Apparently It's On The DVD.

[GhostofJimJess]

For anyone that HAS seen "The DVD", can you kindly inform us all exactly how far are you allowed to punch the ball once it's crossed the line?

Feel free to add in any other details included on "The DVD", such as the direction of punch, how much of our time the umpire wasted parallel parking his car prior to the game, if it's whether the player in question's hair is parted in an offending position etc.

Also, what are the trailers prior to the main feature, "Have ... We ... Got ... What ... We ... Paid ... For?", and is it available on VHS as well?

My appreciation in advance.

 

[JSFish]

Hehe. Very good rant.

I'd like one done on the new rule regarding preventing a player participating in the next play after they dispose of it also.

 

[David3030]

Hehe. Very good rant.

I'd like one done on the new rule regarding preventing a player participating in the next play after they dispose of it also.

Sydney should be in a lot of trouble tonight based on this rule, especially Adam Goodes, he's gotten away with on numerous occasions

 

[Darth_Tiger]

absolutely jaw dropping decisions made by the umpires today. gifted geelong at least 3 goals (and that is being kind). how many times did one of our guys dump a player IN the tackle while he HAD the ball and then complete the tackle just after disposal and we get a free AND a 50 payed against? and since when is it holding the ball if you dont have any chance of getting rid of it? and since when do you get a free kick if someone so much as bumps you in play? oh thats right - when your name is steve johnson.

 

[Strawbs]

Yeah, does it mention on the latest edition of "THE DVD" that 'Prior Opportunity' is no longer a consideration when it comes to decisions made by the umps? Matty White was absolutely slaughtered by a couple of decisions. In fact the first free of the match was the good old, "You copped a dodgy handball from your teammate so it's holding the ball."

 

[CrashComic]

For anyone that HAS seen "The DVD", can you kindly inform us all exactly how far are you allowed to punch the ball once it's crossed the line?

Feel free to add in any other details included on "The DVD", such as the direction of punch, how much of our time the umpire wasted parallel parking his car prior to the game, if it's whether the player in question's hair is parted in an offending position etc.

Also, what are the trailers prior to the main feature, "Have ... We ... Got ... What ... We ... Paid ... For?", and is it available on VHS as well?

My appreciation in advance.

How can it be time wasting when:

1. They have to wait 45 seconds to bounce the ball for TV. You would have to kick it out of the ground to stop them getting the ball back in time.

2. There is a ready supply of balls next to the fence behind the goal.

The fact is the rule is outdated by the rule committee's own stupid new rules. Now it just provides the umpires with an additional opportunity to be pedants.

 

[L_J_T]

What about when some ******** kicks the ball out of the stadium from 5-10 metres out, im sure that's also time wasting...even more than when its punched into the crowd. We were slaughtered by the umps yesterday and they were gifted some absolute shockers which resulted in goals. All im asking for is a fair ****ing go with the umpires...is that too hard?

 

[Goldust]

Yeah, does it mention on the latest edition of "THE DVD" that 'Prior Opportunity' is no longer a consideration when it comes to decisions made by the umps? Matty White was absolutely slaughtered by a couple of decisions. In fact the first free of the match was the good old, "You copped a dodgy handball from your teammate so it's holding the ball."[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly!!

 

[Deledio2Conca]

It's Geelong. They are untouchable when it comes to the umpires.

 

[Wil03]

This 50m penalty for holding off the ball or a tackle lingering to long is going to ruin the game and lose a team a final. I like most of the new rules but this is horrible or officiated incorrectly. Polo's one he got called for was just woeful. I thought the rule was to stop taggers holding off the ball or getting taken out of a play with a tackle to long. If a guy is tackling someone and the ball spills out in the tackle or is thrown out how is the tackler sposed to know this? u r looking at the hips not above the head. If a guy gets a legitimate handball out i have no problem with a free kick but to often these days players r allowed to incorrectly dispose of it by dropping it or it spilling out and get a free kick
Plus the penalty(50 metres) does not fit the crime. Poor rule AFL

 

[Darth_Tiger]

