Bombertalk

Rossoneri wrote:

Staggy wrote:

Rossoneri wrote:

Staggy wrote:An absolutely terrible free kick. Ridiculous decision. Technically correct, yes, blah blah, but its the wrong decision and you all should know that.

It was the correct decision, its a stupid rule. The umpire made the right call (50 was a bit harsh though)

If that decision was not paid, everybody will be up in arms about the umpire. Right call, poor rule.

The real person to blame is Adrian Anderson's father. If only he had used a condom.

Rubbish. If that decision was not paid, I wouldn't have been up in arms about the umpire, and I don't think many others would have either.

I however do agree with your conclusion that its the right decision under the rule. Agreed. But the rule is trash.

You're kidding arent you? Hands in the back, its the rules, it has to be paid. If it wasnt paid, then we would have been robbed.

I agree with you about the rule itself, but the free kick was definitely there.

How come no one has mentioned Richos soft free kick in the second quarter when his own teammate pushed him in the back?

I know its in the rules, but I don't give a f*ck what the rules say mate. And neither should you.

That incident, is not a free kick. It is not a free kick in the game that I grew up watching, and it shouldn't be a free kick now. F*ck the rules. Use some common sense.

I am sure Richo has got many soft free kicks. So has everyone this year. And just because they are free kicks under the rules (which change every year) doesn't make it right.

If anyone thinks that should have been a free kick, under the rules or not, this game is becoming a farce.

Staggy wrote:
If anyone thinks that should have been a free kick, under the rules or not, this game is becoming a farce.

HAS BECOME a farce.

HAS BECOME a farce.

HAS BECOME a farce.

Lloyd is King wrote:

Staggy wrote:
If anyone thinks that should have been a free kick, under the rules or not, this game is becoming a farce.

HAS BECOME a farce.

HAS BECOME a farce.

HAS BECOME a farce.

Yeah.

No contests anymore mate. I enjoy watching VAFA much more than I do AFL. Its not the same game any more. Sad.

Free kick was technically there. Hands were in the back, but I really felt for Richo. He played an amazing game, considering his injury. A star performer. But Im sick of these whinging Richmond supporters. Firstly, we did not kick a goal from the 50 metres paid after that incident. The umpires were appalling both ways last night. Some shocking decisions, including the 50 paid to Monfries, the free kick to Richo which resulted in a goal, and the non free that was not awarded against McPhee.

But in reality, we should have been clearly ahead, our kicking for goal let us down badly, particularly in the 3rd quarter. Richmond tried milking the clock too early and it cost them badly. AND we smashed them in the last 10 minutes.

The right team won.....and Richmond, you were not robbed. You had plenty of opportunities to nail that game.

Under the new rules its a free kick. Left hand was on the back. Everyone should direct their frustration and anger towards Kevin Bartlett. Get on the Soap Box on SEN.

Rossoneri wrote:But clearly im the only person who actually thought it was a push rather just putting his hands there.

And if you look at richo, he looked at the umpire straight away after he took the mark (looked like it anyway). Methinks he had a bit guilt on his face when that happened.

Not the only one, my friend.

Staggy wrote:

Rossoneri wrote:

Staggy wrote:An absolutely terrible free kick. Ridiculous decision. Technically correct, yes, blah blah, but its the wrong decision and you all should know that.

It was the correct decision, its a stupid rule. The umpire made the right call (50 was a bit harsh though)

If that decision was not paid, everybody will be up in arms about the umpire. Right call, poor rule.

The real person to blame is Adrian Anderson's father. If only he had used a condom.

Rubbish. If that decision was not paid, I wouldn't have been up in arms about the umpire, and I don't think many others would have either.

I however do agree with your conclusion that its the right decision under the rule. Agreed. But the rule is trash.

Sorry Stag, but I would have been fking livid had it not been paid considering the soft ones Richo got earlier in the game.

I thought it (the free kick) was there, simply based on the way the rules are being interpreted/enforced this year. We get out fair whack of dodgy decisions in similar circumstances, so... ya win some, ya lose some.

We had 2 more scoring shots after that decision, which could have easily been 2.0 instead of 1.1. I think the win was ours, we stood up and made em pay when it mattered. Obviously their thuggery at the start of the final term wasn't enough to get inside our heads.

Whoever said, on 3AW last night, "are Richmond as bad as zip-9? No.", I fully agree with. They're not that bad. They just have to get that elusive win and they'll almost instantly improve.

Essendon4eva wrote:Under the new rules its a free kick. Left hand was on the back. Everyone should direct their frustration and anger towards Kevin Bartlett. Get on the Soap Box on SEN.

The guy who does "After The Final Siren" on SEN, which is a talkback show conducted after each night match was imploring all callers to email Bartlett and make your feeling felt. He said to make sure you dont swear but he wants Bartletts inbox full. He was repaeting Bartletts email address all night last night.
Not that Bartlett would give a f*** what 500,000 people reckon.

For those wanting to vent, email Bartlett at

hungryforsport@SEN.com.au

Rossoneri wrote:

Essendon4eva wrote:Under the new rules its a free kick. Left hand was on the back. Everyone should direct their frustration and anger towards Kevin Bartlett. Get on the Soap Box on SEN.

The guy who does "After The Final Siren" on SEN, which is a talkback show conducted after each night match was imploring all callers to email Bartlett and make your feeling felt. He said to make sure you dont swear but he wants Bartletts inbox full. He was repaeting Bartletts email address all night last night.
Not that Bartlett would give a f*** what 500,000 people reckon.

