Review Round 2: Collingwood 36-36 Richmond

[unplugged]

But the line is not the line on the ground. The line is an imaginary line between the back of the padding on both posts.

The third umpire couldn’t see all of the ball when Higgins had his hands on it .... therefore he determined that he had marked the ball on the imaginary line.

Very tough call all the same and he put 100% faith that the camera gave him the perfect line of sight. It clearly didn’t ... and he should have called inconclusive.

But he’s been given a camera to use and he’s going to be equally criticised if he ignores what he sees.

It’s a shit happens situation

Very much a "shit happens" situation unless the AFL pull their fingers out and install a camera in the goal posts showing a clear view from goal post to point post.

Let's be honest, they won't be doing that in the current climate, especially outside of the MCG.

 

[jathanas]

Is it just me are have his legs become shorter and more Daicosian.

I've been a doubter until last night, but he and Callum are going to be good for us. They're both just so beautifully balanced.

Hahaha his torso to leg ratio seems to have changed hasn't it? I am stoked to see Callum and Josh doing so well. Tyler will be a gun.

 

[Maggie5]

The good, the bad and the ugly.

Good.
Can relax a bit for the next 9 days. We held on to draw against a full side cocky Richmond.
Saw glimpses of the future with Daicos.
Howe
We can improve with the addition of Treloar, Stepho and even players like Keane who I really like.

Bad
Gave them too much space in from the latter half of 2nd qtr and rest of the game.
Let Houli off the leash, he is one of their key play makers.
We ran out of gas and some of moves were puzzling.

Ugly
Umpiring - Elliott non mark? free kick to Tiges in front of goal and of course the mark.

Commentary! Without being there would have been good to know what changes Hardwick/Buckley made. Crowd noise, meh. Could barely see cutouts and even zoom didn't really add anything to viewing experience.
So sick of the rubbish they constantly repeat.

 

[sideswipe]

The good, the bad and the ugly.

Good.
Can relax a bit for the next 9 days. We held on to draw against a full side cocky Richmond.
Saw glimpses of the future with Daicos.
Howe
We can improve with the addition of Treloar, Stepho and even players like Keane who I really like.

Bad
Gave them too much space in from the latter half of 2nd qtr and rest of the game.
Let Houli off the leash, he is one of their key play makers.
We ran out of gas and some of moves were puzzling.

Ugly
Umpiring - Elliott non mark? free kick to Tiges in front of goal and of course the mark.

Commentary! Without being there would have been good to know what changes Hardwick/Buckley made. Crowd noise, meh. Could barely see cutouts and even zoom didn't really add anything to viewing experience.
So sick of the rubbish they constantly repeat.

The Good? Imagine how angry Dimma would be with the lazy Tigers players who didn't get back on the goal line when Jack Riewoldt found out 30 metres was beyond him. Cost them the game. I think of that and it makes me smile. Feel the anger Dimma, give in to the dark side.

 

[Apex36]

But the line is not the line on the ground. The line is an imaginary line between the back of the padding on both posts.

Where is that imaginary line rule written? I was always under the impression that the line is the line and the back of the goal post rule was made specifically for instances where the ball grazed the back of the post on the way through from an angle.

 

[domus]

Just a question - do you understand the history of black people in the USA? If you do, a lot of the black on black violence makes a lot of sense. A majority of these people are broken humans, from broken homes. They start significantly further behind the white man over there.

Building on that, white people are the historical oppressor. Thats why there is a difference between violence from black people on black people, and white people on black people. If you can’t see the differences, you need to look deeper into some things that happened as early as the 90’s. The disadvantages black americans start life with today, have been a result of white peoples oppressive actions in the past, not black people oppressing them.

This is not to say black on black violence is not an issue btw. Any violence is. But they are different issues.

Of course I do. Plenty of black people have come from poverty (as have many white people) and become doctors, lawyers, politicians, great sports men and women, movie stars, governors, teachers, authors, professors etc. I get sick of people excusing black on black violence because of slavery and the racism in America's past. Poverty in no way predicts violent, criminal behavior.

If your mantra is black lives matter-why would all of your focus and activism be focused on a target ( police) who killed ten people in the past year as opposed to the thousands killed in gang wars and crime related activity every year? It makes zero sense unless you understand it is all about political point scoring and attempts to divide us into tribes who are continually at each other's throats. When people here were chanting Black lives matter they lied about the cause of the indigenous deaths in custody and ignored the murder and maiming and abuse of thousands of indigenous people by other indigenous people. Why? Because they have no interest in the welfare of the indigenous people and great interest in wreaking havoc on our streets and promoting lies which makes them look virtuous and heroic without having to do anything.

Did you see all of the activists posing for selfies and grinning? So deeply concerned.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Where is that imaginary line rule written? I was always under the impression that the line is the line and the back of the goal post rule was made specifically for instances where the ball grazed the back of the post on the way through from an angle.

Good question. That’s my interpretation of what happened. Clearly it’s the third umpires too. I’d like to think I’m wrong because the camera can’t look around corners.

 

[Unknown Identity]

We need drone footage from above the goal lines

I said the same thing.

Either a drone above or camera's in the posts between goal post and point post.

 

[sideswipe]

Where is that imaginary line rule written? I was always under the impression that the line is the line and the back of the goal post rule was made specifically for instances where the ball grazed the back of the post on the way through from an angle.

I certainly can't find anything about the imaginary line between the backs of padding. Behind is when ball passes completely over the behind line (or touches padding). Behind line is the white line. We shouldn't listen to commentators.

 

[Apex36]

Good question. That’s my interpretation of what happened. Clearly it’s the third umpires too. I’d like to think I’m wrong because the camera can’t look around corners.

