Umpiring

[Coach_Required]

Watched on tv, but the disapproval of the umpires post game was loud enough for me to enjoy. The bronx cheers just as loud too. The Channel 7 commentary was a disgrace too. Refused to bite all night. The best was Baker being tripped some campaigner said he tripped over himself in what world did that happen?

The best part was at the end of the game, you could hear the booing when the umpires walked off, the commentators did mention Richmond fans not happy about something .. LOL no shit sherlock.

 

[Coach_Required]

Another swallowed third umpire replay.

Will get the first 4 free kicks, probably 1 resulting in a goal, then about 3 free kicks until 3qtr time before getting 4 kicks in the back pocket in the last quarter.

Oppo flogs will say we were gifted a goal early, stop our whinging, even though total free kicks will be something like 27 to 11.

 

[Siberiantiger]

Prior opportunity rulings are open slather for mixed interpretations.

But then getting rid of it would mean tightening up on holding the man without the ball and there's no way that's happening.

There seems to be an epidemic of it every time a Richmond jumper's worn...

Especially at ball-ups and throw-ins.

 

[banana_bus]

Just one glass half full observation. The further we've free kick screwed, the better we've been playing. Go figure? If this trend continue vs Bears, scoreboard wise, we gonna whoop their hairy ass.

They don't need to screw us if we're playing shit though right? Just adds to the conspiracy

 

[STRUGGLETOWN EST1885]

It's quite possible that the introduction of the fluoro yellow in our jumpers around 2017 or so coincided with the umpires starting to go in dry against us. Maybe they get startled by the fluoro!! It's a wild theory I know but our recent success also happened to start when going fluoro. 3 flags with crap umpiring. I can live with that fellas. Check this out. I ain't colour blind but maybe I'm onto something?

Richmond Home Jumpers

add your site description here

www.footyjumpers.com

 

[TheOptimum18]

for the record I don't remember this particular tackle that's being talked about, so maybe it was a correct ruling here

Think it was the 3rd quarter in our attacking fifty. It's easy to recall for me because Dusty goes up to Razor to ask about why it wasn't HTB, and Razor's reasoning was quite clear through the broadcast.

 

[TheOptimum18]

for the record I don't remember this particular tackle that's being talked about, so maybe it was a correct ruling here. but yeah no prior doesn't mean you can get away with anything, and the umpires certainly let that happen a lot. just watch a carltoon game

Found on Twitter, for reference.

 

[Mr Unbelievable]

Found on Twitter, for reference.

 

[footylover201]

Found on Twitter, for reference.

Both decisions are correct, Rioli goes to fend off the saints player so he forfeits his prior opportunity and doesn’t dispose of it correctly. Crouch has no prior, doesn’t fend and attempts to dispose of it, doesn’t matter that he missed his foot because you only have to attempt to dispose of it, so play on is correct


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[biaseddustyfan]

Crouch has no prior, doesn’t fend and attempts to dispose of it, doesn’t matter that he missed his foot because you only have to attempt to dispose of it, so play on is correct


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

yea it looks like Crouch might have even got a toe on it here

like I said on the previous page, you have to make a GENUINE attempt to CORRECTLY dispose of it, which the likes of Cripps and every Dogs player NEVER do, they just drop it and it should be a free for incorrect disposal even with no prior. but in this case he does genuinely try to kick it and maybe even successfully make contact

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

AFL must lead debate on tackle crackdown before outrage industry does | Jonathan Horn

The recent spate of suspensions for dangerous tackles may be the least understood and worst explained change in the history of the sport

www.theguardian.com

 

[All Aust]

it looks like Crouch might have even got a toe on it

like I said on the previous page, you have to make a GENUINE attempt to CORRECTLY dispose of it, which the likes of Cripps and every Dogs player NEVER do, they just drop it and it should be a free for incorrect disposal even with no prior. but in this case he does genuinely try to kick it and maybe even successfully make contact

And footylover201. Come in ere, speakin yer facts, making sense...Smartarses tha pair o ye!

