Patrick Smith's Remedy For 3/4 Time Attack

[St George]

"A free-kick to Riewoldt from the goal square could have started the final quarter. That would be a remedy that would end such nonsense."
Patrick Smith The Australian 12/07/10

Good idea Patrick!

One umpire did give the cowardly pri*k a real gobfull! But not enough.

[Hurricane]

THe commentary on the night thaught a free kick in the goal square would have been enough to stop the cowardly 3/4 time tactics too.

It would stop it for sure and I would put money on the filth players giving Roo the exact same treatment but I seriously doubt he will get any free kicks for the tactics they are almost certain to use

BANG BANG

[saintbrat]

"A free-kick to Riewoldt from the goal square could have started the final quarter. That would be a remedy that would end such nonsense."
Patrick Smith The Australian 12/07/10

Good idea Patrick!

One umpire did give the cowardly pri*k a real gobfull! But not enough.

did you see the players dismissal of the ' talking to' and then winked at him,?

[St George]

I saw the wink, didn't know who it was directed to

[saintbrat]

I saw the wink, didn't know who it was directed to

I've only seen it once but if not directed at Umpire was certainly in relation to the discussion..

[supersaints]

The AFL will think about it, then they will invoke their new rulle then use it against us , the first time a St Kilda player pushes someone during a break............

[rodgerfox]

Is he serious??

We just willy-nilly introduce a new rule because a dude gave a little weak bump to a guy??

What the hell are we trying to create here? Do we really want a non-contact sport where the slightest hint of serious competitiveness is killed off from the game?


F*ck me, I can't believe the footy public sometimes.

Next we'll be saying that the AFL should suddenly change the rules and hand out 12 week suspensions to blokes who niggle off the ball. Oh wait....

[Thinline]

Is he serious??

We just willy-nilly introduce a new rule because a dude gave a little weak bump to a guy??

What the hell are we trying to create here? Do we really want a non-contact sport where the slightest hint of serious competitiveness is killed off from the game?


F*ck me, I can't believe the footy public sometimes.

Next we'll be saying that the AFL should suddenly change the rules and hand out 12 week suspensions to blokes who niggle off the ball. Oh wait....

For fear of reawakening your 'don't defend Patrick Smith under any circs' tirade', read the segment of the article before spraying.

The nonsense he's referring to is the melee, not the bump:

"St Kilda has had much to handle this year. Even some issues on the field. The club has managed the bad press with style.

Coach Ross Lyon is not a man of extremes therefore nothing is spectacular, nor is anything disastrous. Everything is there just to be handled and managed. Yet even he has been drawn uncharacteristically into the media glare after he criticised Brisbane for the manner in which the Lions played against Riewoldt on the captain's return to football at the Gabba.

"Clearly, he was targeted," Lyon said after the match. "There was a bit of garbage we had to put up with. I thought some boundaries had been set and I thought they were crossed quite clearly. He will continue to be targeted but, like all champions, he will continue to deliver."

Boundaries? He must have been referring to Steven Baker's nine-match suspension after the Saint's serial harassment of Geelong's Stevie Johnson in round 13.

It is not that Lyon does not have a point, but rather that he would bother with it anyway. Since he took over as coach in 2007 Lyon has never sought to run an agenda in the media. Other coaches might have made an art form of that distraction but not Lyon.

Still, that Lyon was moved to mention the treatment of Riewoldt was a backhander to the match review panel. Yet another.

That Brisbane's unhealthy interest in Riewoldt did ignite a three-quarter-time melee which as always dimmed the AFL's cherished image is undeniable. Amon Buchanan collected Riewoldt in the back as the players headed for their huddles.

Riewoldt responded, as did the rest of the players, and a sprawling melee resulted. It is the look of a schoolyard brawl, inexcusable behaviour for adolescents never mind grown men.

The AFL will fine those players it finds guilty of rule breaches but until a more damaging penalty is administered on the ground then the deterrent is only monetary. While that might sting, the possible loss of premiership points is killing. A free-kick to Riewoldt from the goal square could have started the final quarter. That would be a remedy that would end such nonsense."

[saint75]

Is he serious??

We just willy-nilly introduce a new rule because a dude gave a little weak bump to a guy??

What the hell are we trying to create here? Do we really want a non-contact sport where the slightest hint of serious competitiveness is killed off from the game?


F*ck me, I can't believe the footy public sometimes.

Next we'll be saying that the AFL should suddenly change the rules and hand out 12 week suspensions to blokes who niggle off the ball. Oh wait....

