But therein lies the issue. The obvious Danger dive was never mentioned by the media. Is that balanced TBR????
-
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.
Dreamtime 2020 Game Day
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
Yeah i didn't think the hand went above the shoulder. As I said, it was late so still a 50.
Not in the marking contest.
50 Good call.
We copped a 50 for a pathetic late hit AGAIN just prior......
SucK IT bombers.
Yes there would. Reverse the sash colours and the media will be carrying on for the next week about what a high dangerous act that was and it nearly decapitated the poor bummers player and it was just sheer luck that no lasting damage occurred, and the Richmond player should be suspended for a minimum of the rest of the season
If you're saying high implies head contact, I agree. It was at least above the shoulder and most probably a glancing blow to the neck. Vlastuin clearly felt it. Doesn't take much with a swinging arm and players running perpendicular to one another.
By the letter of the law, it was "high contact". And late.
It's funny how the reporting of supposed staging or diving incidents is always magnified when it's Richmond players involved.
The biggest stage I've seen in years was Dangerfield just before half time in the PF last year. The commentators didn't even mention it and the papers didn't write about it. Then that little suck from Port, Wood Duck, comes a very close second in our game a couple of weeks back. Nothing to see here.
But nah, no media agenda against the RFC
I'm just glad he got through without pinging a hammy! Tough first game back in those conditions too.
Herein lies the difference. Stagerfield dives and stages all the time. Late 2nd quarter 2019 PF the supreme case in point. Yet not a word said about it. Yet a Richmond player does it and it's front and back page news all week.
Reminded me of some of those 'exaggerations' that Sheedy used to do and showed us again on The Front Bar. In his words...that's just part of footy.
How is the news headlines!
Lynch a thug and Irving a hero.
Now while I agree irvng had a good start I also disagree that lynch is a thug.
This is bombers good tigers bad reporting.
In any other context there would be outrage.
The tigers are under the pump like never before.
2 more flags should see us in the right light i reckon.
go tigers..
Lynch a thug and Irving a hero.
Now while I agree irvng had a good start I also disagree that lynch is a thug.
This is bombers good tigers bad reporting.
In any other context there would be outrage.
The tigers are under the pump like never before.
2 more flags should see us in the right light i reckon.
go tigers..
Maybe in terms of ticket availability to Bombers members. Also the bombers have always been strongly supported in the Top End.
I reckon the crowd noise was a factor in that Balta free.
What a frustrating game.
Clearly our inaccuracy and their ridiculous accuracy made it much closer than it should have been. We need to get a lot more value out of our inside 50s.
The issue with the goal kicking tonight had 4 factors:
As for the contentious umpiring decisions cited above, they do merit some comment.
Vlastuin's 50: clearly hit high (neck) and well after he had completed the mark. Yes, Vlas applied some mayo, but would they have paid it otherwise? Hit, high, after the mark is complete - clear 50. One other thing, I thought it was a little soft but clearly within the rules. But looking at the replay slightly changed my mind,. Yes, still a little soft, but Bell-Chambers had ample time to move his arm out of the way and not strike Vlastuin. Bell-Chambers chose to hit Vlastuin, just on those grounds clear 50.
Balta's holding the ball: ok let's look at the actual rule and not the conjecture:
All of this relies on prior opportunity, which is defined as follows:
Balta had no prior opportunity, he was tackled as he gathered the ball and had one arm pinned immediately. Since he had no prior opportunity, did he attempt to dispose of the ball incorrectly? No. Was he able but did not genuinely attempt to dispose of the ball? No, not able (arm pinned). Did he dive on the ball? No, he was tackled to the ground.
Going by the definition above there is absolutely no way Balta had prior opportunity.
I've see players get an arm pinned immediately when they gather the ball many times every week - it is a ball up. I also see players get an eternity to dispose of the ball and still it is a ball up. The definition of prior opportunity above is actually not bad, pity the umpires seem incapable of either reading or understanding it.
The problem is that if they continue to adjudicate this rule so badly we will see, in fact we are already seeing, players run at the ball and try not to take possession as they know they are on a hiding to nothing if they go after the ball. There is a fundamental problem with the interpretation of the rules when that interpretation actively discourages players to go for the ball. It isn't even the rules which are a problem here, they are not that bad, it is the woeful interpretation of the rules and the gross inconsistency of the adjudication. FFS, we want players to go for the ball. Yes, reward a good tackle, but reward the player who is after the ball before you reward the player who is after the free kick.
