MRP / Trib. All Things Richmond MRP/Trib

[LTT]

We better appeal this crap decision. Our club is one of the richer clubs so they should pull their finger out and do it on principle.

So will the CFL now suspend a player who outbodies/pushes his opponent out of the way in a marking contest and somehow that player who gets pushed out gets injured or concussed?

The worst thing is that if Mansell had not even touched O'Connell, he probably would have run to exactly the same spot tried to mark and got cleaned up anyway. What we should have argued is "innocent until proven guilty" and force the AFL to prove that the St Kilda player would not have run to the contest if Mansell had not pushed him.

 

[Hoos]

Maybe, just maybe, neutral fans don’t give a shit.

I'm sure they don't.

F**k them. F**k the neutral fans, f**k their teams, f**k the AFL and f**k the media.

That's pretty much it I think.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I'm sure they don't.

F**k them. F**k the neutral fans, f**k their teams, f**k the AFL and f**k the media.

That's pretty much it I think.

And the horse they rode in on.

 

[ShereKhan]

Every board has its one-eyed supporters who believe their club is getting screwed over by the CFL.
We laugh at their mad nuffies, and they laugh at ours.

Yeah, but Pies supporters complain about umpiring despite almost always being top-5 for free kick differential. So their claims of getting screwed are not based on fact. Pies get favourable fixture every year. Pie players often get rub of the green from the MRO or at the tribunal (Maynard etc…).

So I agree that every team has a whinge on occasions, but it’s almost always based on emotion, not facts. Ours is based on emotion backed up by the facts.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Hoos]

And the horse they rode in on.

I knew I'd left one out.

 

[ShereKhan]

That was 2022 and exactly what I was referring to by using the term “triangulation-gate.”

The most ludicrous part of it was how easy it was for the AFL to convince the overwhelming majority of neutral fans at the time it was legit.

Yep - remains the only time a ‘ball in flight’ on-field decision has been overturned without indisputable evidence.

You only need to look at the Naughton goal from the weekend… with every decision checked when the ball returns to the middle, that kick was far closer to a point than Lynch’s. Did the ‘arc’ even delay the game to have a good hard look at it? Nope. Nothing to see here… evidence wasn’t rock solid despite it looking like a clear point …so they were not willing to overrule.

The only time in history they overruled an on-field decision for a ball in flight without solid evidence was a final with 90-seconds to go. And if you recall, they didn’t review it for even 30-seconds …it was a Quick Look and then overrule. I still fume about it as a flag was there for the taking that year.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Hoos]

I still fume about it as a flag was there for the taking that year.

It was done to keep Brisbane in the game. Pure and simple. Anyone who disputes that will probably believe anything the AFL says.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Yep - remains the only time a ‘ball in flight’ on-field decision has been overturned without indisputable evidence.

You only need to look at the Naughton goal from the weekend… with every decision checked when the ball returns to the middle, that kick was far closer to a point than Lynch’s. Did the ‘arc’ even delay the game to have a good hard look at it? Nope. Nothing to see here… evidence wasn’t rock solid despite it looking like a clear point …so they were not willing to overrule.

The only time in history they overruled an on-field decision for a ball in flight without solid evidence was a final with 90-seconds to go. And if you recall, they didn’t review it for even 30-seconds …it was a Quick Look and then overrule. I still fume about it as a flag was there for the taking that year.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You would bet your house on if it was a Brisbane goal decision they either:

A) do not review it at all, or
B) “insufficient evidence to overturn”

 

[The_Kraken]

I'm sure they don't.

F**k them. F**k the neutral fans, f**k their teams, f**k the AFL and f**k the media.

That's pretty much it I think.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No-one cares except some sad nuffies on BF.
Jump up and down, post your tldr posts, get it all out…phew…feel better. Good boy.

lol AFL shill alert.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Who was that kangaroos w***er that used to post but got banned. Snake something!

Either that or a certain previous poster on this board that’s put the dummy back in.

 

[THE THIN MAN]

The AFL won't admit they stuffed up by not suspending Ginbey.