You may want to take this issue up with the MRP and Dimetriou. They started all this crap with the 9 week suspension to Baker. No one would be questioning all the soft bumps and jumper punches if they hadn't slammed Baker. Good for one player, it is good for another. We all want 'consistency' and 'equality' after all........

[fingers]

I think his point is, "what do you do when there is a clear infringement after the siren has gone" - answer pay a free kick at the resumption of play.

[Thinline]

I think his point is, "what do you do when there is a clear infringement after the siren has gone" - answer pay a free kick at the resumption of play.

Seems reasonable to me. As long as the incident is of sufficient weight.

[degruch]

Is he serious??

We just willy-nilly introduce a new rule because a dude gave a little weak bump to a guy??

What the hell are we trying to create here? Do we really want a non-contact sport where the slightest hint of serious competitiveness is killed off from the game?


F*ck me, I can't believe the footy public sometimes.

Next we'll be saying that the AFL should suddenly change the rules and hand out 12 week suspensions to blokes who niggle off the ball. Oh wait....

You may want to take this issue up with the MRP and Dimetriou. They started all this crap with the 9 week suspension to Baker. No one would be questioning all the soft bumps and jumper punches if they hadn't slammed Baker. Good for one player, it is good for another. We all want 'consistency' and 'equality' after all........

Exactly...the gloves are off now, and if this sort of thing is not penalised the club would be right in seeking a 'please explain' from the AFL. They've gone a long way towards ending a specific players career with their soft namby pamby penalties, it's about time they started applying the Baker Rule to the entire league. The second it happened I shouted 'FREE KICK' at my TV screen, but maybe, for consistancy sake, Amon Buccannan should be suspended for 6 weeks, Riewoldt for 2 weeks and the umpires can go on ignoring these incidents?

[borderbarry]

If the incident had occurred halfway through a quarter I imagine Buchanan would have caused Voss's displeasure by giving away a free shot at goal. Maybe they should under the circumstances restart play just fot the offended player to have a free shot at goal. You can bet if they did that it would stop this nonsence in the breaks.

[Moods]

I think his point is, "what do you do when there is a clear infringement after the siren has gone" - answer pay a free kick at the resumption of play.

Was it a creal free kick though?

[Thinline]

I think his point is, "what do you do when there is a clear infringement after the siren has gone" - answer pay a free kick at the resumption of play.

Was it a creal free kick though?

If it happened after a shot on goal, he'd have received a second kick.

[stinger]

patrick's complete article is worth the read....imhfo...


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sp ... 5890480272



loved this part...


"Clearly, he was targeted," Lyon said after the match. "There was a bit of garbage we had to put up with. I thought some boundaries had been set and I thought they were crossed quite clearly. He will continue to be targeted but, like all champions, he will continue to deliver."

Boundaries? He must have been referring to Steven Baker's nine-match suspension after the Saint's serial harassment of Geelong's Stevie Johnson in round 13.

It is not that Lyon does not have a point, but rather that he would bother with it anyway. Since he took over as coach in 2007 Lyon has never sought to run an agenda in the media. Other coaches might have made an art form of that distraction but not Lyon.

Still, that Lyon was moved to mention the treatment of Riewoldt was a backhander to the match review panel. Yet another."

[Moods]

I think his point is, "what do you do when there is a clear infringement after the siren has gone" - answer pay a free kick at the resumption of play.

Was it a creal free kick though?

If it happened after a shot on goal, he'd have received a second kick.

Don't agree. I reckon it was just the straw that broke the camel's back re Rooey. But the incident in isolation was nothing more than a shove. Seen far worse this year after goal's have been kicked. It's just that this incident has been highlighted b/c it sparked a melee.

[bigcarl]

Is he serious??

We just willy-nilly introduce a new rule because a dude gave a little weak bump to a guy??

What the hell are we trying to create here? Do we really want a non-contact sport where the slightest hint of serious competitiveness is killed off from the game?


F*ck me, I can't believe the footy public sometimes.

Next we'll be saying that the AFL should suddenly change the rules and hand out 12 week suspensions to blokes who niggle off the ball. Oh wait....

You may want to take this issue up with the MRP and Dimetriou. They started all this crap with the 9 week suspension to Baker. No one would be questioning all the soft bumps and jumper punches if they hadn't slammed Baker. Good for one player, it is good for another. We all want 'consistency' and 'equality' after all........

Exactly

[Thinline]

I think his point is, "what do you do when there is a clear infringement after the siren has gone" - answer pay a free kick at the resumption of play.

Was it a creal free kick though?

