the ump told him not to go on the mark. there is a time allowed for someone to get to the mark, and he was after that time, didnt matter what direction he came from.How does that rule work ? was Soldo allowed to man the mark ? if so what direction should he have come from to do so ?
except for when I think Graham marked the ball on our HFF, he turned around to look as was called play on. he may have gone off his line slightly, but it appeared pretty strict compared to what others do.Agree. Yeah this is yet another beef I have. The rule itself, if it is adjudicated and works as intended, already advantages the player with the ball. But that advantage is greatly increased by the adjudication being is tight as a fishes arse for the player on the mark, but loose as Granny Clampett's drawers for the player with the ball.
I don't blame the umps for this horrorshow at all.
Frayed.It is an absolute shitshow. But like Putin in Ukraine, the AFL honchos can't can't or won't see it, won't back down and can't lose face.
To me the fundamental fabric of the game is fraying.
Or boycott the game and force change.Too many people crying over the rule changes. Wonder if the playing group are doing similar? Just deal with it and move on!
AFL players can't boycott the game DA. Should only worry about what they CAN control.Or boycott the game and force change.
The people who pay the bills must be listened to
OK, thanks Brodders, so thats explanation number 3. And TBR just offered his second so we have 4 all up.the ump told him not to go on the mark. there is a time allowed for someone to get to the mark, and he was after that time, didnt matter what direction he came from.
compared to other instances it appeared the ump was pretty quick to tell him to stay out, but he did. so the 50 was there.
No its not actually. You'd be no good in a court of law biggie smalls.That's the same thing I'm saying, Bolton was the person the umpire had given time to either stand or leave, once that happens no other player can take the mark.
Yeah I know what you said, but it isn't the same as what Brodders said. I've had 4 different explanations of what the 50 was actually for. Which speaks volumes.
Therein lies part of the problem.AFL players can't boycott the game DA. Should only worry about what they CAN control.
As for the fans...well sure boycott if you feel that strongly. Still don't reckon that will force the change you want.
Good points but here is a novel idea...*smile* it off and we don't have to have these debates after every bloody game because of a sh!t, big time grey area rule !This was an undisciplined effort. We didn’t lose because we are Richmond and the umpires hate us.
We lost because we take no care in understanding or playing within the existent rules.
Jack Graham needs to have his backside kicked. Mouthed off - OK - in the heat of the moment that can happen. Take your lumps and move on. But to then run and deliberately get in the protected zone is ridiculous, inexcusable.
That aside, there are issues with the rules as they are being applied.
A player stands the mark at a specific and exact point as directed and forced by the controlling umpire. The player with the ball however is allowed to stand 5 metres to the left or right of that point with out any reference to that exact mark.
If you are going to have a stand rule should not the player with the ball be always required to start in a direct line with that point? There is already a laughable advantage given to the player with the ball in the delay between them moving off the position they have taken and the umpire reacting and calling play on.
They are anally fixated on the mark when kicking for goal why not apply it everywhere and all the time?
A player flopping like Matthew Lloyd when tackled should not be rewarded with a prohibited contact push in the back free kick. The rules - AFL Resources - state that prohibited contact occurs when a player pushes or bumps an opposition player in the back. We saw this at least twice last night where the umpire placed their own subjective interpretation on this rule. The rule is clear - a push or a bump. The player was tackled fairly within the rules - no push, no bump - then collapsed deliberately taking the tackler for a ride to the ground. Play on or holding the ball.
I get the desire for no umpire abuse. However, just because you have a whistle doesn’t mean you are deserving of respect. Do your job properly and earn it.
No, better idea...*smile* it off !Too many people crying over the rule changes. Wonder if the playing group are doing similar? Just deal with it and move on!
This. The ongoing rule changes and how confusing it’s made everything for everyone, umpires included, is doing more to turn people away from umpiring, than any other external factors.can you possibly imagine a single kid watching this circus of rule changes etc has been inspired to take up umpiring???
5 in the backs Kong.Cerra is a cheating piece of *smile* and the umps are too stupid to see him flopping. That and Ross horrible turnovers in the 4th qtr cost us the game
Its because it appears to be one of the most clear cut free kicks to pay. Hopefully the club makes a formal complaint and the cheating little mummy's boy doesn't get another one all year5 in the backs Kong.
That's on Selwood pace.
He was flopping and the dumb pricks kept on paying them.
as much as it pains me to say it, but yes we are. Im not sure what Bolton did, but Soldo was clearly told not to go on the mark, and he did.Think Brodders and I are just two halves of the same point.