roosy s bitterness according to patrick smith

[BBBBH]

i think BBBH is patrick smith in disguise

glad thats not me, im BBBBH.

[reigning premier]

If you've ever seen the pic in his column, well you'll see what sort of tool we're dealing with here.

He's a columnist, not a reporter. These guys have the luxury of not having to bak up their stories with facts. It's just their "opinion". If only life were like that for the rest of us....

[BBBBH]

If you've ever seen the pic in his column, well you'll see what sort of tool we're dealing with here.

He's a columnist, not a reporter. These guys have the luxury of not having to bak up their stories with facts. It's just their "opinion". If only life were like that for the rest of us....

you gotta live with it. pat smith basically rips @@@@ through everything and anything.

ranging from the new in the back rule, ben cousins/drugs (has been done to death), 'goofy' demiteriou, carlton's excuses etc...

[hammo]

When exactly did the new rules prohibit the use of the body into the side, as Barry Hall did in the third quarter?

Fevola did exactly the same when sheparding through a goal for Cartlton yesterday and it was deemed legal. Had he taken the mark would it have been a free kick?

Patrick Smith is irrelevant. His columns are humour value only.

[goswannie14]

Patrick Smith is irrelevant. His columns are humour value only.

And very poor humour at that.

[annew]

What annoys me is that the booing was for the umpires and not Mathew Lloyd and I just wish these idiotic journalists would realise that.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

glad thats not me, im BBBBH.

And we're left to ponder what that extra B stands for.

Buffoon comes to mind.

[reigning premier]

What annoys me is that the booing was for the umpires and not Mathew Lloyd and I just wish these idiotic journalists would realise that.

Agreed.

Though it was unfortunate, the booing was warranted. And it wasn't directed at Lloyd nor any of the Essendon team in particular, it was directed at the umpires and deservedley so. It was terrible umpiring all night. I'm not even talking about the out-of-play incident in the last few minutes. that has happened before, and it will happen again. The umpire was just in a bad position. It's the other repeatedley poor decisions that really did cost us.

I don't think you can blame an umpire for the result of a game. However, when you've had about half a dozen or so really bad decisions go against you that either cost us a goal or gave them a goal, and you lose by one point, the question needs to be asked. How can they get it so wrong so often?

[Mel_C]

When exactly did the new rules prohibit the use of the body into the side, as Barry Hall did in the third quarter?

It is interesting that KB has supported the umpires with the regards to the Hands in the back rule EXCEPT for that Barry Hall decision. On SEN they replayed the commentary of that particular incident and KB could not believe that the umpire paid the free. In fact the whole commentary team was outraged!!

[NMWBloods]

What annoys me is that the booing was for the umpires and not Mathew Lloyd and I just wish these idiotic journalists would realise that.

Yes, but the problem is you cannot actually direct booing.

[Claret]

On Saturday night Essendon's Adam McPhee had taken the ball out of bounds before he kicked to Mark McVeigh, who cleverly snapped a crucial goal. McPhee's body was between the ball and the boundary umpire so the umpire could not give a decision. And we certainly don't want umpires to guess.

Here's a thought Patrick . . . . If McPhee's entire body, including his right foot, was outside the boundary and he goes on to kick the ball with his left foot then the ball must, by definition, be out of bounds. The argument that the umpire couldn't see the ball matters not if you use the above logic.

As Bartlett carefully took the SEN team through the new interpretation and the reasons for it, at times the commentators seemed to snigger in the background like Year Six boys attending their first sex education class.

The reason they were laughing at him is that he has been putting forward the same lame arguments for the last 4 months. KB's stubbornness is, at times, laughable.

[Legs Akimbo]

If pushing with any part of the body is still illegal (which I have no problem with), why is it OK to touch with any other part of the body? Are we going to get to a situation in a year or two when the powers that be decide the umpires can't distinguish between a push and a hold with the hip and so outlaw that contact too? What exactly is so heinous about hands touching another player IF IT IS COMPLETELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTEST?

I don't know why they changed the interpetation and I am sure most other people here don't know either. That is an indictment on the AFL and reinforces a growing opinion that this administration is high handed and out of touch with common supporters.

Unfortunately, they are sucking the spirit right out of footy because their mantra is customer instead of supporter, business instead of competition, and product instead of game. I preferred things the way they were.

Imagine all the famous marks that would have been lost the the history of our game with this stupid rule. Ablett, Modra, Capper and Barker. Basically this rule tells us these guys were cheats. @@@@ you Demetriou (hey, that rhymes!)

When I grew up playing footy in country Victoria, the rule was simple. You were allowed to use your hands on an opposition player to launch a ?speccie? on the proviso that you (i) take the mark and (ii) push the other player down not forward. If you screwed it up, the other guy gets the free.

On another topic, if they want to fix flooding, which weirdly a lot of this seems to come back too, then just reduce the interchange back to three possibly two players. I strongly believe a lot of the problems date back 1993 - 1998 when the number of players increased from two to three and then three to four. More rotations, more recovery time, more possibilities for a brand of footy that is based on running around and looks more like basketball than footy as I knew it as a boy. Making sundry rule changes and adding new interpretations is avoiding the fundamental cause.

I strongly suspect, nay hope, that history will not treat '@@@@ you Demetriou' and 'Hans Christian' Anderson (being the great story teller that he is) kindly.

[doctor swan]

and to think dimitriou earns a package of $1mill a yr , .......for being an idiot.
makes one wonder.
bring back jackson, bring back oakley atleast they knew what they were doing.
isnt john o neill available he did a good job with the aru and soccer aus, there is no chance of him doing worse than dimitriou

[floppinab]

If pushing with any part of the body is still illegal (which I have no problem with), why is it OK to touch with any other part of the body? Are we going to get to a situation in a year or two when the powers that be decide the umpires can't distinguish between a push and a hold with the hip and so outlaw that contact too? What exactly is so heinous about hands touching another player IF IT IS COMPLETELY INCIDENTAL TO THE CONTEST?

I was in favour of the rule change at the start of year as when I grew up playing football we were always taught, and the players of the day, rarely used their hands in a marking contest. It was supposed to take out one of the key problems in this situation, what is incidental contact and what is a push, particularly when you have a key issue in the game these days that is very difficult to pick and that is the divers or players that go to ground very easily...... so was that a push or was the player taking a dive????

However as is pointed out above there is no difference in using a hip and shoulder in a marking contest. Player backs into a contest, gets the hip and shoulder and falls forward, so was there illegal contact in the contest or did the player take a dive??? There is no difference to using your hands is there. And as Bazz discovered on Sat. night what is in the back and what is in the side??? Where do you draw the line??? Yet another grey area (maybe they need a pair of thin stripes on the back of the jumper to define it!!!!!!)

It hasn't solved anything, fixed anything, no grey areas reduced they've just moved from one place to another.

A far bigger issue as was published today is to remove this perception that some players deserve better treatment than others. The protection of Hird compared to the treatment of Hall and Goodes on Sat. night was disgusting. What ever happened to paying it as you see it.

[Pommie Swannie]

Here's a thought Patrick . . . . If McPhee's entire body, including his right foot, was outside the boundary and he goes on to kick the ball with his left foot then the ball must, by definition, be out of bounds. The argument that the umpire couldn't see the ball matters not if you use the above logic.

Spot on Claret! I was going to make exactly that comment!

That was one of the most purile, anti-sydney columns I've read in a long time. As others have said, I wish his email address was listed so that he could be furnished with a less polarised view of the game's events!!