He and Jack texted each other on the incident. Wouldn't even dream of this in the past.Someone let us know if no 32 gets dropped pls
He and Jack texted each other on the incident. Wouldn't even dream of this in the past.Someone let us know if no 32 gets dropped pls
Reckon you are spot on here. Smart players know when to take the tackle and force a stoppage and when they have already had prior.That was a classic example of what I am referring to earlier in this thread about our lack of education.
The interpretation is crystal clear that a player under the impression they have marked a touched ball isn't deemed to have had prior opportunity so all he had to do was hang on to that ball.
Instead, he panicked and tried to fight through the tackles and tried to get a kick away, turning a ball-up into a free kick.
A Geelong or Hawthorn player would have drawn the ball-up every single time.
Reckon you are spot on here. Smart players know when to take the tackle and force a stoppage and when they have already had prior.
Too many Richmond players want to keep that ball moving and fight the tackler to get rid of it. Hopefully we get a little smarter. There was a good example of a West coast player taking a tackle when he clearly had time to do something else but the turnover risk was too great and he did the smart thing.
Just watching the weekends match, Wow was there some bad umpiring.
I'm at half time and they have cost the Tiges 3 goals so far. Soldo marks right in front...no mark.
Umpires would have had silent numbers in the old days. They were kept secret until just before they walked out ...needed the Record to know who was on. But with only 8 or so umps it was easy to recognise them.He and Jack texted each other on the incident. Wouldn't even dream of this in the past.
Surely they drop that clown. When do the umpires for this round get announced?Umpires would have had silent numbers in the old days. They were kept secret until just before they walked out ...needed the Record to know who was on. But with only 8 or so umps it was easy to recognise them.
I agree, it is appalling Caddy could not tackle his own teammate without being penalised.I'd like the RFC to ask the Umpiring Department why Soldo wasn't paid the mark, why Jack was penalised when no real risk of damage existed, why the controlling umpire didn't pay the kicking in danger against Soldo despite being 10 metres away with good sight of the incident and why Caddy's tackle on Rioli was penalised.
I'd then ask if there was any common thread in these decisions and what methods might be used to remedy any deficiencies.
Surely they drop that clown. When do the umpires for this round get announced?
Used to be a free kick.when the same action with your hand would be a clear free kick.
Nice to read such a balanced, thoughtful post about umpiring, Mac.
It is a fair point you make about my use of the word 'absolutely'. What I should have said is jumping with the boot studs up is quite likely to cause an injury, although the risk of it being more than a minor injury is quite low.
That is where I feel the rule is flawed. The umpire can only judge the action, not the result, hence the definition needs to be tighter.
Incidentally I think the correct decision in the first instance should have been a free kick against Riewoldt, but for in the back. I'm not sure why you are allowed to push someone out with your leg, when the same action with your hand would be a clear free kick.
Yes, if you want to penalise a pushing action with studs what about pushing someone with a bent leg with the knee fairly in the square of the back? Or on the shoulder? If you want to apply strict or absolute definitions you’re gonna be paying a lot of free kicks.Would you also pay it if it was a knee? If so, say goodbye to high flying marks and part of the essence of the game will go with it.
It is a fair point you make about my use of the word 'absolutely'. What I should have said is jumping with the boot studs up is quite likely to cause an injury, although the risk of it being more than a minor injury is quite low.
You might want to watch it again, JR never touched his back.Nice to read such a balanced, thoughtful post about umpiring, Mac.
It is a fair point you make about my use of the word 'absolutely'. What I should have said is jumping with the boot studs up is quite likely to cause an injury, although the risk of it being more than a minor injury is quite low.
That is where I feel the rule is flawed. The umpire can only judge the action, not the result, hence the definition needs to be tighter.
Incidentally I think the correct decision in the first instance should have been a free kick against Riewoldt, but for in the back. I'm not sure why you are allowed to push someone out with your leg, when the same action with your hand would be a clear free kick.
You might want to watch it again, JR never touched his back.