Do you agree with the umpiring decision against Matthew Richardson?

Question

you know the holding the ball that went through for a goal

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

well i am an AFL umpire my self

and you can never please absolutely everyone with your decisions.

But i beleive it was correct because the spirit of the laws clearly state that, ( i will type it from the book for you ) "the player who has possesion of the ball and has had oppertunity to dispose of it and is tackled correctly tackled by an opponent must IMMEDIANTLY dispose of the ball"

The same goes for taking a player on

Answer 3

I do hate jumping in on someones answer but Gurg the Troll Master has it in one.

Answer 4

No, I didn't agree witgh the decision.

I believe that if it was someone else involved the ump would have let the goal count. Richo may sometimes be his worst enemy with his extreme body language displays but he does cop the worst end of the stick from the umps.

Answer 5

I think the AFL really need to reconsider all of their rules about holding the ball and push in the back. I mean look at Mal Michael vs Nathan Thompson in Round 1. Thompson pushed Mal over and no free kick!

Answer 6

Richo's a sook.

Answer 7

yes

he was caught

he could of handballed to the richmond player in front of him

but he took on the defender and got caught

Answer 8

I think Richo was very unlucky but watching it from the stands it did look like he held onto the ball a fraction too long.

Answer 9

i was a tough call

but i have seenmuch worse umpiring decisions

the new 'interpretation' of the holding the ball rule is ****

there is almost no such thing as prior opportunity

if a player gets tackled and the ball is held in it will very rarely result in a ball up

Answer 10

nope i think it was a bad call

Answer 11

it depends if u giv me the best answer

Answer 12

At first glance I thought he was robbed, but on closer inspection the umpire got it right, he was tackled he let go of the ball it hit the ground and then he got a foot on it, they are paid dropping/holding the ball all day.

Answer 13

Mate, I didn't see it.  I have no knowledge of the facts but any umpiring decision against Matthew Richardson is probably the right one!! :-)

Answer 14

he was unlucky to hav that called gainst him. it wasnt the best decision and the goal should hav been allowed but richmond still would hav lost the match anyway...

Answer 15

didn't see it

Answer 16

No. I don't agree with a lot of the umpiring decisions involving Richo.

Because of behaviour of the past involving umpires he is now somewhat stereotyped in their eyes. I don't think I've ever seen him receive a charity decision by an ump - but have seen him crucified many a time.

Answer 17

ok, being a Richmond man its goin to sound biased but i was 30 meters from that incident, he did drop the ball and swung his boot which made connection and went through the goals.

so it could of gone either way, but it was richo, so of course it went against him, like that Carlton game, when he was running back and got cleaned up, how that wasn't paid is beyond me, players get awarded free kicks for a slight touch to the back but he nearly gets killed and its play on.

rocca yesterday was given a kick for the arm around the waste c**p, how is that impeding a player, the game is becoming a joke, either they award the free kicks all over the ground in any position or stop doing what they are doing, some kicks are paid only in certain positions, why, when the rules are for the whole ground, not in sections of the ground.

Answer 18

Since Andrew Demetriou does not think that footy on television is important in America, cannot see it.

Answer 19

Yep....................:)

Answer 20

i didnt see the inncident myself but I do have to agree with what someone said with Richo getting the pointy stick from the umpires......He is very un lucky with them lol.