 

[TigerImposter]

Well if that actually is the rule it is stupid.
Introduces another level of unnecessary complexity. If you get tackled with the ball and illegally dispose of it....BALL.
And as for Razor with the "accidentally got him high"? Jeez don't tell me that's a rule. 90% of high contact is accidental.
And above all this, the inconsistencies are glaring, it's needs to be simplified.
When I played footy (I know, I know) if you got tackled you had to get rid of it by handball or kick, there was no prior opportunity rubbish.
And if you were under the pump, often you didn't take possession but knocked it on, knowing if you picked it up you'd be tackled and pinged.
The ball movement was just fine back then with no prior.

I’m still annoyed about King Dik shoving the ball in Balta’s face. The head is supposed to be protected and they’ve reversed decisions if a player touches another guys hair. It was also uncalled for , disrespectful and bringing the game into disrepute by their logic. Nothing was said afterwards and it was like oh it’s a RFC player so who gives a shit. I would love to see what would’ve happened if Noah did the same thing. Oh no ! I already know.

 

[smasha]

It's almost the AFL have this on their Umpire recruitment enrolment forms.

"Do you hate Richmond's guts?"

 

[TiggerMan22]

Cerra got as many frees just against Gold Coast than Taranto AND Prestia AND Bolton AND Dusty AND Cotchin got against Freo AND St.Kilda.

5 Richmond mids over 2 games: 295 possessions, 131 contested possessions, 61 clearances, 42 tackles, half a game played in pouring rain= 5 frees (and of course one of those to Bolton was the 'no advantage' which actually disadvantaged us)

Cerra in 1 game: 27 touches, 17 contested, 8 clearances, 2 tackles = 5 frees.

 

[Grrr]

Not talking about the umpiring of Richmond games, but all this whining about tackling and the death of it etc. Coaches of all people complaining that their players are confused even after the AFL sent round a video on how to tackle and how not. The coaches didn't even show their players in some instances.

Did anyone else notice how differently Richmond tackled last week v the Saints. Hardly a tackle that ended in a player being decked. We held them up and where possibly a second player came in to assist. It was noticeably different to previous weeks, looks like Mini showed his players the AFL vid.

I've been watching footy for a long time and it is only the last few years that taking players to the ground hard has been the fashion. Nobody did it 30 odd years ago, and football was bloody good back then. The bump was on but tackle to the ground with pinned arms almost never happened. Players were rarely concussed after a tackle. So it has been the coaches that have led the new tackling techniques, and by the look of the Richmond game, it will coaches that leads them out of it.

Coaches don't want players to get a kick away when tackling. Tackle and pin the arms and take the legs out of it by taking them to ground. Who cares if Cotchin, who is the master of being tackled and getting a boot to the ball, kicks a scrubber 5m away, then it is a 50-50 ball and the game keeps moving, like in the 'good old days'. Coaches don't want it they would rather go to a ball up and take their more controlled odds.

To make matters worse is that in the in the back free is almost never played these days, so the guy going for the ball has to try and milk round the neck frees. The push in the back was about the most common free years ago and it protected the ball player and generally allowed them to take the ball and distribute without being piled on. Again keep the ball moving. Instead we have the stand rule. Reward the ball player rather than the tackler.

Feel free to pass this on to Gill and co, and good on Mini for maybe starting something.

 

[tony__montana]

Watched on tv, but the disapproval of the umpires post game was loud enough for me to enjoy. The bronx cheers just as loud too. The Channel 7 commentary was a disgrace too. Refused to bite all night. The best was Baker being tripped some campaigner said he tripped over himself in what world did that happen?

yep i choked when i heard that! To compound it, have you noticed the gaslighting towards us from the commentators. Nearly every game they simply do NOT mention how a free missed for us is harsh etc, but then will highlight and mention a freekick missed for the other side. Couldnt believe my ears when that campaigner mentioned Baker coming off the mark to smother the ball for a goal. What about the dozen or so the other way you bit your tongue about you ****en clown

 

[TiggerMan22]

Free against this season per game

Saints: 22, 16, 18, 19, 15, 20, 14, 18, 14, 14, 16, 20, 12
Freo: 23, 23, 21, 21, 15, 18, 13, 10, 23, 15, 13, 7, 16
GWS: 15, 19, 17, 11, 18, 17, 20, 12, 17, 18, 12, 10, 15, 13
Port: 25, 34, 22, 33, 24, 23, 28, 12, 17, 19, 14, 17, 19, 19

Crazy 3 weeks in a row we were the oppositions lowest frees against for the season + 2nd lowest for Port.