If it happened after a shot on goal, he'd have received a second kick.

Don't agree. I reckon it was just the straw that broke the camel's back re Rooey. But the incident in isolation was nothing more than a shove. Seen far worse this year after goal's have been kicked. It's just that this incident has been highlighted b/c it sparked a melee.

You say tomatoes I say tamatas...

[rodgerfox]

"....and a sprawling melee resulted. It is the look of a schoolyard brawl, inexcusable behaviour for adolescents never mind grown men."

Inexcusable?? What the hell?

A bit of a wrestle during a professional sporting match??! Big freakin' deal.

Did anyone, anyone in the entire universe really get upset over that?


F*ck me - let's change the rules just because there was an all-in wrestle at 3/4 time of one match!!


Fair dinkum, I really do wonder sometimes.

[stinger]

"....and a sprawling melee resulted. It is the look of a schoolyard brawl, inexcusable behaviour for adolescents never mind grown men."

Inexcusable?? What the hell?

A bit of a wrestle during a professional sporting match??! Big freakin' deal.

Did anyone, anyone in the entire universe really get upset over that?


F*ck me - let's change the rules just because there was an all-in wrestle at 3/4 time of one match!!


Fair dinkum, I really do wonder sometimes.

sensible post imho....

[rodgerfox]

Is he serious??

We just willy-nilly introduce a new rule because a dude gave a little weak bump to a guy??

What the hell are we trying to create here? Do we really want a non-contact sport where the slightest hint of serious competitiveness is killed off from the game?


F*ck me, I can't believe the footy public sometimes.

Next we'll be saying that the AFL should suddenly change the rules and hand out 12 week suspensions to blokes who niggle off the ball. Oh wait....

You may want to take this issue up with the MRP and Dimetriou. They started all this crap with the 9 week suspension to Baker. No one would be questioning all the soft bumps and jumper punches if they hadn't slammed Baker. Good for one player, it is good for another. We all want 'consistency' and 'equality' after all........

I completely agree with you.

All I would say that two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because we were dudded by yet another laughable AFL decision, does not mean I want the game ruined further.

[bigcarl]

Is he serious??

We just willy-nilly introduce a new rule because a dude gave a little weak bump to a guy??

What the hell are we trying to create here? Do we really want a non-contact sport where the slightest hint of serious competitiveness is killed off from the game?


F*ck me, I can't believe the footy public sometimes.

Next we'll be saying that the AFL should suddenly change the rules and hand out 12 week suspensions to blokes who niggle off the ball. Oh wait....

You may want to take this issue up with the MRP and Dimetriou. They started all this crap with the 9 week suspension to Baker. No one would be questioning all the soft bumps and jumper punches if they hadn't slammed Baker. Good for one player, it is good for another. We all want 'consistency' and 'equality' after all........

I completely agree with you.

All I would say that two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because we were dudded by yet another laughable AFL decision, does not mean I want the game ruined further.

consistency is all you'd ask for.

[rodgerfox]

I think his point is, "what do you do when there is a clear infringement after the siren has gone" - answer pay a free kick at the resumption of play.

Really though, how can you infringe after the siren has gone?

There is no ball contest, so you can't really infringe on anyone. The only infringements are blocking someone going for the ball, or interfering with someone going for the ball.

If you do something reportable, then you get reported.

There is no need, regardless of what fat old lame creeps like Patrick Smith insist, to change the rules yet again at a knee-jerk reaction to what was a petty little 'incident'.

[rodgerfox]

Is he serious??

We just willy-nilly introduce a new rule because a dude gave a little weak bump to a guy??

What the hell are we trying to create here? Do we really want a non-contact sport where the slightest hint of serious competitiveness is killed off from the game?


F*ck me, I can't believe the footy public sometimes.

Next we'll be saying that the AFL should suddenly change the rules and hand out 12 week suspensions to blokes who niggle off the ball. Oh wait....

You may want to take this issue up with the MRP and Dimetriou. They started all this crap with the 9 week suspension to Baker. No one would be questioning all the soft bumps and jumper punches if they hadn't slammed Baker. Good for one player, it is good for another. We all want 'consistency' and 'equality' after all........

I completely agree with you.

All I would say that two wrongs don't make a right.

Just because we were dudded by yet another laughable AFL decision, does not mean I want the game ruined further.

consistency is all you'd ask for.

In this case, not really.

If being consistent means that everyone who does what Baker did, or what the Lions did gets 12 weeks - then no, I don't want consistency.

Some common sense and some integrity in the first place is all I'd ask for.