cost us a win as a opposed to a draw, and their crappy apology doesn't make up for it. The state of the umpiring atm is ruining the game as a specatacle, they do not know what they are doing from what I can see and are winging it, helping Demetrious healthy interstate attendance plans or just going with whatever subconscious bias compells them.
-
Owl. the umpiring was poor, but you have to play to the umpires .
Didnt make the results different.
Own poor turnovers, handballing to guys that are stationary and are covered was a disgrace yesterday
-
Don't blame them but they were as much to the detriment of the team as the team themselves I thought.
That Watts decision has to be up there with the worst I have ever seen.
-
Agree there is no point blaming umpires but by god did they effect the momentum of the game yesterday. Wouldn't be so bad without the inconsistencies and poor decisions directly resulting in Melbourne goals.
Having said that our second half of the first quarter was the biggest punch in the face we got, and that was self inflicted. When you're having to play catch up football from a fair way back you open yourselves up to poor umpiring having a bearing on the game. That was 100% our own fault.
-
The Watts free kick for the Newman shepherd was a free kick was 100% correct.
The unrealistic attempt to mark from Watts was just a clever way to draw attention to the fact that Newman was blocking his run at the ball.
-
Pretty disappointing game were none of our guns fired a shot.
Great to see viceroy continue to improve.
-
I just viewed Dimma's press conference on the RFC site. Too say he is filthy about the game is an understatement! His body language said it all, but his words meant something too;
- Too many passengers.
- RFC players don't understand the holding the ball rule.
- RFC players don't understand the rushed behind rule.
Behind closed doors, I reckon he gave the boys a massive blast
-
Having said that our second half of the first quarter was the biggest punch in the face we got, and that was self inflicted. When you're having to play catch up football from a fair way back you open yourselves up to poor umpiring having a bearing on the game. That was 100% our own fault.
Post of the week - 100% spot on
The 2nd half of the first qtr is what undid us big time
We had them in that first 10-15 minutes; the most switched on we've been all season at the beginning of a game and we manage to shoot ourselves in the big toe by kicking 3.4 whn the Dees were on the back foot.... and then too top it off we somehow allowed some of the sofest goals yuo will ever see :banghead :banghead
Disgraceful effort yesterday
And I believe Dimma did peel some paint of the wall after the game, that's what the dude from 3AW alluded too and good onya Dimma - so you bloody should :clapping
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
we
lost cause we played crap
but.
If watts jumps into the back of Newman.. Watts shouldn't get a free kick.
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
we
lost cause we played crap
but.
If watts jumps into the back of Newman.. Watts shouldn't get a free kick.
Well yeah he should if the RFC players is not looking at the ball and simply stopping Watts from getting to the contest
Ask you this if the roles were reversed and say it was our Jack as in Reiwoldt going for the mark and a Dees players say Jones did what Newman did we would has screamed for a free
-
Anyone blaming the umpires today is kidding
we
lost cause we played crap
but.
If watts jumps into the back of Newman.. Watts shouldn't get a free kick.
Well yeah he should if the RFC players is not looking at the ball and simply stopping Watts from getting to the contest
Ask you this if the roles were reversed and say it was our Jack as in Reiwoldt going for the mark and a Dees players say Jones did what Newman did we would has screamed for a free
There is absolutely no doubt that the Newman free for sheperding was 100% correct. By the time Watts jumped to bring attention to what was happening the free had already occured.
It was a no-brainer as far as decisions go.
-
I agree with the fact that the umpiring did not cost us the game and furthermore I also agree that umpiring is in crisis.
I also believe that umpires tend to pick more questionable frees to teams that are leading well in our case we got a few early questionable in the first when we were well on top but by the end of the first when Mrs Watts got her free kick the umps had changed their tune.
Who says the umps don't look at reputations and the scoreboard. Bollocks.
-
We were simply raped, no excuses. They came to play & we watched.
Only part l liked was the first 10 minutes of the game. The players fix the slow start problem, but never finished ;D
-
We were comprehensively beaten, Jones tore us a fresh one. I just don't understand the umpiring atm, we are coming foul of it too often and we are going to have to address it by the way we play or something. The Newmo kick is BS because there is no such rule that states you cannot use your eyes to check what is going on around you whilst positioning yourself when the ball is incoming. WTF is he meant to do move out the way and allow Watts to take uncontested marks? He made no contact with him, Hot crumpet made contact with him and if he wants to take the stuffing mark, play in front, don't go for speccies. Please show me the rule "thought shalt allow free run to hot crumpet to take speccies"
-
He did make contact though Hooter.
Check the footage again and Newman pushes back into him with his hands out in a classic sheperding pose.
He is too far from the drop of the ball to contest the mark, yet is using his body to block his opponent.
Classic shepherd.
-
Jones played like he had the "cheese touch". Seemed like nobody wanted to go near him. It was friggin frustrating to see that desert head rack up so many uncontested possies.
But Big Cho, I have to disagree on the Watts free against Newman. It was a disgrace of the highest order. Since when is it illegal for a player to hold his ground? Newman was not moving and Watts barreled into him. So what if he wasn't looking at the footy and had his arms out. The contest was coming to Newy, not the other way around.
-
But Big Cho, I have to disagree on the Watts free against Newman. It was a disgrace of the highest order. Since when is it illegal for a player to hold his ground? Newman was not moving and Watts barreled into him. So what if he wasn't looking at the footy and had his arms out. The contest was coming to Newy, not the other way around.
Not looking at the ball was the killer IMO tiga, Newy was looking at the ground, needed to lift his eyes to get away with it
Not disputing the umpiring was terrible but has been the last few weeks in particular
-
You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!
-
Grigg received the ball on the point post stopped looked around ran across the goals and then when he realised he had no option handballed through. He had the ball for a few seconds that if he got tackled he would have been pinged anyway. I wasn't too upset about that one. It's the McGuane one that is the real shocker.
-
You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!
The McGuane was wrong and the AFL have admitted that
The Grigg one was 100% correct as he ran 10-15 metres under little pressure before he handballed the thing over the line :banghead = Clueless
The week before against Lids had no trouble understanding how the rule works when he walked a behind against Brisbane
Newy made amssive mistake on Saturday not thumping that ball through - no ifs buts or maybes he got it horribly wrong there was no way in hell he would have got pinged
Time and time again this year I've seen our defenders when surrounded by 3-4 oppostition players try and handball their way out of things when all they need to do is take it over the line. If you are surrounded by opponents it's called pressure you wont get pinged.
I agree with Dimma they don't seem to understand the rule
-
And I believe Dimma did peel some paint of the wall after the game, that's what the dude from 3AW alluded too and good onya Dimma - so you bloody should :clapping
From the RFC site, article about Foley,
"The Tigers were subject to a passionate barrage from Hardwick in the hour after Saturday's game, which was audible to the few that waited in the rooms for the players to emerge."
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/117069/default.aspx (http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/117069/default.aspx)
-
You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!
The McGuane was wrong and the AFL have admitted that
The Grigg one was 100% correct as he ran 10-15 metres under little pressure before he handballed the thing over the line :banghead = Clueless
The week before against Lids had no trouble understanding how the rule works when he walked a behind against Brisbane
Newy made amssive mistake on Saturday not thumping that ball through - no ifs buts or maybes he got it horribly wrong there was no way in hell he would have got pinged
Time and time again this year I've seen our defenders when surrounded by 3-4 oppostition players try and handball their way out of things when all they need to do is take it over the line. If you are surrounded by opponents it's called pressure you wont get pinged.
I agree with Dimma they don't seem to understand the rule
WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.
No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.
Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.
Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.
I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.
-
You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!
The McGuane was wrong and the AFL have admitted that
The Grigg one was 100% correct as he ran 10-15 metres under little pressure before he handballed the thing over the line :banghead = Clueless
The week before against Lids had no trouble understanding how the rule works when he walked a behind against Brisbane
Newy made amssive mistake on Saturday not thumping that ball through - no ifs buts or maybes he got it horribly wrong there was no way in hell he would have got pinged
Time and time again this year I've seen our defenders when surrounded by 3-4 oppostition players try and handball their way out of things when all they need to do is take it over the line. If you are surrounded by opponents it's called pressure you wont get pinged.
I agree with Dimma they don't seem to understand the rule
WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.
No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.
Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.
Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.
I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.
Joel Bowden rushed a behind, When bringing the ball back into play the umpire called play on because he was standing there wasting time. Joel stepped back again giving another point to the opposition score because he poo his pants & had a ugly brain freeze. It was terrible to watch & this is why the rule was brought into place because everyone across the country were doing it. TAC teams done it the next games, Gippy Power did it 7 times & got blasted for it.
The interpretation of the rule is ugly & it should be abolished like several other rules
-
WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.
No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.
Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.
Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.
I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.
It is because of Joel Bowden's walking back over the line in that game against the Bombers that the rule was changed to what it is today
The Grigg one is correct because he had the ball with an opponent 10+ metres away and a team-mate further up the groud, ran forward (no pressure), then sideways towards the goals (why I will never know) at that point he had McGuane for memory near the opposite point post all he needed to do was handball to McGuane who gets tackled with no prior (ball up) or McGuane punches it through because he would have been deemed to be under pressure. Instead Grigg handballed it through the sticks. Was he under pressure when he did that? Yep but he created the pressure by running back towards goal
What cost Grigg was the fact he ran one way, turned around and ran another and be default (or stupidity) he created the pressure. Absolute correct call by the umpires.
-
WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.
No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.
Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.
Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.
I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.
It is because of Joel Bowden's walking back over the line in that game against the Bombers that the rule was changed to what it is today
The Grigg one is correct because he had the ball with an opponent 10+ metres away and a team-mate further up the groud, ran forward (no pressure), then sideways towards the goals (why I will never know) at that point he had McGuane for memory near the opposite point post all he needed to do was handball to McGuane who gets tackled with no prior (ball up) or McGuane punches it through because he would have been deemed to be under pressure. Instead Grigg handballed it through the sticks. Was he under pressure when he did that? Yep but he created the pressure by running back towards goal
What cost Grigg was the fact he ran one way, turned around and ran another and be default (or stupidity) he created the pressure. Absolute correct call by the umpires.
absolute correct call WP, you explained that exactly how it was :thumbsup
-
It's very similar to the good old prior opportunity. If you have a chance to dispose of the ball and don't and then pressure comes you can't rush a behind (Grigg) whereas if you are immediately under pressure then you shouldn't be pinged. (McGuane mistake).
-
its typical afl over kill.bowden walked across the line a few times and the nuffas jump up and down. they didnt want to see sides waste time near the end of games.
instead of this stupid rule all they had to do was insist after a point the ball must be bought back into play and must be touched by another player for the clock to start.another option would be if you walk a behind with out bringing the ball back in its a ball up at the end of the square. there were lots of options they could have gone with but they chose to ignore the most common sense ones and went with something ridiculous.
hands up anyone who is totally frustrated with the diving on the ball rule. the one sacrosanct thing in our game is to go and get the ball be first to it. this rule should be exactly the same as it is for holding the ball. that is if you dive on it take possesion and have no prior opportunity before being tackled it is a ball up. if you have had an opportunity and fail to correctly dispose its holding the ball. it is so simple.
what really peees me is they allow huge packs to form waiting for the ball to come out. they should be blowing the whistle as soon as a pack forms and having a ball up asap.