Buggs snipe on Riewoldt

[grouse mate]

So I guess the umpires just make up behind the play free kicks as they're not in a contest or a tackle? Interesting.

Charging, holding or illegal sheperding? No they don't, they are part of the rules.

 

[Fade to Gray]

Rule 15, Laws of the game on the AFL website, have a read for yourself. I'll accept your apology in advance.

I'll type this slowly because you are obviously a moron, or have never seen a game of football. But here goes.

"15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(a)
(a)makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part
of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to
cause injury;
(i)
above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders
or bump to the head); or
(ii)
below the knees.
(b)
pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is
incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately
Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

This is where your english compression fails. You can make incidental contact to the back in a marking contest. It doesn't state you are free to push someone in the back in any situation you feel like as long as it is not in a marking contact or a tackle. If there is a law that states it. It will radically change the way the game is played. At a ruck contest, fight for the back position and push your opponent in the back and it's fine. Running for a loose ball just push em in the back. Please quote me a rule that states you can only get an in the back free in a marking contest or tackle and in all other situations feel free to push.

 

[Adam H]

I dont expect neither of you dipshits to know the rules, I sat amongst your supporters yesterday and it was quite clear most of them are the same. It cannot be push in the back because it was not a marking contest or a tackle.

I hope your taking the piss. Read what you posted then slap yourself.

 

[grouse mate]

I'll type this slowly because you are obviously a moron, or have never seen a game of football. But here goes.

"15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(a)
(a)makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part
of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to
cause injury;
(i)
above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders
or bump to the head); or
(ii)
below the knees.
(b)
pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is
incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately
Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

This is where your english compression fails. You can make incidental contact to the back in a marking contest. It doesn't state you are free to push someone in the back in any situation you feel like as long as it is not in a marking contact or a tackle. If there is a law that states it. It will radically change the way the game is played. At a ruck contest, fight for the back position and push your opponent in the back and it's fine. Running for a loose ball just push em in the back. Please quote me a rule that states you can only get an in the back free in a marking contest or tackle and in all other situations feel free to push.

I dont expect neither of you dipshits to know the rules, I sat amongst your supporters yesterday and it was quite clear most of them are the same. It cannot be push in the back because it was not a marking contest or a tackle.

I've bolded the bit which you clearly failed to comprehend. Keep trying you'll get something right soon.

 

[grouse mate]

I hope your taking the piss. Read what you posted then slap yourself.

Why? Maybe you should introduce yourself to the laws of the game.

 

[Fade to Gray]

I've bolded the bit which you clearly failed to comprehend. Keep trying you'll get something right soon.

But you can have a push in the back in situations other than a marking contest, watch the game today and I can almost guarantee there will be a push in the back paid that is not in a marking contest. It is pretty pointless arguing at this point as you are clearly 100% wrong.

 

[grouse mate]

But you can have a push in the back in situations other than a marking contest, watch the game today and I can almost guarantee there will be a push in the back paid that is not in a marking contest. It is pretty pointless arguing at this point as you are clearly 100% wrong.

Your right, as I said earlier marking contests and tackles. Maybe you should re-read the thread again.

 

[Fade to Gray]

Your right, as I said earlier marking contests and tackles. Maybe you should re-read the thread again.

Ok, so there is a loose ball scenario, player A approaches the ball, before he can pick it up player B comes along and shoves him fair and square in the back, player A falls to the ground, player B waltzes away with the ball. Do you honestly think that it wouldn't be a free kick?

 

[Adam H]

Triple M just reporting that Bugg could be in trouble due to behind the goal footage .

 

[ManWithNoName]

Bugg cleared by the MRP

 

[grouse mate]

Ok, so there is a loose ball scenario, player A approaches the ball, before he can pick it up player B comes along and shoves him fair and square in the back, player A falls to the ground, player B waltzes away with the ball. Do you honestly think that it wouldn't be a free kick?

Engaging in rough conduct.

 

[grouse mate]

Triple M just reporting that Bugg could be in trouble due to behind the goal footage .

Triple M just reporting Bugg cleared. LOL

 

[Adam H]

Triple M just reporting Bugg cleared. LOL

So a legal act was looked at LOL makes sense.

 

[blktreacle]

The mrp statement said that Reiwoldt should have received a free kick for a push in the back.

Also a player who unintentionally made a hit like that would have apologised

 

[grouse mate]

The mrp statement said that Reiwoldt should have received a free kick for a push in the back.

Also a player who unintentionally made a hit like that would have apologised

Which is wrong, if they wanted to pay a free it would be for charging. No wonder MRP is a mess.

 

[Adam H]

Which is wrong, if they wanted to pay a free it would be for charging. No wonder MRP is a mess.

You can't smash a bloke in the back it's a free for you guessed it in the back.

 

[no orange peeler]

Fox Footy showed the wider vision on the reverse angle. mrp got it right. Free kick that is all

 

[joop]

Your right, as I said earlier marking contests and tackles. Maybe you should re-read the thread again.

Maybe you should give up and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Adam H]

Fox Footy showed the wider vision on the reverse angle. mrp got it right. Free kick that is all

If only we got that.

 

[blktreacle]

Which is wrong, if they wanted to pay a free it would be for charging. No wonder MRP is a mess.

Being a gws supporter, you are clearly new to the game and should probably listen to those who have been involved in it their entire lIves.

 

[inamedthegiants]

Triple M just reporting that Bugg could be in trouble due to behind the goal footage .

Unlike Triple M, the employer of Damian Barrett to get a scoop wrong.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Being a gws supporter, you are clearly new to the game and should probably listen to those who have been involved in it their entire lIves.

See, and you wonder why we hate Victorians. What an incredibly stupid, arrogant and pathetic comment.

Wake up to yourself.

 

[blktreacle]

See, and you wonder why we hate Victorians. What an incredibly stupid, arrogant and pathetic comment.

Wake up to yourself.

Mate I am very aware of my generalisation.

And that is honestly the first time I've heard a nswelshman acknowledge the rivalry that us "Mexicans" have with your lot

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Mate I am very aware of my generalisation.

And that is honestly the first time I've heard a nswelshman acknowledge the rivalry that us "Mexicans" have with your lot

If you're aware of the generalization, then why use it? If you knew you were being offensive then why go ahead and hit the Post Reply button?

From your answer to my post, it's pretty obvious you were just being a troll.

And so I'll say it again, without the broad generalisation - pathetic.

 

[blktreacle]

If you're aware of the generalization, then why use it? If you knew you were being offensive then why go ahead and hit the Post Reply button?

From your answer to my post, it's pretty obvious you were just being a troll.

And so I'll say it again, without the broad generalisation - pathetic.

Well I'm sorry that you are offended by a generalisation about football supporters mate. they happen every day. Example: Collingwood supporters have no teeth because they get in punch ons all the time.