This 50m penalty for holding off the ball or a tackle lingering to long is going to ruin the game and lose a team a final. I like most of the new rules but this is horrible or officiated incorrectly. Polo's one he got called for was just woeful. I thought the rule was to stop taggers holding off the ball or getting taken out of a play with a tackle to long. If a guy is tackling someone and the ball spills out in the tackle or is thrown out how is the tackler sposed to know this? u r looking at the hips not above the head. If a guy gets a legitimate handball out i have no problem with a free kick but to often these days players r allowed to incorrectly dispose of it by dropping it or it spilling out and get a free kick
Plus the penalty(50 metres) does not fit the crime. Poor rule AFL

exactly - huge load of crap. it is meant to be only if a player holds someone off or tackles them without it (which is holding the man anyway). stupid over reaction to give a 50 and a free.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

To be honest, I haven't seen the stats, but I thought we got the better of the umpiring yesterday in terms of quantity of decisions in our favor. Likewise the Saints had the majority (deservedly I might add) of the favorable adjudicating on Friday night.

But I will qualify this stance with a few observations:

1. Richmond clearly attacked the ball with more vigour in more contested situations, and got "in and under" more often, thus enabling more opportunity for free kicks to be awarded.

2. Probably courtesy to our desperation not to be blown out on the scoreboard by a super-dangerous opposition, most often this ferocity was in a defensive locale or after a re-start around the centre. We rarely won a free kick in a scoring position, which cost us in the end.

3.

how many times did one of our guys dump a player IN the tackle while he HAD the ball and then complete the tackle just after disposal and we get a free AND a 50 payed against?

The Cats have mastered the art of getting players around the ball when they are in possession. When tackled, they released one arm and let the ball trickle out to their own teammates advantage. Numerous times this occurred yesterday, and invariably you would hear the umpire call "Ball spilled in the tackle". Unfortunately, our guys aren't astute enough to do this, and tend to get pinged retaining possession. Congrats to the Cats on this - they're merely exploiting the rule while they can.

4.

This 50m penalty for holding off the ball or a tackle lingering to long is going to ruin the game and lose a team a final. I like most of the new rules but this is horrible or officiated incorrectly. Polo's one he got called for was just woeful. I thought the rule was to stop taggers holding off the ball or getting taken out of a play with a tackle to long. If a guy is tackling someone and the ball spills out in the tackle or is thrown out how is the tackler sposed to know this? u r looking at the hips not above the head. If a guy gets a legitimate handball out i have no problem with a free kick but to often these days players r allowed to incorrectly dispose of it by dropping it or it spilling out and get a free kick
Plus the penalty(50 metres) does not fit the crime. Poor rule AFL

The rule about dumping a player beyond the initial tackle was a genuine and worthy attempt to stem the trend of taking players out and preventing them from participating in the next contest.

But there was some tragic mis-interpretations of it yesterday. The one in the thrid quarter when Jackson tackled Ablett, it spilled behind the contest (with Newmo charging off through the centre) was terrible. Firstly, Jackson's tackle was a genuine continuation of his initial action, and NOT a second action after the ball had gone. Secondly, Jackson could not have known the whereabouts of the ball. And thirdly, surely a fifty should only result if the ball had spilled to Geelong's advantage? Otherwise it should just be a free kick to the Cats for holding the man?

5.

Yeah, does it mention on the latest edition of "THE DVD" that 'Prior Opportunity' is no longer a consideration when it comes to decisions made by the umps? Matty White was absolutely slaughtered by a couple of decisions. In fact the first free of the match was the good old, "You copped a dodgy handball from your teammate so it's holding the ball."

For some reason, umpires tend to accumulate time spent in possession by players on the same team. As if two or three (or more) "half-tackles" constitute one "full-tackle". Clearly this is wrong, and each player should be entitled to a full opportunity to dispose of the ball, no matter how many tackles have been laid in the preceeding few moments, or how excited and vocal the crowd are because of this sequence of "half-tackles".

6. Unfortunately, most of the questionable decisions awarded TO Geelong resulted in scoreboard damage to us. They're a good team - they know how to win.

 

[bragg]

does this dvd come with bonus extras " the geelong rubber knees " detailing the connection between contact , throwing out of the arms buckling at the knees and its relationn to the instant blowing of the whistle ???...it would be nice if this ongoing overlooked series was put to DVD

 

[smasha]

Those 2 goals kicked by the umpires cost us the game.



Same old Umpires-always cheating when it comes to Richmond.