so now we tunnell

[Mike_B]

This has got to be the biggest non-issue in footy at the moment! Certainly, "tunnelling" as it's been described is dangerous, but the available evidence just doesn't justify sullying the name of one of the fairest defenders around, and yes I am bloody disappointed that one of B2's former coaches has allowed his name to be dragged through the mud.

Good to see that Roos has criticised Archie Fraser for bringing this issue out into the public sphere before at last getting in touch with the Swans privately to air concerns and talk it over. IMHO this is a storm in a teacup, but of course the umpires will now treat us differently because it's been brought to their attention in the totally wrong manner.

[TheGrimReaper]

I'm glad that most on RWO have seen the incident for what it was, unlike the crap that's been posted on bigfooty about it

Bigfooty is a waste of internet webspace. St.Kilda are well known whingers.

[TheGrimReaper]

As it stands. The AFL will not investigate into the matter.

Sucked in Riewoldt, YOU PANSY!!

[shaun..]

As it stands. The AFL will not investigate into the matter.

Sucked in Riewoldt, YOU PANSY!!

It won't stop the umps from calling a free though

[ShockOfHair]

What stinks is it's another smear on Roos and the club. No matter how ridiculous the claim, you can get a headline for a couple of days if it involves the Swans. And the umps will be reminded once to keep an eye out for Reiwoldt's well-being.

I did like Roosy's crack about not selling enough photocopiers for Archie Fraser.

[Old Royboy]

Getting bumped in mid fly is part of the risk the show ponies take. Just look at Capper - obviously landed on his head a few times too many. But this sort of thing has been around either deliberately or inadvertantly for years. I was reminded today that Snapper Seymour got himself rubbed out for tunnelling against Richmond a few years back. Because tunnelling wasn't included on the AFL rap sheet he appently went for charging. Can anybody confirm if my source was correct?

[Chow-Chicker]

On SEN, KB just led off with 'StKilda have gone for the overkill' and Riewoldt was his own victim by jumping early.

He said that StKilda are putting pressure on the umpires to look after Nick.

This is the same idiot who brought us the "hands in the back rule". He regards an insignificant hand placed on someone's jumper to be a free kick, but thinks that someone who can "tunnel" is OK, and actually blames the forward for jumping early? The guy is obviously insane. Taking away the players involved in this incident for a moment, any player who deliberately tunnels his opponent is being reckless, if not, negligent. The rules must protect the player going for the ball, and not allow a player to escape scrutiny when he goes for the man. While I don't agree how St.Kilda has gone about this, there is a potential problem if this tactic is allowed to continue. And I seriously believe rules such as the ridiculous hands in the back, has contributed to other tactics being used by defenders. Glenn Archer virtually said so last Monday night. Get rid of the crap rule and introduce one that protects players from tunnelling. It is obvious to which one is the more dangerous.

[goswannie14]

This is the same idiot who brought us the "hands in the back rule". He regards an insignificant hand placed on someone's jumper to be a free kick, but thinks that someone who can "tunnel" is OK, and actually blames the forward for jumping early? The guy is obviously insane. Taking away the players involved in this incident for a moment, any player who deliberately tunnels his opponent is being reckless, if not, negligent. The rules must protect the player going for the ball, and not allow a player to escape scrutiny when he goes for the man. While I don't agree how St.Kilda has gone about this, there is a potential problem if this tactic is allowed to continue. And I seriously believe rules such as the ridiculous hands in the back, has contributed to other tactics being used by defenders. Glenn Archer virtually said so last Monday night. Get rid of the crap rule and introduce one that protects players from tunnelling. It is obvious to which one is the more dangerous.

But what you are saying is that because someone whinged, the rules should be changed. That is why we have the centre circle, the line across the centre circle and numerous other rule changes.

It would be much better legislating that you cannot have all players flooding back in defence. That is far more of a blight on our wonderful game, when 18 defenders are in the d50.

[reigning premier]

Bolton should of been given free kicks for Sokky La La interfering with him whilst not making a realistic attempt to mark. He wasn't even close to any of them.

[Legs Akimbo]

This is the same idiot who brought us the "hands in the back rule". He regards an insignificant hand placed on someone's jumper to be a free kick, but thinks that someone who can "tunnel" is OK, and actually blames the forward for jumping early? The guy is obviously insane. Taking away the players involved in this incident for a moment, any player who deliberately tunnels his opponent is being reckless, if not, negligent. The rules must protect the player going for the ball, and not allow a player to escape scrutiny when he goes for the man. While I don't agree how St.Kilda has gone about this, there is a potential problem if this tactic is allowed to continue. And I seriously believe rules such as the ridiculous hands in the back, has contributed to other tactics being used by defenders. Glenn Archer virtually said so last Monday night. Get rid of the crap rule and introduce one that protects players from tunnelling. It is obvious to which one is the more dangerous.