The sooner they replace Michael 'Collingwood' Christian, the better!

 

[wegetpumped]

The AFL won't admit they stuffed up by not suspending Ginbey.

The sooner they replace Michael 'Collingwood' Christian, the better!

He doesn't make the rules just judges them.

 

[Hoos]

View attachment 2269893

That's rather disturbing. Does this mean we're not friends anymore?

 

[sabso]

He doesn't make the rules just judges them.

Badly

 

[tropicaltiger]

The mind boggles. also put this on the main board for unbiased views.

Need a hypothetical expert here.... What happens if it's a Grand Final... minute to go and exactly the same happens, except Mansell instead of stopping (as concerned for injured player and Lynch had/has received holding free)

Mansell swoops on the loose ball and runs at goal (umpire calls advantage) Mansell bangs it thru and Tigers hit the front. WTF happens?

 

[DickieKnee]

He doesn't make the rules just judges them.

But it's interpretation of the rules

 

[Sir_Loin]

That's rather disturbing. Does this mean we're not friends anymore?

As always you have a way and timing of words. Bravo.

 

[Sir_Loin]

View attachment 2269893

How does it feel to be the worst alt account in the history of this bord you dumb campaigner

 

[SplintWhisky]

I'm a dumb old campaigner don't understand modern football. 2017 & 2020 winning grand finals, game plan involves losing first clearances, and Bottom of the free kick ladder.
was it part of some game?
Reading Konrad' Marshall's book where he talks to meetings about game plans that were complex.
Winning free kicks was not important.
We gave away most 50s for the Stand rule but we were just in the 8 when Dusty got injured and that ended 2021.
2022 Dissent we were on the wrong end of that stat. If the 2022 Sydney 6 point loss was a draw we still ended up playing Brisbane.
3 umpires turned into 4. There's no record of which ump pays free kicks. AFL got rules gray on grey interpretation.

Not sure what your post relates to in mine or if you are commenting, agreeing or disagreeing.

Just in case I wasn't clear in my message, what I am saying is that the free kick differential ladder isn't the best form of data for umpire bias. The actual measure is looking at the free kicks other sides give away and then the number of Frees they give away when playing Richmond. As I mentioned, when teams play us, their free kicks they give away are in the bottom 2% of the distribution consistently.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Rules for some rules for others as simple as that.

They had an opportunity to take action in the preseason and did not.

They failed to protect the health and safety of Lalor in that incident, or in the incidents that immediately followed.

Stop picking a choosing when to implement change as clearly the first few incidents weren’t enough to just a change before the season even started.

AFL has become a joke.

The most frustrating bit is as been stated if Mansell was Cripps he would've got off or if in finals.
While I don't like players getting injured this way I hope this type of incident happens in a final.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Some serious tinfoil hat conspiracy theories going on in here.

1. The AFL haven't changed the rules in season, rough conduct has always been a charge that is available to use when there is an incident that is a legal action but results in a player getting hurt. In this instance they have seen something creeping into the game that they gave a warning that it would be punished if it continued to happen. Unfortunately one of our players was the first to offend since the memo so they pay the price.

2. There is no anti Richmond agenda at the AFL, we were losing free kick counts and having players suspended while we were winning and it's happening now while we're crap. We play the game hard and we push the boundaries in terms of the rules so we will pay the price when we cross the line with regards what is and isn't acceptable.

Getting worked up about it achieves little apart from giving you worry lines and grey hair.

Sorry Gil but it seems you have forgotten one key element in all this.
Why wasn't the same rough conduct rule applied to the Lalor incident?
You may not be the boss now but congrats on passing the I hate rfc baton onto your successor.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Read the room. You argued vehemently against something most Richmond supporters felt strongly about - that Ginbey should be suspended for deliberately or recklessly shoving Lalor into oncoming traffic at high speed by pushing him in the back. Now you are arguing people are reacting wrongly when a Richmond player is rubbed out for a push that preceded his opponent electing to run recklessly into oncoming traffic to try to take a mark.