DS
PS: finally, after searching the net rather than the AFL website which sends you to a 2017 video of the rules and a link to the 2019 rules, I found the 2020 rules. They are identical except it is now Section 18.6.
Clearly our inaccuracy and their ridiculous accuracy made it much closer than it should have been. We need to get a lot more value out of our inside 50s.
The issue with the goal kicking tonight had 4 factors:
- The delivery from the middle wasn't up to par, somewhat better than in some games this year, but still too much bombing into 50. There were more attempts to lower the eyes tonight but still not at the level it needs to be.
- The forwards seem to park themselves close to goal. They need to lead, we need to get the forwards moving around more, some separation from defenders, make them run around a bit and split them up. This would also be contributing to the above as the mids have no idea where to kick the ball inside 50 because all they would see ahead of them is a large pack of players and not enough movement.
- The crumbers . . . hmm, what crumbers? Our small forwards seem to be nowhere near the ball coming off the pack this year. You see a marking contest, the ball goes to ground and it is all opposition players. No idea what is going on there but they are seriously out of sorts.
- Although the inside 50 delivery was not great we did have 9 marks in the forward 50, we had 1 last week and 5 against Port. There were a few shots which just shouldn't have been missed, so bad kicking for goal was also an issue.
As for the contentious umpiring decisions cited above, they do merit some comment.
Vlastuin's 50: clearly hit high (neck) and well after he had completed the mark. Yes, Vlas applied some mayo, but would they have paid it otherwise? Hit, high, after the mark is complete - clear 50. One other thing, I thought it was a little soft but clearly within the rules. But looking at the replay slightly changed my mind,. Yes, still a little soft, but Bell-Chambers had ample time to move his arm out of the way and not strike Vlastuin. Bell-Chambers chose to hit Vlastuin, just on those grounds clear 50.
Balta's holding the ball: ok let's look at the actual rule and not the conjecture:
All of this relies on prior opportunity, which is defined as follows:
Balta had no prior opportunity, he was tackled as he gathered the ball and had one arm pinned immediately. Since he had no prior opportunity, did he attempt to dispose of the ball incorrectly? No. Was he able but did not genuinely attempt to dispose of the ball? No, not able (arm pinned). Did he dive on the ball? No, he was tackled to the ground.
Going by the definition above there is absolutely no way Balta had prior opportunity.
I've see players get an arm pinned immediately when they gather the ball many times every week - it is a ball up. I also see players get an eternity to dispose of the ball and still it is a ball up. The definition of prior opportunity above is actually not bad, pity the umpires seem incapable of either reading or understanding it.
The problem is that if they continue to adjudicate this rule so badly we will see, in fact we are already seeing, players run at the ball and try not to take possession as they know they are on a hiding to nothing if they go after the ball. There is a fundamental problem with the interpretation of the rules when that interpretation actively discourages players to go for the ball. It isn't even the rules which are a problem here, they are not that bad, it is the woeful interpretation of the rules and the gross inconsistency of the adjudication. FFS, we want players to go for the ball. Yes, reward a good tackle, but reward the player who is after the ball before you reward the player who is after the free kick.
DS
PS: finally, after searching the net rather than the AFL website which sends you to a 2017 video of the rules and a link to the 2019 rules, I found the 2020 rules. They are identical except it is now Section 18.6.
Last edited:
I had a ball at the game. I barracked hard for the Tigers all night. Gave plenty of advice to players, umpires and opposition supporters. Tigers were the minority tonight and gave a good account of ourselves.
Any Bomber supporters who are crying about the result reckoning they was robbed must be blind in one eye can’t see out of the other. We were clearly the better side all night, only some of our comical finishing and their incredible accuracy kept them in it. Should hold this game here each and every year.
Any Bomber supporters who are crying about the result reckoning they was robbed must be blind in one eye can’t see out of the other. We were clearly the better side all night, only some of our comical finishing and their incredible accuracy kept them in it. Should hold this game here each and every year.
