We do not condone violence at the RFC
Officially
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We do not condone violence at the RFC
Officially
For those saying Essendon play a bruise free outside game, they have been an absolute tackling machine the past two weeks.
They have brought the manic pressure that we have made our trademark.
Ahhhh Grasshopper, faith. Believe and it shall be granted.
I know where he lives if that helps?I thought Dimma was great in his presser. Called the officials out as the amateurs they are. I’m showing my age here but I remember back in the 70s/80s a show called World of Sport had a segment called “What’s your decision” where they brought in umpires to the show to explain contentious decisions from the day before. The umpires were on a hiding to nothing but at least they had the guts to come in and show that they were human and they made mistakes. Fair play, move on. Today we have a ridiculous protection of umpires where they are not accountable for there poor decisions. As for the review system we have a nameless faceless person/s making important decisions and more often than not getting it wrong. How the Higgins goal was overturned is beyond me. Let’s make this clear. It was paid as a goal and under the current rules it needs to be overwhelming evidence to overturn the original decision. It’s either an agenda to even the comp or pure incompetence. I know it’s not life or death but you go to the footy to see a fair contest and we are just not getting it at the moment. Don’t bother emailing the AFL with any queries though. I sent an email to Stephen Hocking 3 weeks ago for an explanation on a few issues however I am yet to receive a reply.
3 incidents = ban was removed
Exactly. The whole thing is, from the goal umpires position he would be looking up at the ball from an angle where he wouldn’t see any padding on the post so the ball would appear over the line.Correct call. You can clearly see the ball hasnt completely passed the flag sticking out at an angle - and we are all well aware now that the flags are an integral structural component of the goal post
at least they’re consistent
****** in the head but consistent lol
What is this nonsense about goal post padding. The ball has to go over the line, in any part of the ground, including the goals. The goal posts without padding are the width of the line, so why the hell have they introduced goal post padding as a measure. It is nonsensical.Exactly. The whole thing is, from the goal umpires position he would be looking up at the ball from an angle where he wouldn’t see any padding on the post so the ball would appear over the line.
Correct decision.
However he doesn’t have the conviction to make the call and gets a review. New camera angle shows the player touching the ball with a bit of it behind the padding, or even the sticks as you say.
Called a behind. AFL say correct decision.
If the goal umpire had called goal and the ball went back to the centre, chances are they wouldn’t have been able to review it quick enough, ball up, goal stands.
What is this nonsense about goal post padding. The ball has to go over the line, in any part of the ground, including the goals. The goal posts without padding are the width of the line, so why the hell have they introduced goal post padding as a measure. It is nonsensical.
What is this nonsense about goal post padding. The ball has to go over the line, in any part of the ground, including the goals. The goal posts without padding are the width of the line, so why the hell have they introduced goal post padding as a measure. It is nonsensical.
And I bet nobody has even thought to ask them that question.If we stapled Astbury’s hand to the goal post does that mean the ball has to go passed his entire body before it can be called a goal?
Yes that is so, but in the instance of a goal going over the line, it is against the way it has been umpired always. If it hits the padding, part of the post there is no other way to adjudicate, it has to be part of the post. The law of the game has always been the line and should remain so.Cos if it hits the padding it’s a point.
Yes that is so, but in the instance of a goal going over the line, it is against the way it has been umpired always. If it hits the padding, part of the post there is no other way to adjudicate, it has to be part of the post. The law of the game has always been the line and should remain so.
If the ball was dribbling over the line, would the ump refer to the width of the padding, no they would measure against the line. Inconsistent.
Just a little thing, but it pisses me off... a bit, not normally such a pedant.
Does the boundary line pass through the middle of the posts?!? Why...if the posts now have padding on them?!?Yes that is so, but in the instance of a goal going over the line, it is against the way it has been umpired always. If it hits the padding, part of the post there is no other way to adjudicate, it has to be part of the post. The law of the game has always been the line and should remain so.
Just a little thing, but it pisses me off... a bit, not normally such a pedant.
Does the boundary line pass through the middle of the posts?!? Why...if the posts now have padding on them?!?
Essentially they have different rules subject to the distance of the ball off the ground, totally ridiculous.Is the line as fat as the post padding? That would at least be consistent
Exactly...AFL with their Rule changes on the run...with no imput from those that are directly involved...so now we have a cascaded effect of different scenarios for what constitutes and does not constitute a goal in relation to the goal posts and boundary line between the goal posts...and goal post padding!Essentially they have different rules subject to the distance of the ball off the ground, totally ridiculous.
Theoretically if Hickey had ridden on a players shoulder and touched the ball at exactly the same position between the posts then it would have been cleared as a goal immediately because it would have been touched higher than the level of the padding, sounds more ludicrous the more you examine the whole saga.
Won’t be back till the Geelong game at the earliest by the sound of itdoes anyone know what is up with meatball prestia?
missing link I reckon
Maybe the umps and the bloke up stairs can wear some X-ray glasses to make me happy. A line is a line is a line.Does the boundary line pass through the middle of the posts?!? Why...if the posts now have padding on them?!?
Yes, but add the flags and the padding to the post to determine the width? which is what happened in another review a few weeks back, again to our detriment.Exactly...AFL with their Rule changes on the run...with no imput from those that are directly involved...so now we have a cascaded effect of different scenarios for what constitutes and does not constitute a goal in relation to the goal posts and boundary line between the goal posts...and goal post padding!