Our supporters have no idea of the precise mechanics of the AFL officiating against us at every turn. Such is the nature of these things that nobody is ever likely to own up to any revealing detail.

All we know is it just keeps happening…

- Houli decision to suspend for 2 weeks at Tribunal appealed by the same organisation that failed to even site players for incidents for which they were responsible that saw Richmond players seriously injured, Hawkins/Soldo, Dangerfield/Vlastuin, Ginbey/Lalor

- Lynch suspended for a bump that caused no injury after he was pushed into the contest because “he was going to bump anyway.” 2 short weeks later in the Mansell case the “he was going to do it anyway” principle counts for zero at the exact same Tribunal

- 3 Richmond players charged by the MRO in one match in 2020, ALL overturned by the Tribunal. Think about that for a minute. The odds of that occurring if those charges were not the result of biased officiating are astronomical

- accredited reporters reporting AFL Footy Operations boss Steven Hocking(the CEO in waiting of the club we kept beating in finals no less) had become “increasingly angry” with elements of the way Richmond played. He then was the main driver behind rule changes designed specifically to help his club Geelong shake the hold we had over them

- free kick results that for 8 years now have put Richmond way out of step with what would be normal for the 18th worst off team in an 8 year period. We have finished 18th on the free kick differential in 6 of those years, 17th in another year and 13th in the other. This is just what we can get access to. We are known to be the worst off for 50m penalty rulings every time that figure is revealed. When we watch games as Richmond supporters we get the same feeling from all the other rulings umpires make - advantage calls, marks paid/not paid, play on calls etc.

- Common sense gate where the AFL said it was fine for an umpire not to enforce a rule in our favour giving us a shot at goal to win post siren, because it was “common sense.” Only this had not been applied in the same situation when one of our players had similarly infringed.

- It was also not applied when umpires could see Dion Prestia KO’d illegally and being frantically attended by medical staff where the umps insisted on the play continuing around him for 2 whole minutes until the opposition(surprise surprise Geelong) scored what turned out to be the goal that won them the game.

- triangulation gate. Where the AFL employed and defended a method of over-ruling Richmond’s winning goal in a final by a method so dodgy that it has never once been employed in 500 odd games since. Which team do you think might have been the main beneficiary of our elimination from the race to meet them in a Preliminary Final? You guessed it, Geelong.

- 2 X very dubious Marlion Pickett charges/tribunal outcomes where his potential penalties were maximised, one of which involved a passage of play where he copped a roundhouse swinging arm “tackle” clear on the head which the MRO chose to ignore. From memory he was suspended both times for “potential to cause injury.” Which is rarely used bar on Richmond players.

- 2 X extremely dubious Mansell suspensions, one where he was genuinely contesting the ball, the other for an offence that seemed to have little or no causal link to the collision he was reported for causing.

- Dubious outcome in the B Ellis FA compo case that our club was very unhappy about. Guess which future Geelong CEO made that decision?

I am almost certainly missing some more obvious ones. Who could forget our 8 X technical 50m penalties game against Carlton for eg.

If you think all of these things are just the result of the way the cookie crumbles, you are stretching the boundaries of what most of us could ever accept as credible. It is abundantly clear to the rest of us we are suffering heavily biased officiating by the AFL. Like, way beyond the normal level of bias most fans feel their team suffers. We know the difference, because we were in the latter category all my life up to 8 years ago, and since then we have been in the former category. 500,000 people don’t just simultaneously imagine the same thing where that thing is false.

Post
Of
The
Century

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Imagine if Dangerflog did the same thing. Reckon he'd be up for 3 weeks?

3 week credit if the victim was a Tiger

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

We better appeal this crap decision. Our club is one of the richer clubs so they should pull their finger out and do it on principle.

So will the CFL now suspend a player who outbodies/pushes his opponent out of the way in a marking contest and somehow that player who gets pushed out gets injured or concussed?

Hope we don’t.
Luv too see one of the afls luv child sides get too a GF without one of their stars because of same act.
(Yeah I know Dillion would appeal).