Jun
21
2007
0

Are channel 7 & 10 in cahoots with the AFL?

the new rule changes, and the overall poor umpiring witnessed this year has only been worsened by Channel sevens commentary team’s apparent apathy as to what has been happening. This year has been quite extraordinarily poor in umpiring decisions, so much to the point where i believe that poor decisions have actually affected the result of games ( i think Essendon could have an extra 12 points on the ladder this year due to this). However i have been stunned at Tim Watson’s, Bruce Macavaney’s, and-most disappointingly- Dennis Cometti’s ignorance as to what the umpires are doing to games. Rather than showing empathy to the player wronged, we hear laughter to the players reaction, or at best, a slight hint that the umpire might have got it wrong. Don Scott used to show his anger, however he does not call games anymore. Are our current commentators simply towing the line? Has the AFL ensured these commentators arent to be too critical? Its hard enough to watch an injustice on the field, but for it to go unnoticed by these experts makes watching the game painful. Listening to the Rich v Freo game on ABC radio, a commentator expressed utter disappointment at a decision. He also went on to illustrate just how much it effected the game. Richmonds Shane Edwards was tackled high, but was pinned for holding the ball, resulting in a

Freo goal. However the ball should have ended up in the opposite goalsquare. it was a massive injustice resulting in a big turnaround in scores in a crucial time of the game. As a listener, sure i was annoyed, yet i was properly informed by the commentator. i cant speak the same for those on commercial television. These callers should call the game democratically and with diplomacy, but not in a fashion to paint the game as its not. im fed up with not having umpiring decisions corrected, or of hearing reports of a “great game”, when it was anything but. Our teams and players are fair game to intense criticism, what about the state of the game and its umpires too?

Written by in: AFL | Tags: , ,
May
31
2007
0

Push In The Back – My Suggestion

The problem with the current rule is that it is nearly impoessible for an umpire to interpret the difference between a push in the back and someone trying to stand their ground and hold the player in front at bay. To say that the player in the rear can use his forearm is ridiculous, all this will do is reduce the amount of marks taken in a game, to be quite frank, that is already overumpired and ugly !!! More time on the ground scurrying after the ball – no thanks!

My suggested improvement is as follows – If the player in front that is alledgedly being infringed upon is in a forward motion then the rule should be enforced – This is what the rule is for, the player first to the ball should not be disadvantaged by a nudge in the back to get him out of the way. Now, this rule should be restricted to a push by hand or forearm only. Body on body contact should be considered incidental and not penalised.

natural alternative to viagra or cialis

If the player

in front stops, props or tries to push back against the player behind him, then he loses all rights relating to the in the back rule.

I can see issues already with Matthew Lloyd diving forward but this has been a problem for years and will remain a problem when it is left to human interpretation.

Interested to hear anyone elses thoughts on this subject or a better way to interpret the rule because quite clearly, it isn’t cheap viagra working in its current form!

Written by in: AFL | Tags: , ,

Powered by WordPress | Theme: FreeUsenext