Richardson Free Kick

bomberflyer · Post by **bomberflyer** » Sun May 27, 2007 9:02 am

I know footy has gone soft...but I have seen far many more free kicks that have been given that were softer than that one. The problem being it happened at the most critical time in the match and the 50 is technically there because he played on and kicked the ball away.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun May 27, 2007 9:17 am

The free kick was there. End of story.

However, if it were any other season, it would have been paid a mark, and that would have been the match winning goal. There were other free kicks paid during the night for softer "hands in the back". I was fuming at every one of those decisions, not at the umpire, but at the dickhead who sees fit to ruin a contest - Bartlett. I hated this interpretation before a game was even played. And now seeing what it f****** does to the game, I want to belt the crap out of him.

If the rule had been strictly paid on every occasion this year, we would not be seeing Mark McVeigh's likely Mark of The Year being awarded to him.

bombercol · Post by **bombercol** » Sun May 27, 2007 9:35 am

I agree Ben. The Richo free kick "was" the correct decision, no doubt but it shows how this "rule" is utter crap. Only this year Richo would have been pinged for that.

The Richo decision potentailly changed the result of the game given the time it happened (and I know a few others were paid during the game too) but this is the biggy. Could you imagine if this was the Grand Final? Could you imagine the uproar? They've got to get rid of it.

pear · Post by **pear** » Sun May 27, 2007 9:55 am

Richo got a couple of soft ones going his way so no sympathy from me. Agree it's a crap rule which is rooting our game.

pear · Post by **pear** » Sun May 27, 2007 9:56 am

PS - I thought it was a pretty gutsy effort from Richo last night. He could easily have tried to protect his face by leading up all night and taking soft chest marks but he chose to play his normal way, contested pack marks etc

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun May 27, 2007 10:23 am

pear wrote:PS - I thought it was a pretty gutsy effort from Richo last night. He could easily have tried to protect his face by leading up all night and taking soft chest marks but he chose to play his normal way, contested pack marks etc

Nothing but admiration for the bloke. He sometimes displays childish behaviour (but I reckon he just plays with his heart on the sleeve). Great effort from him last night, he nearly made the difference.

swooper · Post by **swooper** » Sun May 27, 2007 10:32 am

BenDoolan wrote:
pear wrote:PS - I thought it was a pretty gutsy effort from Richo last night. He could easily have tried to protect his face by leading up all night and taking soft chest marks but he chose to play his normal way, contested pack marks etc
Nothing but admiration for the bloke. He sometimes displays childish behaviour (but I reckon he just plays with his heart on the sleeve). Great effort from him last night, he nearly made the difference.

I go to a few Richmond games each year as I have a few mates who follow them avidly. Always had a lot of time for Richo, and wished it had been any other player than him that it happened to last night.

The free was there, it's just a bullshit rule. Hopefully it's the death knell of the rule and they'll junk it at season's end.

The rules committee is like a marketing department, forever coming up with nonsensical ideas in an attempt to justify their existence.
Loved Sandy Roberts' comment while reading sport on Ch7 news last week: Do you think there can be a year where we just leave the game alone?

robbie67 · Post by **robbie67** » Sun May 27, 2007 10:34 am

The current interpretations are turning the game into a joke. Like Benny said, Richo got a couple of soft ones also. Dont forget the two goal turn around early in the first quarter, when Hille clearly took a mark inside 50, and wasnt paid. Richmond then rushed it up the other end and got their first. Geischen, Bartlett, and the other twits on the rules committee have to go.

andrewb · Post by **andrewb** » Sun May 27, 2007 11:13 am

Rubbish free... If that was an essendon player I would have been incensed. Mal was out of the contest already... the ball was delivered really well.

What really shocked me was the 50 though... McPhee did exactly the same thing (played on) in the second quarter when reiwoldt got that free and no 50 was paid.

Madden · Post by **Madden** » Sun May 27, 2007 11:29 am

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

For God's sake, change this rule, and take it back to the way it was - where the umpire has to judge how forceful the contact was. Our game has been built on interpretation for 100+ years - nothing is black and white, and the AFL's attempt to make this black and white is killing contested footy. Change the interpretation of this rule now. Do we have to wait until it costs a team a Grand Final?

