TalkingCarlton :: View topic - RICHO'S MARK? WHAT ABOUT WELSH'S?

Can't remember the quarter, but Simmo was paid one against in the goalsquare and from memory he used his hips to hold his ground.

Can't remember the quarter, but Simmo was paid one against in the goalsquare and from memory he used his hips to hold his ground.

Anyone remember this?

I wanna find the time and 1/4 to send in to KB and ask him to explain if that's an umpire error, or a correct interpretation of the rule

The Duke wrote:

i remeber this free,
i don't think the free was paid against simpson for hands in the back but the umpire said that the ball was not within 5 meters of the contest and simpson impeded his opponent

by the letter of the law technially there but not in the spirit of the game. IMO was good body positioning by simpson

the think that cost him is that the ball went over simpsons head, if he had of managed to get a hand to the ball it may have bene a different story.

lets go back to 1 umpire, so then we can only have 1 of them stuff the game up.

Author:	Blue Beatle [ Sun May 27, 2007 8:46 pm ]
Post subject:	RICHO'S MARK? WHAT ABOUT WELSH'S?
The Footy show today made much of Richo's non-mark because of the hands in the back. But have a look at Welsh's mark with five minutes to go inn the last quarter. If his hands weren't in Hartletts back then I'll go he (whatever that means)

Author:	Navy One [ Sun May 27, 2007 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:
Yep .... same thing ...... stupid rule. The rule must go !!!

Author:	timetodeliver2004 [ Mon May 28, 2007 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:
That rule does not apply to us I've decided. There was some shocking examples of it last week - the two paid against Houlihan, yet in the second one Campbell had pushed back into Houlihan with two hands right in the middle of Whitnall's back. That Welsh one was a disgrace and much worse than the one Fev was paid against him in the game against the Saints (that stopped our momentum). Also moments later in the Crows game, Fev got another shove in his back. I think Fev must be the only forward in the competition that has had that free kick paid against him more than he has been awarded it!

Author:	The Duke [ Mon May 28, 2007 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:
Can't remember the quarter, but Simmo was paid one against in the goalsquare and from memory he used his hips to hold his ground. Anyone remember this? I wanna find the time and 1/4 to send in to KB and ask him to explain if that's an umpire error, or a correct interpretation of the rule

Author:	SurreyBlue [ Mon May 28, 2007 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:
The Duke wrote: Can't remember the quarter, but Simmo was paid one against in the goalsquare and from memory he used his hips to hold his ground. His so small the umpire must have confused his hip for his hands. Seriously all this hysteria about "hands in the back" is just plain silly as the rule has been there since football's inception. It's just the AFL/Umpires let the glories 80's/90's high fliers (Capper) get away with it and hense open up the loop hole. Get a brain AFL and stop making changes to suit in the first place. Remindes me of the bending of the elbow in cricket rule or should I say the "Muli" (can't spell his name) rule.!

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

RICHO'S MARK? WHAT ABOUT WELSH'S? http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16351	Page 1 of 1

Author:	BIBI01 [ Mon May 28, 2007 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:
The Duke wrote: Can't remember the quarter, but Simmo was paid one against in the goalsquare and from memory he used his hips to hold his ground. Anyone remember this? I wanna find the time and 1/4 to send in to KB and ask him to explain if that's an umpire error, or a correct interpretation of the rule i remeber this free, i don't think the free was paid against simpson for hands in the back but the umpire said that the ball was not within 5 meters of the contest and simpson impeded his opponent by the letter of the law technially there but not in the spirit of the game. IMO was good body positioning by simpson the think that cost him is that the ball went over simpsons head, if he had of managed to get a hand to the ball it may have bene a different story. lets go back to 1 umpire, so then we can only have 1 of them stuff the game up.

Author:	AGRO [ Mon May 28, 2007 4:25 pm ]
Post subject:
BIBI01 wrote: The Duke wrote: Can't remember the quarter, but Simmo was paid one against in the goalsquare and from memory he used his hips to hold his ground. Anyone remember this? I wanna find the time and 1/4 to send in to KB and ask him to explain if that's an umpire error, or a correct interpretation of the rule i remeber this free, i don't think the free was paid against simpson for hands in the back but the umpire said that the ball was not within 5 meters of the contest and simpson impeded his opponent by the letter of the law technially there but not in the spirit of the game. IMO was good body positioning by simpson the think that cost him is that the ball went over simpsons head, if he had of managed to get a hand to the ball it may have bene a different story. lets go back to 1 umpire, so then we can only have 1 of them stuff the game up. Everyone knows I am not a Lance fan - but the one thing that he used to do was use his body intelligently in a marking or rucking contest - that element has been taken out of his game - because Jeff "The Bozo" Gieschen uses Lance as an example in that flowering Rules DVD. Any time Lance uses his body in a marking contest the umpires free kick him in an almost "Pavlov's Dog" response. Poor old Simmo copped it here as well - because the umpires saw a Carlton Jumper. Like ringing the dinner bell the umpire salivated and paid the free kick.

Author:	SurreyBlue [ Mon May 28, 2007 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:
Couldn't agree more Agro. One thing that used to make it wonderfull was the body on body contest (without hands), yet the AFL in their wisdom decided to take this out of the game as well. I like Basketball, always have always will, if only they could play it on a bigger ground where players could use their athleticism to run up and down the ground instead of a small sardine can, we would have the perfect game. Just incase anyone was wondering, yep that was sarcasm.

Author:	Chitty's Finger [ Mon May 28, 2007 6:03 pm ]
Post subject:
I was really hoping this was a thread about Richard Marx - alas, I should've known better.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/