I remain steadfast that I don't think Bolton did a thing wrong. This is what happened - Reiwoldt jumped early for a ride and bolton moved out from under him. Any change in rules would essentially be 'if a player goes over the top of you for a mark, must stand still or you will have infringed.' The blight on the game is not so called 'Tunnelling', but the fact that some people take this rubbish seriously. It is crap.

[Chow-Chicker]

But what you are saying is that because someone whinged, the rules should be changed. That is why we have the centre circle, the line across the centre circle and numerous other rule changes.

It would be much better legislating that you cannot have all players flooding back in defence. That is far more of a blight on our wonderful game, when 18 defenders are in the d50.

Oh, I agree with you about legislating against flooding. Absolutely.

I'm not actually saying the rules must be changed because someone whinged. I'm saying it because there is a real potential for serious injury if the tactic is allowed to fester without scrutiny. Whether it's Reiwoldt or Lloyd or Richo, it doesn't really matter who it is.....I believe the player who attacks the ball should not have his safety compromised by such a tactic.

BTW, I'm not suggesting Bolton has deliberately done this, or that he was instructed to do so. But the player in Reiwoldt's circumstances must be protected, just like any player with his head over the ball IMO.

[Chow-Chicker]

I remain steadfast that I don't think Bolton did a thing wrong. This is what happened - Reiwoldt jumped early for a ride and bolton moved out from under him. Any change in rules would essentially be 'if a player goes over the top of you for a mark, must stand still or you will have infringed.' The blight on the game is not so called 'Tunnelling', but the fact that some people take this rubbish seriously. It is crap.

Depends on the circumstance, naturally. The way you have described it, it is about a player who moves out of the way in a marking contest and allows the player leaping, to fall to the ground. Nothing wrong with that. But, if a player is running along side or behind the leading player who leaps for the ball, and then uses his body to push him off balance mid flight, that's another story.

[liz]

Good to see that Roos has criticised Archie Fraser for bringing this issue out into the public sphere before at last getting in touch with the Swans privately to air concerns and talk it over.

Does anyone buy this bulldust about "Rossy" not knowing about Fraser's comments? Which other clubs get their CEOs to do press conferences on gameday, or the next day, talking about footballing matters. Not even Ed would do that, and he's President, not even just the CEO. Can you imagine MBH sitting there in front of the press whinging about Big Barry getting garrotted or shoved in the back?

If Lyon wasn't game enough to take on his "mate" in public, do they not even have a head of footballing - an Andrew Ireland equivalent - to do the dirty work, rather than the guy in charge of commercial matters?

[hammo]

Does anyone buy this bulldust about "Rossy" not knowing about Fraser's comments? Which other clubs get their CEOs to do press conferences on gameday, or the next day, talking about footballing matters. Not even Ed would do that, and he's President, not even just the CEO. Can you imagine MBH sitting there in front of the press whinging about Big Barry getting garrotted or shoved in the back?

If Lyon wasn't game enough to take on his "mate" in public, do they not even have a head of footballing - an Andrew Ireland equivalent - to do the dirty work, rather than the guy in charge of commercial matters?

Spot on Liz. Why Roos always tries to play the nice guy on all these slurs angers me a little. We've seen so far this season - only to round 1 - allegations that Roos has sent instructions out to throw a match and that our number 1 defender uses illegal tactics to unsettle and maybe injure a key forward from St Kilda. The clear inference is that Roos is behind that tactic as well. I suppose you could add the Demetriou comments in 2005 into the mix.

Surely the Swans as a club should start to stand up for themselves a bit. Where is the support from Colless?

Roos may say he has nothing against St Kilda but I am sure privately he and the club are seething. So why not make those feelings public? Is it because we are separated from the football cocoon this is Melbourne? I am sure the likes of Malthouse and Matthews would not be so pleasant is dealing with such a slur.

[bedford]

Does anyone buy this bulldust about "Rossy" not knowing about Fraser's comments? Which other clubs get their CEOs to do press conferences on gameday, or the next day, talking about footballing matters. Not even Ed would do that, and he's President, not even just the CEO. Can you imagine MBH sitting there in front of the press whinging about Big Barry getting garrotted or shoved in the back?

If Lyon wasn't game enough to take on his "mate" in public, do they not even have a head of footballing - an Andrew Ireland equivalent - to do the dirty work, rather than the guy in charge of commercial matters?

great post liz,i'm sick of paul sticking up for his mate rossy at st.scum,we are sydney who cares about that mob.
roosy should stop talking about it in public this is afl theres no prizes for being nice