WEEK 2 FINALS 2021 | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

WEEK 2 FINALS 2021

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
14,742
14,191
FWIW, I actually loved Smith infuriating Lions fans.

The funniest bit about that scan of the fans, is the one fan that seemed to take most dislike to him and his celebration was wearing a North shirt haha
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Feb 25, 2007
11,499
3,951
The other one that astounded me in that final quarter, how the hell did the arc find sufficient evidence to over rule the goal umpire on that Bont goal???

What was funny when you heard the audio "you can see the ball deviate" really? i couldn't. Do I think it was touched I would say more yes than no, was it conclusive no way, so the goal should've stood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
14,742
14,191
What was funny when you heard the audio "you can see the ball deviate" really? i couldn't. Do I think it was touched I would say more yes than no, was it conclusive no way, so the goal should've stood.

Same opinion as I have. Was most likely touched, but did the ball deviate in those grainy images? Not from my eye either. I would have been livid if that had been overturned against the Tiges, as bad a call as the one against Shai against the Giants a few years ago which would have won us the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

CarnTheTiges

This is a REAL tiger
Mar 8, 2004
23,317
7,741
Victoria
Same opinion as I have. Was most likely touched, but did the ball deviate in those grainy images? Not from my eye either. I would have been livid if that had been overturned against the Tiges, as bad a call as the one against Shai against the Giants a few years ago which would have won us the game.
Was that the one in 2017? Barely touched the Giants player’s fingernail? That would have been Shai’s first goal, too.
 

CarnTheTiges

This is a REAL tiger
Mar 8, 2004
23,317
7,741
Victoria
Yep thats the one. We lost by a couple of points from memory.
We did. Shai’s goal would have given us an unassailable lead with the time remaining. We beat them in the next game at the G, though. That was the game where Astbury threatened to break Toby Greene in half after his cheap shot on Rance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
14,742
14,191
Just another one for the TBR is right column.

Despite the arguments from those who know less about the game than I've forgotten, the umpire judges the action. Daniels kicks the ball directly at the boundary line with no team mate in the vicinity. That's what he actually did. Free kicks aren't not paid on a we can see what you were trying to do basis.

And people will say no way it was just a skill error. I'd invite them to spend some time watching training and seeing what players are doing before and after it. Watch them kick a few goals from the fifth row of the grandstand or make the footy turn 6 times to get through a door or into a bin and see if you still think it is out of the realm of possibility that a player could deliberately create a miscued kick. And them ask yourself how the hell you would determine which is which.

Listen to Leppitsch calling it, he has been briefed enough times to know how it works.

Did you see him after the game being interviewed. He was clearly pissed off that that was paid against him.

His foot WAS NOT pointing towards the boundary when he went to kick it. In fact his foot wasn't pointing at the boundary even when he kicked it, it skewed off the side of his boot. The bump from Cameron from behind I'm pretty sure was the biggest impact of what caused it.

Leppa called it a skill error on the call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
20,907
14,586
What the Dogs had to put up with in past 48 hours is unbelievable. For them to win was enormous. Credit where is due . Hopefully this will get reported . Players were denied meals . Processing of players in hotel quarantine took 4 hours which I might add was the shared overseas visitors hotel quarantine. No delivered meals etc . Food at hotel absolutely rubbish .
And they got fingered by the umpires to boot.
 

seven

Super Tiger
Apr 20, 2004
25,573
10,722
Fagan thinks this loss will eat away at the players and they’ll come back better next year.
Sure he said this last year as well
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
20,907
14,586
Razor said that they're instructed to determine whether players demonstrated intent to keep the ball in play.:confused:

Daniel didn't look towards the boundary or kick the ball towards the boundary, but the umpires reckons he didn't show enough intent to keep the ball in play.:confused:


Chamberlain explained how umpires have been told to officiate the rule and how it goes beyond deliberately attempting to get the ball out of bounds.

“So, the guidelines that we’re given now is that the player with the football, or who’s handballing the football, knocking the football, kicking the football, they have to demonstrate a sufficient intent to keep the ball in play,” he said.

“The guts of it is if they’re looking to kill the ball, they put themselves in a position where they could incur a free kick."

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

JamesTiger82

Follow me...
Nov 28, 2012
188
74
Melbourne
I don't spend as much time on here as I used to so just wondering - why all the hate for Fagan?

P.S. Lions' flog players/team I completely understand. Round 10 is burnt into my memory. I was barracking for the Dogs like crazy, and the Barometer wasn't even out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

HeadandShin

Burning bright
Sep 17, 2007
711
418
Melbourne
Any chance Bompmytelly stand up in a game that matters?
Ah - my beloved father (2 years gone, just after 2019 Cup) used to call him “Bompatelli”.

For some reason, he always called Jack “Reiwoldts” as if we had two of him.

But his best Dad-name was for that atrocious Hawthorn player, “VickeryYouClot”.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users

HeadandShin

Burning bright
Sep 17, 2007
711
418
Melbourne
May I give a big Here Here to that.

#bearsarefrauds
It’s actually “Hear Hear” - it means “Listen to him!” or “Hey, everyone should hear this!”

Don’t normally correct people (though every “your” instead of “you’re” or that Americanism “lay” instead of “lie” annoys me) - but this common error really aggravates my goat
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users

AngryAnt

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
25,839
12,735
Just another one for the TBR is right column.

Despite the arguments from those who know less about the game than I've forgotten, the umpire judges the action. Daniels kicks the ball directly at the boundary line with no team mate in the vicinity. That's what he actually did. Free kicks aren't not paid on a we can see what you were trying to do basis.

And people will say no way it was just a skill error. I'd invite them to spend some time watching training and seeing what players are doing before and after it. Watch them kick a few goals from the fifth row of the grandstand or make the footy turn 6 times to get through a door or into a bin and see if you still think it is out of the realm of possibility that a player could deliberately create a miscued kick. And them ask yourself how the hell you would determine which is which.

Listen to Leppitsch calling it, he has been briefed enough times to know how it works.

Granted on the football knowledge part.

If it's about the action or outcome, they should take the word "intent" out of the rule, and stop screaming "insufficient intent" at the players during the game.
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
8,885
13,664
Melbourne
Despite the arguments from those who know less about the game than I've forgotten, the umpire judges the action.

Even if we accept it was a 100% skill error, he chose to blast the ball out of the air when he was situated fairly close to the boundary line. Everyone would agree that blasting a ball out of air is hard to control and there is a good chance it will go offline, so if you choose to do that in that position are you really showing intent to keep the ball in? He could have taken the ball in his hands and tried to kick or handball it with more control, or just taken the tackle and caused a ball up if he really wanted to make sure it stayed in play.

Sounds to me like the umpire is judging intent to keep the ball in . . . oh, wait a minute, that's what you just said. Your argument that the free kick is reasonable is specifically based on the umpire assessing intent.

The issue with the commentators is they keep claiming the umpires are judging whether the player was deliberately trying to get the ball out of bounds, which is why they keep talking about deliberate out of bounds, but the umpires' job is to judge intent to keep the ball in. We can argue until the cows come home but intent is what the rule says and that is what I expect the umpires to adjudicate.

As a fan and a paid up member of one of the clubs, I see no reason why I can't comment on the game. Don't agree at all on the claimed knowledge part. Are we all supposed to refrain from any comments/discussions/arguments on any topic we have no specific expertise in?

DS