Changes vs swans | 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.

Changes vs swans

Breaking news
With a few injuries to deal with this week longmire has the hard selection decision to make which 3 combination of umpires does he go for Mollison Chamberlain and fisher or Stevic Williamson & Dolan
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 13 users
Have not played there (SCG) since that last round thrashing in 2016...

Last won there in 2015 (Jack kicked 6.1, Miles, Cotch and Martin go a stack of the ball) .... and prior to that not won there since 2004 (Richo 7.0 in the wet).

Slim pickings at the ground !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Tiger Pops said:
Have not played there (SCG) since that last round thrashing in 2016...

Last won there in 2015 (Jack kicked 6.1, Miles, Cotch and Martin go a stack of the ball) .... and prior to that not won there since 2004 (Richo 7.0 in the wet).

Slim pickings at the ground !
Click to expand...
95 Richo knee day Wigney ankle
We went top of the ladder first time since 82.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Tom Lynch has escaped serious damage to his hamstring.
The Richmond spearhead was scanned yesterday, with his latest soft tissue injury understood to be on a minor end of the scale.

Sources said Lynch’s left hamstring was nothing like the strain that cost him several weeks during pre-season.

The forward is still likely to sit out Friday night’s clash against Sydney, with the Tigers’ bye coming at an opportune time the week after.

Kane Lambert will also take at least a fortnight off after his hip problem flared against the Essendon.

The Tigers decided against sending Lambert in for surgery on the eve of the season.

Tom Lynch escapes serious hamstring damage

Sam Edmund has the latest.
www.sen.com.au www.sen.com.au
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

Pilot Medical Update: Round 11, 2022​

Get the latest Pilot Medical Update ahead of Friday night's Round 11 match against Sydney at the SCG.

www.richmondfc.com.au

Pilot Medical Update: Round 11, 2022

Get the latest Pilot Medical Update ahead of Friday night's Round 11 match against Sydney at the SCG.
www.richmondfc.com.au www.richmondfc.com.au
 
T-Shirt Tommy said:
Fun fact: up until that point, Richo had kicked 27.3
Click to expand...
Was extraordinary that year. We played the Hawks in a downpour at Waverley and he treated it like it was a dry day, even Dunstall was amazed by it. What could have been if he hadn’t done his knee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DavidSSS said:
Yeah, but what I don't get is why he called it as hitting the post with no evidence that it had hit the post.

Also, the ARC should have been able to clear up any confusion, clearly did not do its job.

DS
Click to expand...
Ball went through very close to the post, with a noisy crowd cheering. Umpire wouldn't be able to hear the ball snick the post so has to go on visual.
Obviously the ball didn't smack full on into the post or everyone would have noticed.
Umpire gets two options to choose from...................................
1. He thinks it may just have brushed the post, so it's a behind.
2. He thinks it may just have missed the post so it's a goal.

Umpire by process of elimination has decided it may just have brushed the post so calls it as such but asks for a review to ensure he hasn't stuffed up. Goal review footage being cheap n nasty is of insufficient quality for the reviewing officer to over ride the initial call. Goal umpire doesn't get to sit down with a brief of evidence n ten minutes of slo mo footage to make his initial call from, he's got to go with what he believes he has seen happen. The review couldn't decide whether the ball hit or not, that's how close it was so the umpires initial call had to stand.
 
TigerMasochist said:
Ball went through very close to the post, with a noisy crowd cheering. Umpire wouldn't be able to hear the ball snick the post so has to go on visual.
Obviously the ball didn't smack full on into the post or everyone would have noticed.
Umpire gets two options to choose from...................................
1. He thinks it may just have brushed the post, so it's a behind.
2. He thinks it may just have missed the post so it's a goal.

Umpire by process of elimination has decided it may just have brushed the post so calls it as such but asks for a review to ensure he hasn't stuffed up. Goal review footage being cheap n nasty is of insufficient quality for the reviewing officer to over ride the initial call. Goal umpire doesn't get to sit down with a brief of evidence n ten minutes of slo mo footage to make his initial call from, he's got to go with what he believes he has seen happen. The review couldn't decide whether the ball hit or not, that's how close it was so the umpires initial call had to stand.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand the umpire's decision stands if the ARC is inconclusive.

But surely the umpire can only call it as hitting the post if there is evidence of the ball hitting the post (like a noise, deviation, alteration of the way the ball is spinning or the like). In the absence of any of that evidence I just don't get why he called it as hitting the post. Just makes no sense. Could just be a mistake which I can accept but then the ARC is meant to be able to pick up that it was a mistake. As I've said before, difficult one for the Goal Ump and the ARC should have had his back but it failed. If you assume a mistake then the goal umpire shares a little blame given how difficult it was and given his positioning was correct in the situation, the ARC takes most of the blame for simply being useless.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
DavidSSS said:
Yes, I understand the umpire's decision stands if the ARC is inconclusive.

But surely the umpire can only call it as hitting the post if there is evidence of the ball hitting the post (like a noise, deviation, alteration of the way the ball is spinning or the like). In the absence of any of that evidence I just don't get why he called it as hitting the post. Just makes no sense. Could just be a mistake which I can accept but then the ARC is meant to be able to pick up that it was a mistake. As I've said before, difficult one for the Goal Ump and the ARC should have had his back but it failed. If you assume a mistake then the goal umpire shares a little blame given how difficult it was and given his positioning was correct in the situation, the ARC takes most of the blame for simply being useless.

DS
Click to expand...

So much of our frustration is due to umps being mic'd up.

We hear all the ambiguity and contradictions.

In this case, ignorance really would be bliss imo.

Although i spose this isnt in play when you attend live?

Im gonna experiment watching with no sound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
eZyT said:
Im gonna experiment watching with no sound.
Click to expand...
Only way to watch it these days.... when I don't go, watch it mute and when I replay it, turn the commentary on. You quickly realise how bad some of these commentators/experts are.
If only we had a "push red for crowd noise only" button. ... that's all I'd ever use!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
< 2021 all over again | Nathan (Axel) Foley [MERGED] >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom