Nankervis !! | 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.

Nankervis !!

The “pile on” towards our Captain here has been very disappointing.
Gutless and cheap shot seems to be the common theme towards him rather than late and clumsy.
Wonder what Tony Shaw would think of these supporters?
If Nanks had got him slightly lower, like Buddy did on Balta, it would simply have been a free downfield.
I wonder whether Swan supporters are calling Buddy gutless and a cheap shot atm?
If "Ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry xmas.
 
Many will remember Dimma riding his scooter (The Shed Sled) to Loch Nankervis to trim the hedges into likenesses of Saint Jayden of Short.

At the time Nankervis was open about wanting the hedges to be trimmed into likenesses of Blake Caracella but Hardwick would not listen. And was kinda pervy about Short, who Nankervis and many others think is a battler.

Only a few years later Hardwick walked out on RFC citing chop emotional damage.

Nankervis will certainly miss 3 unless the AFL intervenes. And it will be up to Andrew Duncan Donald Campbell Stewart McQualter to respond in an even handed way.

Into whose likeness will Mini have the hedges of Loch Nankervis carved? God forbid that he does it himself.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Who are you to call Nank’s behaviour stupid and gutless?
Go and support your team somewhere else.
Ridiculous overreaction mate. Check my posting history. Been here since 2007. Been a member for 30 years. That's my assessment, Nank was stupid and reckless. He's the captain and should be leading by example. Choosing to hit a bloke he didn't need to was stupid and reckless. If he executed that bump perfectly it would have had zero impact on the game. He was out of the play and not a danger to us in general anyway. I have no problem with players who play close to the edge. Cotch does. Pickett does. It keeps your opponents honest, makes them think twice. Having the spectre of Nank cleaning house if one of his teammates was taken out is real, and I'm here for it. But if he's sitting on the pine for being a thoughtless meathead he's no good to us, is he?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Nanks in 10th this year for hitouts to advantage with 9. The leader Witts is on 12.4. That's less than 1 per quarter. This is also why I don't put alot of weight on HTAs and much more emphasis on a ruckman's influence at ground level. And this is where Nanks excels. Of ruckmen, 2nd most spoils, most pressure acts, moat tackles. He's a beast and causes panic amongst the opposition midfielders. We're going to miss him
Haven't sen this year's stats but he's huge on ruck hardball gets as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
What really *smile* me about this is Longmire's reaction in calling for the send off for "obvious" cases. "Obvious" underlined, italicised, in caps, and fluro type. As a lot of us have said, I'm not against the send-off rule in principle, just have zero faith in the AFL to execute anything competently, especially measures that change the fabric of the game. They cannot "obvious" their way out of a wet paper bag. Remember the DRC was brought in for 'clangers"?

And why is it always us that cops these line-in-the-sand calls? Broady, first-up, cops 4, every subsequent similar case cops 3, and even 2 in a coupld of cases. Why wasn't this discussion had for the DeGoey case?

More broadly I think the send-off is inevitable, just a matter of when. This go hard but be gentle approach of the AFL is legally, culturally, physically unsustainable. I'd like to see some data on concussions, has it been reduced? Doesn't seem so, or if so not by much. The send-off will just be one of many fundamental changes that will have to happen if they want to, or have to, address it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Ridiculous overreaction mate. Check my posting history. Been here since 2007. Been a member for 30 years. That's my assessment, Nank was stupid and reckless. He's the captain and should be leading by example. Choosing to hit a bloke he didn't need to was stupid and reckless. If he executed that bump perfectly it would have had zero impact on the game. He was out of the play and not a danger to us in general anyway. I have no problem with players who play close to the edge. Cotch does. Pickett does. It keeps your opponents honest, makes them think twice. Having the spectre of Nank cleaning house if one of his teammates was taken out is real, and I'm here for it. But if he's sitting on the pine for being a thoughtless meathead he's no good to us, is he?
Reference to Nank as stupid and gutless was uncalled for. Reckless .. I agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What really *smile* me about this is Longmire's reaction in calling for the send off for "obvious" cases. "Obvious" underlined, italicised, in caps, and fluro type. As a lot of us have said, I'm not against the send-off rule in principle, just have zero faith in the AFL to execute anything competently, especially measures that change the fabric of the game. They cannot "obvious" their way out of a wet paper bag. Remember the DRC was brought in for 'clangers"?

And why is it always us that cops these line-in-the-sand calls? Broady, first-up, cops 4, every subsequent similar case cops 3, and even 2 in a coupld of cases. Why wasn't this discussion had for the DeGoey case?

More broadly I think the send-off is inevitable, just a matter of when. This go hard but be gentle approach of the AFL is legally, culturally, physically unsustainable. I'd like to see some data on concussions, has it been reduced? Doesn't seem so, or if so not by much. The send-off will just be one of many fundamental changes that will have to happen if they want to, or have to, address it.
Because Collingwood were belting WC, De Goey had an average game and Hewett's no Jake Lloyd. They only raise it when they think the incident had some type of bearing on the outcome of the game. Just shows how fickle the footy media are.
 
On the flipside losing hitouts uncontested is a fast way to lose games.
The momentum, field position and pressure when an oppo ruck carves it up.
2 examples
Melbourne in the 2021 grannie.
Blues against us in the 2013 elim 3/4

How many of those clearances are the result of the ruckman cleanly tapping the ball to an opposition midfielder who, unpressured, kicks the ball to one of their forwards to take a mark?

The game is so messy and chaotic that it's very easy to prevent the above from happening. They win the tap - we easily affect the outcome. We might win or lose that contest, but I think the tap itself has little bearing on that outcome.
 
Ridiculous overreaction mate. Check my posting history. Been here since 2007. Been a member for 30 years. That's my assessment, Nank was stupid and reckless. He's the captain and should be leading by example. Choosing to hit a bloke he didn't need to was stupid and reckless. If he executed that bump perfectly it would have had zero impact on the game. He was out of the play and not a danger to us in general anyway. I have no problem with players who play close to the edge. Cotch does. Pickett does. It keeps your opponents honest, makes them think twice. Having the spectre of Nank cleaning house if one of his teammates was taken out is real, and I'm here for it. But if he's sitting on the pine for being a thoughtless meathead he's no good to us, is he?

The word 'stupid' comes across like a personal attack, so people are more likely misunderstood that your actual point is simply that he's not helping us by being needlessly reckless

I'll throw in the term "controlled aggression" when it comes to describing what I'd like to see from Nank... we want more controlled aggression :d
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Reference to Nank as stupid and gutless was uncalled for. Reckless .. I agree.
Fair enough. I stand by it, I reckon it was a stupid act. He's 6'5" or 6, he's much more likely to collect someone high in that situation so he has to be very careful when going the bump. He usually is. This was a brain fade, and a costly one.
 
What really *smile* me about this is Longmire's reaction in calling for the send off for "obvious" cases. "Obvious" underlined, italicised, in caps, and fluro type. As a lot of us have said, I'm not against the send-off rule in principle, just have zero faith in the AFL to execute anything competently, especially measures that change the fabric of the game. They cannot "obvious" their way out of a wet paper bag. Remember the DRC was brought in for 'clangers"?

And why is it always us that cops these line-in-the-sand calls? Broady, first-up, cops 4, every subsequent similar case cops 3, and even 2 in a coupld of cases. Why wasn't this discussion had for the DeGoey case?

More broadly I think the send-off is inevitable, just a matter of when. This go hard but be gentle approach of the AFL is legally, culturally, physically unsustainable. I'd like to see some data on concussions, has it been reduced? Doesn't seem so, or if so not by much. The send-off will just be one of many fundamental changes that will have to happen if they want to, or have to, address it.
Like you, I’m not actually against the send off rule, but where were all these calls for it last year when Stewart cleaned up Prestia? That was one of the most clearly intentional attempts to take out a play maker that we’ve seen in recent times. Stewart went on to be near BOG and won the game for them. Yet, all we heard after was what a good bloke he was and how out of character it was. Then you’ve got footage of Duckwood congratulating him for doing it. As Craig would say it boils my *smile*.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Worse than De Goooooey's ????? He'll get the usual 4 as our players always do. Broad, Mansell and now Nank.

1689058832114.png
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 1 users
Insane.
Do these guys actually understand footy?
DeGoey jumped at him in the air with his elbow up!!!
The Tiger witch hunt continues
Stick it in their shiny diaries. When it's Richmond, just give them 4 weeks and then head off to the takeaway shop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
let's face it - it was really dumb of Nank - he'll get a month ..

saddest thing is that after the incident he went on to show how indispensable he is ..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
When they deliberate long for Richmond cases, I wonder how much saliva spits out of their mouths.