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Sun May 27, 2007 11:42 am

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.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Sun May 27, 2007 11:58 am

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.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Sun May 27, 2007 12:15 pm

Richo will probably get slugged a nice great big fine for simply saying about what 98% of the football supporting think.

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 is 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."

See the AFL shoot of a please explain to Richo and then slug him with at least a $5000 fine.

F****** ridicolous!!!

Make you wonder why he put his own personal safety at risk to play in this game when he cops stupid decisions like these.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun May 27, 2007 12:22 pm

ealesy wrote:Richo will probably get slugged a nice great big fine for simply saying about what 98% of the football supporting think.

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 is 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."

See the AFL shoot of a please explain to Richo and then slug him with at least a $5000 fine.

F****** ridicolous!!!

Make you wonder why he put his own personal safety at risk to play in this game when he cops stupid decisions like these.

Yep!

Whilst this decision alone did not affect the game result, if the decision gets huge publicity for the rule to be dropped, then I'm all for it. I've said it all along, it's rubbish.

Lloyd is King · Post by **Lloyd is King** » Sun May 27, 2007 12:24 pm

BenDoolan wrote:The free kick was there. End of story.

Everyone with half a brain knows that the decision was right. But that's the whole problem.

I have just been listening to SEN this morning, and as expected the backlash from fans has been deflected by Kevin 'hands in the back' Bartlett. This incompetent prune just won't admit there's now a bigger problem than there originally was.

I can't recall that defenders and/or forwards have been pushing each other out enough in previous seasons to warrant a drastic knee-jerk rule change.

PEOPLE ARE IRITTATED.

Why bring in a rule that has not solved anything and only caused more uncertainty and frustration?

Correct me if I'm wrong - every year umpiring gets worse. Why?

New rules. Umpires have no idea of the interpretation of the rules week to week. The changes are also making life more difficult for umpires because of the increasingly savage tirades given to them by angry and frustrated fans during matches.

Why does Kevin Bartlett defend the rule as something that provides "a fair contest"? Each week a player seems to say they are disappointed with the rules or with the umpiring. Why? COS THE CONSTANT RULE CHANGES MAKE THE UMPIRING WORSE EVERY YEAR!

WHAT PROBLEMS ARE YOU SOLVING BARTLETT???

TRY SOLVING THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE NOW CREATED.... BY GETTING RID OF THIS GODDAMN RULE!!!!!!

How can this 'touching the back' rule provide a fair contest when it is inconsistently paid?

WHY IN GOD'S NAME WASN'T THIS RULE TRIALLED DURING THE PRE-SEASON OR IN THE MINOR LEAGUES????

Why is there a new rule every year? What's the point?

Why has our game changed so dramatically over the last 3 seasons?

Why is everything so f***ing "politcally correct"?

Admit you're wrong Bartlett, you bastard, or f*** off.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Sun May 27, 2007 12:40 pm

If only one of the umpiring faternity would speak out about these constant changes in rules and interprations and how much more difficult it makes their job.

It is patently unfair that the umpires continuely cop shit and abuse for merely following the new decisions that are made by Kevin Barlett and his cronies on the rule committee, in an attempt to justify their existence.

Madden · Post by **Madden** » Sun May 27, 2007 12:48 pm

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.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Sun May 27, 2007 12:51 pm

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?

Post by **danstar84** » Sun May 27, 2007 1:05 pm

It was the right call, but as mentioned, the rule is rubbish and should be scrapped. The reason it has received so much attention was the timing in the game. There were plenty of soft frees that both teams received. Richo kicked a goal from a soft in the back free, and Pettifer had a soft free inside 50, and offloaded it to Krackour who put it through.

All free kicks have an impact on the game.

If it had gone the other way though, I'd be pretty filthy though.

Lloyd is King · Post by **Lloyd is King** » Sun May 27, 2007 1:12 pm

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

Because that one decision didn't "potentially" squash Richmond's chances at a first victory.

The last decision is always the one that sticks.

I don't care that Richmond lost. I'll take the win. The win for us is wallpaper over the cracks anyway. Our next month will put us back down the ladder where we belong. We were s***house and have a huge mountain to climb if we are to play finals (LOL).

The main point from all this is that because of these controversial rules (among several other things - prices, scheduling, interstate-domination, the corporate dollar which is killing the dyed-in-the-wool supporter, the death of physicality, etc) the game is heading in the wrong direction - fast.

I am really starting to get pissed off at our great game.