Umpire nonsene.

[Olmy]

The recent decision to pay, generally what is reffered to as 'tiggy-touchwood' penalties against players for minor 'holding' offences, has got to be the biggest load of beauraucratic, over-regulating crap seen for the last few years.

Head of umpiring, Jeff Geischen, has even estimated that the decision could see up to 50 or 60 extra free kicks per game.

As far as I'm concerned, a player should only be awarded a free kick if he is unfairly impinged, and/or ******ed from being able to access the ball.

Why the hell do we need free kicks "that we don't need"? This is just another step which will see our game over regulated.

 

[Dan26]

It's one of those common-sense situations. If a player is getting held, but that holding has no influence on the game, the umpire should use a bit of common-sense, turn a blind eye, and let play continue. Only if a player is unfairly held, which impeded his progress should the umpire pay a free kick.

If you actually apply the rules of the game literally, you will have 150 free kicks a game. You need to use a bit of common-sense when umpiring.

 

[Asgardian]

Originally posted by Dan24:
common-sense when umpiring.

an oxy-moron?



------------------
Chris

(Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus)

 

[Blah]

Coming from SA, ArseGuardian, you'd know all about morons I'd expect.

 

[CJH]

Don’t worry, it’ll be like all other ‘new interpretations’. They will implement them for a week or two, then let ‘em slip and then carry on as before.

------------------
TigerFury.net - Independant Richmond Tigers website

 

[Blah]

Just joshing ya, Asgardian, mate!

 

[Mr Ripper]

*puts on asbestos jocks*

I reckon Giesch's directive is absolutely correct. There is no reason, in my opinion, for off the ball holding to be tolerated. The sooner it can be stamped out of the game, the better. I always thought use of the body was a skill of the game, not jumper scragging.

The problem, as I see it, is the maggots getting frightened off by all the nay-saying "let it go" types, such as what's posted here, and relaxing their stance on the rule to such a degree that it becomes worse than how it was to start with.

OK, we might get lots of annoying tiggy-touchwood frees to begin with, but if the maggots show more resolve and stick to their guns long enough, the players might get it through their bonces that holding is a no-no and cease to do it. Would be good for the game in the long run in my opinion.

 

[Dan26]

Ripper,

Now that you say it, I tend to agree with you.

But I hope the umps don't start looking for frees. I HATE that. Grrrrr. They should just let the action unfold in front of them, and award the free kick if they see it. Don;t turn your back on play, to catch a meaningless jumper hold 50 metres behind the play. That's infuriating. Do you agree?

 

[Mr Ripper]

Fairy nuff, if it's not relevant to the current passage of play.

 

[Grendel]

Spot on Ripper (is the first name Jack?)

If they actually ignored the publicity from the papers when the furore starts
"Umpires pay FIFTY FREES!!. Over umpiring ruining the game, says Newman" that sort of headlines sure to be seen in the first two weeks of the season proper.

If they stick at it for more than a half dozen weeks. Then (a strech i know) you might actually start to see some respect for them, not just from the players. But also from the fans as there might, just might
finally be some consistency to their
decisions.

------------------
Right now I'm having amnesia and deja vu at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.