-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!
- Thread starter iLoVeNeWmAn
- Start date
That prohibited contact one was simply ridiculous.
What did Rioli do? Bumped a player front on, very lightly, after the ball went out of play.
Does that fit any of these:
Not a tackle, did not bump in the back, no high contact, did not hold the other player, was not a shepherd, did not charge the opposition player, no trip, did not kick the other player, did not kick the football at all, did not strike the other player, the opposition player did not have their head over the football.
It is a big list, but this is a ridiculous interpretation. Yes, they should have been a bit wary of this after last week's absurdity, but how many other times did this happen in the game and no free was paid?
DS
What did Rioli do? Bumped a player front on, very lightly, after the ball went out of play.
Does that fit any of these:
(a) executes a tackle that is not legal (refer to the definition of Legal Tackle);
(b) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;
(h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player;
(i) kicks or attempts to kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;
(j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head;
(k) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.
Not a tackle, did not bump in the back, no high contact, did not hold the other player, was not a shepherd, did not charge the opposition player, no trip, did not kick the other player, did not kick the football at all, did not strike the other player, the opposition player did not have their head over the football.
It is a big list, but this is a ridiculous interpretation. Yes, they should have been a bit wary of this after last week's absurdity, but how many other times did this happen in the game and no free was paid?
DS
18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACTThe big section under rule 18.3 titled 'Prohibited Contact' you mean Ezy?
18.3.1 Spirit and Intention
A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every opportunity todoso.
18.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:
(a) executes a tackle that is not legal (refer to the definition of Legal Tackle);
(b) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;
(h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player;
(i) kicks or attempts to kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;
(j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head;
(k) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.
18.3.3 Permitted Contact
A Player may use their hip, shoulder, chest, armsor open hands provided that the football is no more than five metres away fromthe Player and the Player does not make Prohibited Contact as per Law 18.3.2 above.
I dont believe fitness is the issue,its all on our midfield when sides smash us second half of games,our mid numbers after half time were bad.
That's the one, you can take your pick of about 6 clauses and apply them.
Yes it's soft and personally I don't like to see it paid, but with everything that happened last weekend it was incredibly dumb for him to do it.
Aussie rules players have been doing this for the last 40 years. It's a natural act in the game.
I don't know about that but I do know that the message was there loud and clear last week that frees were being paid for that type of stuff.
To do it last night you're either dumb, unprepared or don't care enough.
Ffs !!! Is his hair gonna be ok ??? Is the Prime Minister gonna make a statement to the country ?? What the hell is going on ???
Chimpaaa. SAVE THE BOUFFANT !
It's just a slight nudge. No player would've thought it would be a free against. Just ridiculous over-reaction by the umpire.
I heard on SEN that 'missed free kicks' is a KPI for an umpire. If correct, that is ridiculous and shows there is a plan to penalise players no matter what.
I’m like @The Big Richo - sick of the unprofessional attitude that gives away 50m after 50m penalty and costs us games and percentage. Without this bs we would be comfortably pushing for top 4 - instead we are now going to be fighting for 7th / 8th. Just *smile* dumb.
It’s bad enough in social basketball when my teammate after being warned by the ref to pull his head in does a tech foul.
Got me mad and my hungover sat a bit rougher. At least it means I still care.
It’s bad enough in social basketball when my teammate after being warned by the ref to pull his head in does a tech foul.
Got me mad and my hungover sat a bit rougher. At least it means I still care.
Lucky he didn't connect properly or he'd have ended his career.
It was pretty comparable to the ones paid in the Brisbane Hawthorn game. I'd have expected a coach to highlight those in the pre game planning and tell the players not to do anything out of play that could provoke a free kick. Someone let us down.
What about the 756 that weren't paid last week and won't be this week?
I thought I would just turn on the footy for 10 minutes and looked at the 2 games to check the scores.
I saw 3-4 incidents that should have been penalised if Rioli's was ok to pay. There sure are a lot of dumb footballers around .................. and lucky ones too !!
Warner did it too around the centre line on the far wing. Picked the ball off the ground, moved towards an upright position, saw Nank coming and ducked back again into Nank. Ump correctly called for a ball up and not high so it was good he wasn't sucked in. Warner then acts like it was ridiculous and starts laughing at the ump. This is where dissent of the last 4 weeks completed went out of the window this round after being so big before then. Non-rule of the week if you like. Over the last 4 weeks, the ump would have paid 50 on Warner as he dared question the ump (now I don't want to see 50's being paid for that, but thats why they brought the rule in wasn't it).
The lucky ones, where umpires are concerned, play for teams other than Richmond.
