-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Match day round 9 V Geelong/ Tuck collision with Ablett (merged)
- Thread starter mk33
- Start date
Was it just my bias or was the ump giving us about 2 seconds after a mark or free before calling play-on in the last Q?
Couple of other shocking hometown frees, Myer being called for ball when he got the handball off, and Krak had his head pulled off near the goalsquare and not paid. Was'nt too bad, gotta expect it a bit down there I guess.
On the other hand that free to Tivendale was a bizaare gift, just remembered that
Couple of other shocking hometown frees, Myer being called for ball when he got the handball off, and Krak had his head pulled off near the goalsquare and not paid. Was'nt too bad, gotta expect it a bit down there I guess.
On the other hand that free to Tivendale was a bizaare gift, just remembered that
I haven't read through the previous 30 pages so I don't know if this question was asked. Last week, Richo marked on the boundary then ran along the outside to play on. The umpire, correctly, called out of bounds and for a throw in. This week, in the 2nd quarter I think, Ling marks on the goal line in defence, in the middle of the goal and behind post. He takes his kick behind the line. He runs around the point post and plays on. Should this have also been called out of bounds, or rushed even? Can anyone else remember this incident? and did the umpies call correctly or made a mistake?
Re: match day thread round 9 V Geelong
Classic. As the web was loading down and the first thing I saw was the handbags, I just couldn't stop laughing.
CptJonno2Madcow2005 said:
Classic. As the web was loading down and the first thing I saw was the handbags, I just couldn't stop laughing.
The umps got both calls right, Legend. Richo was called to play on because he'd taken so long to kick. He is then available to be tackled but can't be because he's out of bounds - correct call, boundary throw in. Ling is entitled to play on as long as he runs pretty much directly into the field of play and hasn't been called to play on from taking too long to dispose of it.Legends of 1980 said:
God, am I making any sense and can somebody tell me when I turned into Derek Humphrey-Smith so I can access the relevant medication.
At least I'm not still posting about Ray Hall I suppose!!
Re: match day thread round 9 V Geelong
I hate reading posters' quotes which contain other quotes as well, but left both in because of the subject matter.
Yes, I've noticed what I think is Lane's decidedly anti-Richmond bias.
When he was with the ABC his dislike of Richmond was less obvious but since venturing out into the commercial world, it seems he has no such gag applied now.
And it wasn't just the Geelong game where he has made derogatory remarks about the Tigers. Still, I think he is a Blues' supporter, isn't he? enough said.
Reckon it would be a toss-up who was more anti-Richmond - Lane or Lyon. Ahhh, who cares, we know we're right! ;D
Hanno said:
I hate reading posters' quotes which contain other quotes as well, but left both in because of the subject matter.
Yes, I've noticed what I think is Lane's decidedly anti-Richmond bias.
When he was with the ABC his dislike of Richmond was less obvious but since venturing out into the commercial world, it seems he has no such gag applied now.
And it wasn't just the Geelong game where he has made derogatory remarks about the Tigers. Still, I think he is a Blues' supporter, isn't he? enough said.
Reckon it would be a toss-up who was more anti-Richmond - Lane or Lyon. Ahhh, who cares, we know we're right! ;D
Thanks Hopper, yes you made sensehopper said:The umps got both calls right, Legend. Richo was called to play on because he'd taken so long to kick. He is then available to be tackled but can't be because he's out of bounds - correct call, boundary throw in. Ling is entitled to play on as long as he runs pretty much directly into the field of play and hasn't been called to play on from taking too long to dispose of it.Legends of 1980 said:
God, am I making any sense and can somebody tell me when I turned into Derek Humphrey-Smith so I can access the relevant medication.
At least I'm not still posting about Ray Hall I suppose!!
. The only thing with ling's one is that he didn't run straight into the field of play but went sideways along the outside of the boundary past the point post. I would have thought that from where he took the mark, he would have had to run in between the posts.
Legends of 1980 said:
I reckon Foley was the unluckiest of all. He fought hard on the wing to win a loose ball, got jumped on immediately upon taking possession and then got pinged for holding the ball, simply because he was sliding along the ground when he took possession and "dragged it in".
Foley's attack on the footy was wonderful, as was his endeavour to beat a couple of Geelong opponents. I would have thought it was an example of exactly the type of footy we should be encouraging, not penalising.
Hanno said:
I agree with you on that one. There were a few bewildering decisions made by the umpires on saturday, against both sides. What was milburn pinged for when Tivvers got the goal for the free kick?
Got pinged for a throw. But the TV blokes said it could have been interpreted as a bounce. I think they're correct. Bit stiff on Milburn.
Was also laughing at Kellaway's attempt to waste time deep in the last quarter. Got up gingerly after a mark or free kick, motioned for someone else to take the kick, ump signalled play on and he did ;D. It looked funny on the tv. Anyone at the game know or see if it was a legit injury or just bad acting?
poppa x said:
One of the stranges frees I've ever seen
Yeah DKs effort was very funny, ended up kicking it reasonably well. Was called to play on too quickly though.