I've been away for a few weeks and would need to view the video again which I can't since it says above that the video has expired. But from what I can remember, I don't think Riewoldt needed to do that because it didn't leverage him any higher to take the mark.
Ahh, more amateur hour from the AFL, more from the 'good ol boys' club making it up as they go along.
Regardless of if a rule is good/bad/other it should stand until the end of the season.
That would be fair and consistent, the AFL's kryptonite.
Oh, a trip to Perth in Week 1 actually appeals to me. Lesser sides have beaten you at home this year. Knocking you off at Optus would improve our worthiness, yeah?
Its more like the Riewoldt rule, his feet go out when behind other players. He's the main instigator of that extravegent action. Check his dive on the boundary line, when Mc govern tapped his back, in last half of game. Only won a free because on the G.
You blokes are precious about Hardwick,aren’t you?
When did I say that you couldn’t win? I pointed out that it would take a mighty effort and so it proved.
It was never better than 50/50 and your boys won.
In case you didn’t read it elsewhere,kudos to the Tigers.
Darling can look after himself.
Oh,and I hope you have to come to Perth some time soon.
Suck it up, Rotdoc. The Tiges did something you said we couldn't . . . beat your mob. Have some grace. Now if it were your Darling . . . ? Things would be different, wouldn't they?
You really think Hardwick(or Riewoldt) are sulking? They made their comments directly after a game they won. Riewoldt took another couple of speccies and then kicked the winning goal. You, on the other hand, spent 2 weeks slagging off the 'fur babies' and have spent the last 48 hours whinging on every post you can find. I know losing your home final is a tough pill to swallow, but you will just have to 'get over it'.
You honestly believe that the 2 free kicks paid against Riewoldt were the right decisions going forward? You'd then have to be happy that they would be paid every match from now on, against your team too. Anyone with eyes can see that the rule as it was applied was ridiculous, hence why the AFL changed it yesterday. The question is, why did they not write it correctly in the first place before it had the chance to ruin a match like it almost did yesterday (2 shots on goal taken away from Jack)...
I don’t think Hardwick would have expected the AFL to change the interpretation of the studs rule. I would have thought his criticism of the rule was merely to give some comfort and support to his player. There wasn’t any need for the AFL to take a knee-jerk reaction. The stud rule is a sensible rule which should stay as is.
I am not sure why you bring the 5 metre interference rule into it, that is not what the free was for. Regardless, I doubt the ball was over 5 metres away. If it was then most speckies would be an infringement.
Jack is playing the game the same way it has been played for over a hundred years. The 'Toby Greene' rule was never meant to penalize a perfectly executed mark like the ones Jack Riewoldt was attempting.
It looks a bad habit he’s got into, sticking his foot out in a marking contest. Putting an opponent out of the contest when the ball is over 5 metres from them is actually an infringement of the rules. The second episode shown here clearly displays that. Jack is it so hard to go for a mark, whilst keeping your legs far more vertical? If every marking contest had players always sticking their boots out to displace an opponent the injury lists would be even greater, probably with hyper extended landings. You have to modify Jack.
Martin
Roar Rookie
I've been away for a few weeks and would need to view the video again which I can't since it says above that the video has expired. But from what I can remember, I don't think Riewoldt needed to do that because it didn't leverage him any higher to take the mark.
Ads
Guest
Ahh, more amateur hour from the AFL, more from the 'good ol boys' club making it up as they go along. Regardless of if a rule is good/bad/other it should stand until the end of the season. That would be fair and consistent, the AFL's kryptonite.
RT
Roar Rookie
Such garbage. It was a blatant free.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Oh, a trip to Perth in Week 1 actually appeals to me. Lesser sides have beaten you at home this year. Knocking you off at Optus would improve our worthiness, yeah?
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
The Riewoldt Rule! I like it. Or perhaps Riewoldt rules!
Razzar
Guest
Its more like the Riewoldt rule, his feet go out when behind other players. He's the main instigator of that extravegent action. Check his dive on the boundary line, when Mc govern tapped his back, in last half of game. Only won a free because on the G.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Not precious at all. He was right!
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
You blokes are precious about Hardwick,aren’t you? When did I say that you couldn’t win? I pointed out that it would take a mighty effort and so it proved. It was never better than 50/50 and your boys won. In case you didn’t read it elsewhere,kudos to the Tigers. Darling can look after himself. Oh,and I hope you have to come to Perth some time soon.
The Brazilian
Roar Rookie
Suck it up, Rotdoc. The Tiges did something you said we couldn't . . . beat your mob. Have some grace. Now if it were your Darling . . . ? Things would be different, wouldn't they?
Slane
Guest
You really think Hardwick(or Riewoldt) are sulking? They made their comments directly after a game they won. Riewoldt took another couple of speccies and then kicked the winning goal. You, on the other hand, spent 2 weeks slagging off the 'fur babies' and have spent the last 48 hours whinging on every post you can find. I know losing your home final is a tough pill to swallow, but you will just have to 'get over it'.
Alfred
Guest
You honestly believe that the 2 free kicks paid against Riewoldt were the right decisions going forward? You'd then have to be happy that they would be paid every match from now on, against your team too. Anyone with eyes can see that the rule as it was applied was ridiculous, hence why the AFL changed it yesterday. The question is, why did they not write it correctly in the first place before it had the chance to ruin a match like it almost did yesterday (2 shots on goal taken away from Jack)...
Martin
Roar Rookie
I don’t think Hardwick would have expected the AFL to change the interpretation of the studs rule. I would have thought his criticism of the rule was merely to give some comfort and support to his player. There wasn’t any need for the AFL to take a knee-jerk reaction. The stud rule is a sensible rule which should stay as is.
RT
Roar Rookie
Yeah. Hardwick was the only person critical of this rule. Or maybe the AFL realised it was wrong.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
First Clarkson meeting up for coffee to get what he wanted and now Hardwick having a sulk and getting what he wants. That sucks.
Razzar
Guest
In the 2nd incident Riewoldt got the stops in early...Just like bumping an opponent early in a marking contest...free kick.
RT
Roar Rookie
I am not sure why you bring the 5 metre interference rule into it, that is not what the free was for. Regardless, I doubt the ball was over 5 metres away. If it was then most speckies would be an infringement.
Slane
Guest
Jack is playing the game the same way it has been played for over a hundred years. The 'Toby Greene' rule was never meant to penalize a perfectly executed mark like the ones Jack Riewoldt was attempting.
Razzar
Guest
It looks a bad habit he’s got into, sticking his foot out in a marking contest. Putting an opponent out of the contest when the ball is over 5 metres from them is actually an infringement of the rules. The second episode shown here clearly displays that. Jack is it so hard to go for a mark, whilst keeping your legs far more vertical? If every marking contest had players always sticking their boots out to displace an opponent the injury lists would be even greater, probably with hyper extended landings. You have to modify Jack.