View Full Version : Richardson's "Mark"
C7 didn't show a side on from what I can remember - but from the replay his mark over the goal line in the second quarter could well have cost us two points.
Or it could well have been my imagination.
In any event, have we been watching the Matrix or something? Dodged two bullets in two weeks; hope for a less shit performance next week.
It was clearly marked over the line......should have been a goal. Anyway after the way we played today, I am happy with the draw.
jimmy j hird
20 Apr 2008, 19:10
The Bulldogs should protest against that mark, And try to get that win. just like Fremantle did. Even though it was against a siren, bulldogs should get the win!
Red,White and Blue
20 Apr 2008, 20:42
also richmond went up the other end and scored a goal 12 point turnaround. but im still happy with 2 points
I'm of the opinion that something that happens in the second quarter has no impact on the result of a game. 200 hundred things happened after Richo's "Mark" (I am convinced it was over the line ) that had plenty of influence on the result. Let's get over it - we snuck 2 points we shouldn't have got at the 22 minute mark of the last quarter.
beyondthevalley ofthedogs
20 Apr 2008, 21:46
I had a reasonable view point from where I sat and I thought he marked it inside the line of play. I'll have to have another look, but things that happen in the second quarter don';t mean the difference between winning and losing.
There is always going to be decisions like this discussed especially when it was a draw. Bad decisions cost teams goals at least once a game so I don't think it is an issue the ump paid it a mark, move one. I go back to the numerous misses in the 1st which were very costly made a few more of those and it probably would have choked Richmond early.
I think we're pretty lucky to get 2 points. I'll take that. I guess :o
soupaman
20 Apr 2008, 23:28
In my opinion it was over the line and thus a goal. This is my perception of it both from my seat at the time and watching the replay on the TV later. However, it just goes down on the list of what if's that always come up after a draw:
What if...
-Richo's mark wasn't paid and it was a goal
-Minson had of held either of those marks in the first quarter
-Welsh had kicked straighter
-We actually manned the Richmond players up
-Hahn had have gotten a point instead of an out on the full
-Lake had have taken the kick after his brilliant mark
-Various poorly directed bounces from the umpire
And any other suggestions any of you might have.
tigertiger
20 Apr 2008, 23:32
The goal umpire was in perfect position, who are we to argue, TV distorts depth.
What about all the crap umpire decisions and the ones not paid to Richmond. It is a mute argument
soupaman
20 Apr 2008, 23:39
The goal umpire was in perfect position, who are we to argue, TV distorts depth.
What about all the crap umpire decisions and the ones not paid to Richmond. It is a mute argument
Geez, get real. The crap decisions go both ways mate. And Like I said, there are a lot of what ifs.
BenMacAn
20 Apr 2008, 23:44
In my opinion it was over the line and thus a goal. This is my perception of it both from my seat at the time and watching the replay on the TV later. However, it just goes down on the list of what if's that always come up after a draw:
What if...
-Richo's mark wasn't paid and it was a goal
-Minson had of held either of those marks in the first quarter
-Welsh had kicked straighter
-We actually manned the Richmond players up
-Hahn had have gotten a point instead of an out on the full
-Lake had have taken the kick after his brilliant mark
etc.
You forgot one thing the first three centre bounces at the beginning of the third quater, straight to richmond players without a ruck contest as they just went straight to them and resulted in three goals. Umpire was shocking at bouncing the ball. Bulldogs were flat all day let's hope we get that spring in our step for next week.
Go doggies.
You forgot one thing the first three centre bounces at the beginning of the third quater, straight to richmond players without a ruck contest as they just went straight to them and resulted in three goals. Umpire was shocking at bouncing the ball. Bulldogs were flat all day let's hope we get that spring in our step for next week.
Go doggies.
It's going to be a hot topic all week!
soupaman
20 Apr 2008, 23:53
You forgot one thing the first three centre bounces at the beginning of the third quater, straight to richmond players without a ruck contest as they just went straight to them and resulted in three goals. Umpire was shocking at bouncing the ball. Bulldogs were flat all day let's hope we get that spring in our step for next week.
Go doggies.
Yeah. I'm used to that already though. Its been happening all season.
But I shall add it to the ever growing list.
memberforever
20 Apr 2008, 23:59
In my opinion it was over the line and thus a goal. This is my perception of it both from my seat at the time and watching the replay on the TV later. However, it just goes down on the list of what if's that always come up after a draw:
What if...
-Richo's mark wasn't paid and it was a goal
-Minson had of held either of those marks in the first quarter
-Welsh had kicked straighter
-We actually manned the Richmond players up
-Hahn had have gotten a point instead of an out on the full
-Lake had have taken the kick after his brilliant mark
-Various poorly directed bounces from the umpire
And any other suggestions any of you might have.
You can say what you want about the ifs and buts, but this thread is about whether Richo marked the ball through the goals or inside play. Take a good look at the replay and the ball is well and truly through the goals.
soupaman
21 Apr 2008, 00:06
You can say what you want about the ifs and buts, but this thread is about whether Richo marked the ball through the goals or inside play. Take a good look at the replay and the ball is well and truly through the goals.
Yes, I said that I too thought it was a goal. But really, that could have made a massive difference on the game, but doesn't mean we would have won it, therefore, it just gets added to the list of what ifs.
I think my post is entirely relevent to this thread, in that it points out that so many things happen during a match that you can't say one specific incident in the second quarter would have changed anything.
The Bulldogs should protest against that mark, And try to get that win. just like Fremantle did. Even though it was against a siren, bulldogs should get the win!Won't happen. Had that goal been given it would have changed the course of the rest of the match. It was a 12 point mistake and maybe that goal would have been the one that sunk Richmond's confidence, but maybe it would have made us over-confident. Just dunno what would have happened so you can't change something like that and reward the game to a side after the game is over.
ErnieSigley
21 Apr 2008, 00:24
BTW the 'Richo mark' goal would have put us 21 points up and not 9 points late in the second quarter.
A crucial error.
In the end I thought we were pretty lucky to draw it.
Topendrumour
21 Apr 2008, 14:27
In the end I thought we were pretty lucky to draw it.
Wasn't luck ES, it was a never give up attitude.
Very true Top End. We needed to kick three goals to earn the draw, and they needed to kick straight in front of goal. But I think it was a bit of Richmond's doing too.