For those wanting to vent, email Bartlett at

hungryforsport@SEN.com.au

Yeah the show's called "Finey's Final Siren" with Mark Fine, a St. Kilda supporter.

Great show run by a guy who has the real fans at heart.

It's a shame that show is on so late some nights cos there is some great talkback.

So many dissolusioned footy supporters feeling disgusted about the current state of the game. And Demetriou keeps bleeding on about how the crowds are up and we have to make the game watchable for the kids.

F*** the kids, I say. The kids don't have to pay their hard earned memberships only to be denied a seat for finals footy bc some corporate knob is likely to take it.

The game's ****ed.

As for the rules... I've e-mailed Bartlett.

Rossoneri wrote:

Essendon4eva wrote:Under the new rules its a free kick. Left hand was on the back. Everyone should direct their frustration and anger towards Kevin Bartlett. Get on the Soap Box on SEN.

The guy who does "After The Final Siren" on SEN, which is a talkback show conducted after each night match was imploring all callers to email Bartlett and make your feeling felt. He said to make sure you dont swear but he wants Bartletts inbox full. He was repaeting Bartletts email address all night last night.
Not that Bartlett would give a f*** what 500,000 people reckon.

For those wanting to vent, email Bartlett at

hungryforsport@SEN.com.au

I know the guy our talking about.

Rossoneri wrote:But clearly im the only person who actually thought it was a push rather just putting his hands there.

No, you're not. It was a shove in the back, and I have put forward that opinion in another thread.

dingus wrote:

Rossoneri wrote:But clearly im the only person who actually thought it was a push rather just putting his hands there.

No, you're not. It was a shove in the back, and I have put forward that opinion in another thread.

It was paid (as picked up by the umpire's mike) as "hands in the back".

dingus wrote:

Rossoneri wrote:But clearly im the only person who actually thought it was a push rather just putting his hands there.

No, you're not. It was a shove in the back, and I have put forward that opinion in another thread.

I am with you two!!!

It has been disgusting the way that the tigers their fans and the media in general has been carrying on about it....

Another thing you can NOT say that the decision lost them or won us the game it is purely speculation. IF the goal weas allowed well then the ball goes back to the middle for a ball up and who knows what would happen. I assume that the way Hille and Jobe were connecting that it would have gone straight into our forward line for a goal. What then?? tied game back to the middle another Jobe clearence another goal.... f*** off we won get over it!!

He braced himself by putting his hands in his back. He did NOT push him out. He did not impede him in the contest, he was already out of the contest.

Here is the way that all free kicks work. There has to be an INFRINGEMENT - i.e, there has to be a player who has unfairly dealt with another player, and kept them out of the contest unfairly. That, in my mind, is a prerequisate for all free kicks - that the player has been restricted from fairly entering the contest.

That didn't happen last night - Michael was not pushed out of the contest unfairly because a) he was already out of the contest and b) he wasn't pushed hard. Surely that at least is undisputed? Or am I insane?

Staggy wrote:He braced himself by putting his hands in his back. He did NOT push him out. He did not impede him in the contest, he was already out of the contest.

Here is the way that all free kicks work. There has to be an INFRINGEMENT - i.e, there has to be a player who has unfairly dealt with another player, and kept them out of the contest unfairly. That, in my mind, is a prerequisate for all free kicks - that the player has been restricted from fairly entering the contest.

That didn't happen last night - Michael was not pushed out of the contest unfairly because a) he was already out of the contest and b) he wasn't pushed hard. Surely that at least is undisputed? Or am I insane?

You're right Stag. Michael misjudged the ball and was out of the contest.

Yet this turdblown rule can still f*** over a player who is in a position of advantage and lead to a decision which only further diludes an increasingly angry and frustrated football public.

Richardson pushed Michael forward. I didn't think you were ever allowed to push someone in the back!

I think players should be allowed to stand their ground if their opponent is backing into them but as soon as they use a forward motion with their hands it should be awarded a free kick.

dingus wrote:

Rossoneri wrote:But clearly im the only person who actually thought it was a push rather just putting his hands there.

No, you're not. It was a shove in the back, and I have put forward that opinion in another thread.

Did anyone see the Sunday Footy Show and/or The Offsiders (ABC) this morning?

Wayne Carey reckons it was a free kick any year (not just this year) - he was of the firm belief that Richo pushed to gain an advantage - but reckons the 50m was harsh because Richo honestly believes he takes the mark hears the whistle and presumes its for the mark itself.

Mark Bickley reckons clear cut free kick.

Adrian Anderson (ok not the best witness for a supporting argument!) reckons it was clearly the correct decision to not award the mark - hands in the back - not upto the ump to decide the force of contact but only to judge whether the hands as opposed to the hip/forearm etc was used.

For me - it was 50/50. If it didn't get paid I wouldn't be screaming - being paid was technically correct. In the end - wasn't the worst decision this year - just happened at a memorable time - late in a close contest.

The 50m is the crucial debate I reckon.

Same thing happened at the Melbourne-Port game a few weeks back when Neitz infringed.

There has to be an INFRINGEMENT - i.e, there has to be a player who has unfairly dealt with another player, and kept them out of the contest unfairly. That, in my mind, is a prerequisate for all free kicks - that the player has been restricted from fairly entering the contest

Absolutely hit the nail on the head Staggy. I`d be interested to know whether this type of common sense is actually written in the laws of the game?

They`d do well to keep the above quote in mind at all times when umpiring - eg a brush of the little finger over someones head does not constitute a free kick.