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

I like how the AFL site is calling Swans undermanned with Hickey and Kennedy out… Lynch and Lambert goes out we are still at strength. :)
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users
Mr T. said:
I like how the AFL site is calling Swans undermanned with Hickey and Kennedy out… Lynch and Lambert goes out we are still at strength. :)
Click to expand...

One thing Kennedy and lambo have in common, not bad with the birds, Josh a bit behind with P Medals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
davidc0055 said:
1968
An opponent became obliged to return ball to recipient of mark or free if the opponent had possession of the ball at the time of the umpire’s decision.
(History of Rule Changes 1858-2019)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's if they have possession, which apparently Shai did. But back in the old days if the ball was at your feet you didn't have to pick it up and throw it back. A more recent change or rules or change of interpretation? Who knows but they do seem more strict on this now.

I'd add that the rule change page is not comprehensive, and not very well put together.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DavidSSS said:
Yeah, that's if they have possession, which apparently Shai did. But back in the old days if the ball was at your feet you didn't have to pick it up and throw it back. A more recent change or rules or change of interpretation? Who knows but they do seem more strict on this now.

I'd add that the rule change page is not comprehensive, and not very well put together.

DS
Click to expand...
If you don't have possession you don't have to give it back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
DavidSSS said:
Yeah, that's if they have possession, which apparently Shai did. But back in the old days if the ball was at your feet you didn't have to pick it up and throw it back. A more recent change or rules or change of interpretation? Who knows but they do seem more strict on this now.

I'd add that the rule change page is not comprehensive, and not very well put together.

DS
Click to expand...
You don’t have to give it back if you don’t touch it… you can’t have it then just put it on the ground like shai did

Out of all the dodgyness we cop from the umps… that wasn’t one..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
FWIW: Bolton is our biggest offender re: 50's; has played on after a free against 4-5 times.

Changes as expected and completely correct I reckon.
No injuries from this game and we may have zero for round 12! (That will give us a huge advantage post bye).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
C67AAC1E-970F-466A-904B-F78FF0C72091.jpeg
How good is this.
Boys land in Sydney and meet a well know local from ch9 The Voice
Edwards and Jack with Keith Urban
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 9 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...
A miniscule touch of the ball on the goal post won't cause an audible noise especially with a crowd in full voice nor would it cause a noticeable deviation.
Goal umpire called what he thought he saw n technology wasn't smart enough to over ride it.
Was a pain in the bloody arse when it happened but it's way to inconclusive to worry about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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