Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute! | 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.

Umpire farce - Getting worse by the minute!

spook said:
Far be it for me to argue on the AFilth's behalf, but the review was because if he'd got a toe to the ball it was a goal. As he didn't it was incorrect disposal or whatever they call dropping the ball nowadays.
Click to expand...
The umpire should be making the call on HTB or not. Not asking the fARCe if the ball touched Curnow's shoe lace.
If the same thing had of happened and the ball crossed the line between the points, would the ump have asked fARCe to make the decision for him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Brodders17 said:
The umpire should be making the call on HTB or not. Not asking the fARCe if the ball touched Curnow's shoe lace.
If the same thing had of happened and the ball crossed the line between the points, would the ump have asked fARCe to make the decision for him?
Click to expand...
Don't ask me.
 
Merveille said:
Harry Mackay didn’t hold his first mark either, and goaled from the resulting kick. Could say it was a 50-50 at best. We had same thing a bit later - play on
Click to expand...
Forgot that one. He kept playing too as he knew he had dropped it.
 
Brodders17 said:
The umpire should be making the call on HTB or not. Not asking the fARCe if the ball touched Curnow's shoe lace.
If the same thing had of happened and the ball crossed the line between the points, would the ump have asked fARCe to make the decision for him?
Click to expand...
I was sure that they’d ignore their own rule about the ‘soft call’ and say it was a goal just because it was us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
spook said:
Far be it for me to argue on the AFilth's behalf, but the review was because if he'd got a toe to the ball it was a goal. As he didn't it was incorrect disposal or whatever they call dropping the ball nowadays.
Click to expand...
He played on from a mark so assume that qualifies as your prior opportunity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
One positive about this thread is TBR's absence. Would be intolerable.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
The Carlton bloke Andy Maher was trying to get Ooze riled up with the free kick count when he was on just before.
Something along the lines of since 2019 Richmond is by far the worst offender for free kicks against.
So much so that the second worst on the list is something like 200+ free kicks better off.
I think I heard that right.
Of course we as supporters know this.
Nice Captain obvious comment Maher.
And yet all you hear about is the 2 dubious ones Tom got.
I think the hands in the back was just a free kick.
The 2nd one I think Tom's teammate gave away the free kick.:))
However, what about the 10 or so free kicks after that?

Basically starting each game 3 or 4 Goals behind.
Remember that protected area farce V Carl years back.
I think we gave away 5 or more 50 metre penalties (most of which they got Goals from) and still beat them easily.
The Anti Richmond sentiment continues.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 6 users
theglove3 said:
The Carlton bloke Andy Maher was trying to get Ooze riled up with the free kick count when he was on just before.
Something along the lines of since 2019 Richmond is by far the worst offender for free kicks against.
So much so that the second worst on the list is something like 200+ free kicks better off.
I think I heard that right.
Of course we as supporters know this.
Nice Captain obvious comment Maher.
And yet all you hear about is the 2 dubious ones Tom got.
I think the hands in the back was just a free kick.
The 2nd one I think Tom's teammate gave away the free kick.:))
However, what about the 10 or so free kicks after that?

Basically starting each game 3 or 4 Goals behind.
Remember that protected area farce V Carl years back.
I think we gave away 5 or more 50 metre penalties (most of which they got Goals from) and still beat them easily.
The Anti Richmond sentiment continues.
Click to expand...
Those 50m penalties we conceded were in Round 1 2022 and they beat us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
theglove3 said:
I think the hands in the back was just a free kick.
The 2nd one I think Tom's teammate gave away the free kick.:))
Click to expand...
No!!!! Dont spout *smile*. They were both clear frees. We were not lucky. They were not gifts. Learn the rules.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
DragaTheCro said:
Those 50m penalties we conceded were in Round 1 2022 and they beat us.
Click to expand...
Disagree, Marc Dragicevic.

We definitely won the match.
I think it was the first year of the protected area new rule.
Would guess either 2018 or 2019.
I remember writing it down in a score book somewhere.
I will let you know when I dig it up tomorrow.
 
MD Jazz said:
No!!!! Dont spout *smile*. They were both clear frees. We were not lucky. They were not gifts. Learn the rules.
Click to expand...
Yep the free to Lynch was for front on contact and was technically there; the defender jumped in the air and was facing Lynch and not the ball and from memory put his hand to Lynch’s chest.

It wasn’t super forceful but was there.

The commentators have no idea most of the time; they seemed confused by it.

Perhaps because it was a technically awarded free kick to Richmond which has been unseen by many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
< The Geelong Cants | Goddard >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom