Dees demand help for taggers

[NO GODFREY NO MELBOURNE 0]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...9-11088,00.html

I definitely think that poor old Godders has had a hard time of it lately. Hopefully the umps offer him some protection in the coming weeks. He gets the job done without being a scragger like Baker, yet blokes continue to deck him behind play just because he's giving them a hiding.

Keep it up Godders and hopefully the umps give you some protection now!

[re draft molan 1]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...9-11088,00.html

I definitely think that poor old Godders has had a hard time of it lately. Hopefully the umps offer him some protection in the coming weeks. He gets the job done without being a scragger like Baker, yet blokes continue to deck him behind play just because he's giving them a hiding.

Keep it up Godders and hopefully the umps give you some protection now!

Hear hear. I just love his attitude. Guys like him and Junior, dont get the accolades they deserve. Maybe they arent the players fans pay to see, but their worth to our team is imeasurable.

[deanox 9,942]

godfrey has shown this year that you can tag and play fair. unfortunately his opponents have had their colours lowered on the day, and have hit back in a crude, cowardly way. hopefully godfrey gets equal protection this week. if he plays on kerr he'll get free kicks, but if plays on judd he wont get anything...not because judd is protected, but because judd wont hit him, he'll just run around him...

[Guest]

"Our umpires are under instruction, and always have been, to protect the pure ball players as much as possible,"

Does this comment from Gieschen irk everyone else as much as it irks me? I've heard it repeatedly.

Surely it has to be "protection for those playing the ball" with each case judged on its merits.

If not, who do you apply to for certification as a 'pure ball player' and the subsequent favouritism?

[deanox 9,942]

"Our umpires are under instruction, and always have been, to protect the pure ball players as much as possible,"

Does this comment from Gieschen irk everyone else as much as it irks me? I've heard it repeatedly.

Surely it has to be "protection for those playing the ball" with each case judged on its merits.

If not, who do you apply to for certification as a 'pure ball player' and the subsequent favouritism?

yeah it bugs me alot. there is nothing in the rules that says a 'tagger' or a 'backman' is any different than a player who gets the ball. as long as the negating player doesnt hold, scrag, pull, push in the back or use body contact to shepard (while the ball is more than 5 metres away) then he has every right to stop the other player from getting the ball and deserve equal protection from the umpires. if a tagger is sheparded out or held by an opposition player to break the tag, he should get the free kick just as the ball player would get it if it was him who is held.

what gieshen is saying is that the umpires have identified certain players who will be protected. how many melbourne players has he identified? has he identified the same amount from each team?