Why does Nick Reiwoldt get soft frees?

[sherb]

That free kick he got tonight was a joke.

I doubt if Hall has received one that soft in his entire career.

 

[GuyIncognito]

And so it continues.

 

[Smoky]

What a joke.

It's pathetic

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Absolute joke. It has to be a deliberate favouring doesn't it? I mean, we all just saw that - it was ridiculous.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Why? The umps are scared it'll flood with tears if he doesn't get them.

 

[Bobby Giovanni]

Just another one for the albino. Absolutely pathetic, he's a far worse diver than Lloyd ever was.

 

[winty]

If Plugger, Dunstall and Ablett senior got soft frees like that, each of them would've kicked 2000 goals each.

 

[zebbitty]

****ing joke

 

[Smoky]

I'm starting to think he's more protected than Selwood...

And that's saying something

 

[JeffDunne]

In fairness to the umpire he paid it for blocking his lead (which he did) and obviously was unsighted by the push. If you didn't see the push then I can see why he'd pay it.

 

[Scroater]

I'll trade you every soft Roo free kick for each holding the ball decision not paid against the Bulldogs.

Reckon I'd be leading 10-1

10 - 1 is a bit rich considering the holding the ball that injured Fisher wasn't paid. Missed holding the balls are a dime a dozen every game. Same as soft free kicks to Reiwoldt.

 

[JeffDunne]

he's a far worse diver than Lloyd ever was.

He had a player pushed into him you goose.

Should be used to that happening after playing the masters of the tactic in the GF.

 

[JeffDunne]

Missed holding the balls are a dime a dozen every game.

They certainly are in this game.

 

[ishka29]

Geez Louise, would everyone give over about Roo. Give the guy a break.

It's not the guys fault he gets the softies, it's the umps. Too much inconsistency from the umps.

What Roo supposed to do?? Just hand over the ball to the op and say '" here you go mate you have it, it's a wrong decision". I wonder how the game would go if every player did the same.

 

[Smoky]

In fairness to the umpire he paid it for blocking his lead (which he did) and obviously was unsighted by the push. If you didn't see the push then I can see why he'd pay it.

No he didn't. He paid it for a chop on the arms... that never happened.

Nice spin you had on it though... although complete crap

 

[JeffDunne]

No he didn't. He paid it for a chop on the arms... that never happened.

So says . . . Robert Walls?

Nice spin you had on it though... although complete crap

Spin?

Nobody is suggesting it was a good decision.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Re: Why does Nick Reiwoldt gets soft frees?

If he didn't dive against the Bulldogs last year all this talk wouldn't happen. One incident has created an overreaction. Every forward gets soft free kicks.

One incident? He gets too many soft free kicks far too often. The softest forward in the AFL. Just look at him in comparison to Franklin and Hall in the last few years? He does get looked after and so does the Saints.

 

[Hodgepodge]

So says . . . Robert Walls?

So says the umpire who paid the decision. Paid for chopping the arms.

You're not allowed to touch Riewoldt.

 

[kosifantutti]

Hope we're all still watching. Barry Hall getting an armchair ride.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Hope we're all still watching. Barry Hall getting an armchair ride.

I hope you had your eyes open in the 1st quarter when St.Nick got his 1st.

 

[winty]

So says the umpire who paid the decision. Paid for chopping the arms.

You're not allowed to touch Riewoldt.

Spot on. I noticed Dawson had his hand on Barry's shoulder in the last quarter when spoiling, yet Barry didn't get a free. I bet if Morris did that to Riewoldt down the other end, the umpire wouldn't be able to blow his whistle quick enough to give Roo the free.

 

[Smoky]

Hope we're all still watching. Barry Hall getting an armchair ride.

Why? Because he was paid a free kick for being pushed in the back... nice try though

 

[kosifantutti]

I hope you had your eyes open in the 1st quarter when St.Nick got his 1st.

That's what the last two pages have been about.

Hall, besides the non existent push he got a free for, has a licence to tackle any opposition player whether they have the ball or not.

Gwilt in the first quarter, didn't take possession. Tackled by Hall. Bulldogs goal.

 

[kosifantutti]

Why? Because he was paid a free kick for being pushed in the back... nice try though

That's what it was paid for, but it didn't happen... nice try though

 

[winty]

Gwilt in the first quarter, didn't take possession. Tackled by Hall. Bulldogs goal.

The ball spilt out in the tackle.