I thought it was harsh. It was a long sprint for the ball and it would’ve been pretty tough to know how close his opponent was. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they paid it. We’ve conceded plenty of goals by keeping the ball alive when under pressure e.g. McGrath last night, leading to a Dustin Martin goal. The players know it’s a lottery, so rush it at your own peril.
What didn’t help the Richmond player was he made absolutely no effort to disguise it. Maybe if he grabbed it and slid over the line he may have been okay, but then possible he didn’t know how much he had on Green.
I seemed to be asking that question a lot last night, … and watching the Ressies as well.
Also, … I wonder what ever happened to 'Holding the Man"… Remember when that was a rule?
1 Like
That’s his bad luck (or rather, bad skill/teamwork).
In what other situation are players excused because they don’t know how much space they’ve got on their opponent? if it was a run-down tackle?
1 Like
I was just speculating on why he did what he did in just paddling it over the line. I wasn’t suggesting he gets away with it.
Yeah my reply probably should’ve gone to wob instead.
The game just needs to be simplified. Especially around Holding the ball, illegal disposal and holding the man.
I maintain that “knocked out in the tackle” is the worst interpretation change that’s happened.
5 Likes
Yep and it only seems to bob up every now and then? It’s the worst rule.
I’m with WOB.
The rules are broken.
The rules are inconsistently applied, by;
Terrible umpires who just seem to make it up/change it as they go.
Pannell, Nicholls and Fisher are the worst.
But it still doesn’t help when incredibly obvious frees are missed like the high on Stewart and that moment where Goddard was slung 180 after disposing the ball… didn’t that lead to a goal?
1 Like
Just watched the replay. the umpires were fine, definitely didn’t favour the Tiges. We were clearly outplayed on the night.
1 Like
Loved Watson calling out the umpire last night “you can’t pay a free because you think I threw it, you have to call play on!”
1 Like
You can’t adjudicate on intent. It had to be a clear action. Did the player dispose of it legally? No. free kick.
Yep, Hardwick & Co were clearly wary of us getting the jump & would have studied closely how we did it the past 2 weeks, and quickly instituted something they’d planned to stop it once we got 3 straight up and they kept it up, blocking our run through the corridor, keeping pressure on the ball carrier, and barely giving us an inch from then on out.
Despite that, but for a few very uncharacteristic dropped Hooker marks we probably win the game, not to mention Walla and Joe being a bit down on their average output over the past month. About to watch the replay to get a better idea how they did it.
1 Like
It cost us a goal to Martin later when McGrath was under pressure but reluctant to knock it through. All square in my book.
There was a blatant in the back to Joe on the members’ wing, and that round the neck to Stewart. The throw against Jobe was a bit arbitrary too. No worse than 50 other handpasses in any game. And, as Jobe said, a blatant guess.
The worse rule in the book though is the “sliding rule”. Absolutely no-one has any idea who’s going to get the free kick. You certainly shouldn’t be penalised if you’re first to the ball, like Zaka was…and like Hannaberry wasn’t in the GF, a decision people screamed about.
4 Likes
Plenty of times it’s equal parts high to one player and sliding to the other. There’s simply no way to reconcile the rules and it’s up to the umpire to just take his pick.
As I’ve said before. The rules are just broken and people don’t seem to care.
1 Like
Players will do what they think they get away with and will keep doing it until it is outlawed or it penalizes the team.
Throwing the ball which once would have been called incorrect disposal has now it seems, become acceptable.
Bringing a bit of rugby into the game.
When tackling player moves in over the head and shoulders of player on the ground being tackled. This high tackle should be cause for concern if the head is to be protected at all and any cost. Why is this allowed?
No sliding or taking out a player’s legs.
Pinching space aka as cribbing while standing the mark, if you can get away with it. Once could have 50 and/or a free kick.
Deliberate disposal over the boundary line. Telepathic umpires who read the player’s mind.
The defender kicking out after a point, puts his foot on or over the line of the goal square. Happens a lot and is not called.
How long does the tackler have a to hold the opposition player with the ball and stacks on the mill, before being paid a free kick? Did he have time to dispose of the ball. More telepathic insight. What is the point in tackling if there is no reward for the tackler? More rugby.
Playing on and then deciding not to play on and reset - should be called play on. Often it isn’t.
So, Gil, what is going to be the flavour of the week, next week? Any chance of consistency with decisions?
3 Likes
With the current rushed interpretation, would a play like this from Fletch be a free kick in the goal square? If so that it completely farked.
Nothing wrong with the deliberate rushed rule, it’s the penalty that is overkill. How about the score stands and then it’s a bounce at the top of the square?
Allowing a certain goal goes against the spirit of the game.
If the penalty’s not a goal, why wouldn’t you do it?
Under pressure, in the goalsquare, no free kick.
1 Like