 

[Freddy Swift]

There were two incidents that really pissed me off.

Early in the game King takes a mark and goals. Not one mention by the commentators about how the umpires missed Kings hand in Baltas face holding him off while he marked.

Second when the St Kilda player ran head first into, was it Prestia/Baker?, and the Saints player was paid a free kick for high contact. He caused the contact himself. Bloody ridiculous and still the commentators said nothing.

Are they not watching or have they been told not to say anything? Really blatant misses by the umpires and there is just silence in the commentary box. So, so frustrating.

 

[Phar Ace]

Both decisions are correct, Rioli goes to fend off the saints player so he forfeits his prior opportunity and doesn’t dispose of it correctly. Crouch has no prior, doesn’t fend and attempts to dispose of it, doesn’t matter that he missed his foot because you only have to attempt to dispose of it, so play on is correct


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Agree, based on the current interpretation, but that interpretation is inequitable. 'Making an attempt', with or without prior opportunity should be irrelevant, the umpires already have too much responsibilty to read players minds and they have proven to be really crap at it - make then call it as they see it. If thew ball is dislodged by force or contact in the tackle/bump - play on, otherwise call the incorrect disposal.

 

[Grrr]

Second when the St Kilda player ran head first into, was it Prestia/Baker?, and the Saints player was paid a free kick for high contact. He caused the contact himself. Bloody ridiculous and still the commentators said nothing.

Did you see the same thing against Ross vs Port, Powell-Pepper could have broken a stationary Ross's legs he dived into them that hard. Round the neck to PP, the worst example I can remember.

 

[tony__montana]

Agree, based on the current interpretation, but that interpretation is inequitable. 'Making an attempt', with or without prior opportunity should be irrelevant, the umpires already have too much responsibilty to read players minds and they have proven to be really crap at it - make then call it as they see it. If thew ball is dislodged by force or contact in the tackle/bump - play on, otherwise call the incorrect disposal.

The thing is though even if you dont have prior, the only thing to do is to hold onto the ball and pretend youre trying to get rid of it, if you actually try and get rid of it with no prior and dont dispose of it correctly they pay HTB most times which flies in the face of whats being said half the time.

Im actually of the belief to really simplify the rule - take out the interpretation of the ball being knocked out or dislodged by force, you get tackled and it bobbles out regardless, your gone.

 

[Tiger2709]

Found on Twitter, for reference.

Do those supporters commenting on twitter even know the rules, what does prior have to do with incorrect disposal, had the Saints player held on to the ball then no free as he had no prior but he attempted to kick and missed so its a free kick for incorrect disposal, the Richmond player dropped the ball so the free is correct.
None of us care about the ones we give away they are generally there, its the amount we don't get, 18 free for in two weeks in games we led all day, numerous tackles for hardly any dropping the ball frees, ridiculous.

 

[banana_bus]

ot one mention by the commentators about how the umpires missed Kings hand in Baltas face holding him off while he marked.

Second when the St Kilda player ran head first into, was it Prestia/Baker?, and the Saints player was paid a free kick for high contact. He caused the contact himself. Bloody ridiculous and still the commentators said nothing.

There was an incident in the last quarter I think where a Tigers player decided not to attempt to tackle in defensive 50 when the Aints cheat picked the ball up, kept his head down and made a bee-line straight to him? Our bloke had to get out of the way bull fighting style.

 

[a_fighting_fury]

It's quite possible that the introduction of the fluoro yellow in our jumpers around 2017 or so coincided with the umpires starting to go in dry against us. Maybe they get startled by the fluoro!! It's a wild theory I know but our recent success also happened to start when going fluoro. 3 flags with crap umpiring. I can live with that fellas. Check this out. I ain't colour blind but maybe I'm onto something?

Richmond Home Jumpers

add your site description here

www.footyjumpers.com

I think Groupie_ would approve of this post. Another reason to abandon the fluoro yellow!