It’s a rule that makes no sense if it exists, as the line could simply be drawn on the ground to the back of the post padding. I’m calling bullshit on the imaginary line rule until I see evidence.

 

[unplugged]

Happy to be proven wrong but I'm fairly sure the back of the padding pretty well lines up with the edge of the line?

 

[Mkcaptain]

Where is that imaginary line rule written? I was always under the impression that the line is the line and the back of the goal post rule was made specifically for instances where the ball grazed the back of the post on the way through from an angle.

Similarly since the goal umpires' flags are treated as part of the goal post if the ball touches a flag hanging off the goal post its a behind. Yet I've never heard anyone suggest the ball needs to be completely past the goal umpire's flags to be considered a goal or a behind.

 

[mocamagic]

Is there a voting thread?

 

[Dale Doback]

I was hoping the pies could hang on but you ran out of legs again. That's when the quick clearing kicks out of defense and hacks up the line started which Richmond set up specifically for. I like the poise of Tyler Brown. Looks calm in congestion and having Pendles to learn from should see him play for a long time. You guys look a bit one paced, couldn't get any overlap and break the line in the 2nd half. How far away is Stephenson? And is he up for some time on the wing?

 

[mocamagic]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but why didn't Callum Brown make a greater effort to mark the ball with just a few seconds on the clock?
He could have dived to attempt the mark rather than being content to let it bounce. Any score from the resulting kick and it's a win.

 

[Anzacday]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but why didn't Callum Brown make a greater effort to mark the ball with just a few seconds on the clock?
He could have dived to attempt the mark rather than being content to let it bounce. Any score from the resulting kick and it's a win.

I just watched that again, yes he could've marked it.
That said, he did play for the free kick rather well bu not actually taking possession.
Considering he was actually tackled to the ground, (unlike Bolton) he was a bit stiff not to get the free.
Another learning experience for him I guess/hope.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but why didn't Callum Brown make a greater effort to mark the ball with just a few seconds on the clock?
He could have dived to attempt the mark rather than being content to let it bounce. Any score from the resulting kick and it's a win.

Perhaps he was too far out to kick a score from a set shot and knew he needed forward momentum to carry the ball a bit closer to goal. He nearly slipped the tackle so impossible to say he made the wrong decision.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It’s a rule that makes no sense if it exists, as the line could simply be drawn on the ground to the back of the post padding. I’m calling bullshit on the imaginary line rule until I see evidence.

The only evidence I have is that’s the way the third umpire called this decision and the AFL backed it as correct!!!!!

 

[Matt_352]

Ok after dust has settled on this one I've made some notes on the game.

1. Was pleased with Cameron's debut, will be good depth player, however. Last night showed that we are still really lacking an elite tall marking option up front. Cox provides more structure up fwd and is more of a marking threat than what Cameron does, so he gets the role for me above Cameron.

2. JT's and WHE's fall in form since 2018 has been staggering. Callum Brown and Josh Daicos have both gone past them, especially Daicos, I really think this will be a breakout year for Daicos. At the moment I wouldn't want both JT and WHE in the same 22. We really missed Stevo last night, soo much more dangerous then those two.

3. I'd like to remind people that Richmond were basically at full strength whereas we were missing a good handful of best 22 players.

4. I think we were more tired than what Richmond were towards the latter half of the game, that fitness base will rise over next few weeks.

5. On that contentious decision on the goal that was awarded to Richmond, on the footage it was inconclusive whether it fully crossed or not just our bad luck on the night, filthy about that but we too missed some pretty easy you would think set shots as well.

6. How about an absolute round of applause for our amazing defence. They are ****ing amazing and are our strongest area, would be close to the best defence in the league. Should see plenty of competition for spots too from Shaz, Levi, Murph and hopefully latter in the year Langdon.

7. I didn't expect a perfect performance after few months off, we will get much better and I believe we are in the running this year up to our eyeballs.

 

[kickitolachie]

It was a horrible game to watch. Pity it went international.
But for a blatant stage, a dodgy mark and a brilliant creation of a free kick by Lynch Richmond would have had only 3 goals.
After quarter time, Richmond shut down our defence exit tactics. many times, I saw players look for the clear pass and found everyone covered. This forced kicks down the line, and without Cox, we didn't mark many of them. Cameron played well, but is not the same.
Once they had created this game pattern, Richmond bounced the ball back on our defenders with speed, and the congested defence too often was forced to blind kick for territory. This is the game Richmond aim for.
TV has made night football the norm. Dewey grass makes for slimy balls and poor handling. We are stuck with it.
I lost track of the number of times players took the ball and tried to burst through tackles and were not penalized. They were holding the ball. They all got away with it.
Full length quarters and we would have lost comfortably. (Why exactly are they shortened?)
Mihocek, DeGoey and Phillips (twice) could have won the game for us but didn't.
Bleach blond hair epidemic has made it hard to distinguish players.
Our defenders are unbelievably good.
Our forwards are dependent on good movement from behind, and they only get it spasmodically.
Cameron is a ruckman, while Cox is a forward. We mustn't confuse the roles.

 

[Apples]

Where's Didaka's Voting thread?

 

[Capital Magpie]

5. On that contentious decision on the goal that was awarded to Richmond, on the footage it was inconclusive whether it fully crossed or not just our bad luck on the night, filthy about that but we too missed some pretty easy you would think set shots as well.

What I don't get was the vision was inconclusive as you say, no question, so why wasn't it ruled "umpire's call"? The goal umpire told the field umpire that he thought the ball was over the line, but he wanted it checked.

 

[jonmacTrag]

The only evidence I have is that’s the way the third umpire called this decision and the AFL backed it as correct!!!!!

I have always heard that goal umpire's call is the result unless direct and clear evidence to the contrary is available.
EVERY VIDEO I have seen on that incident in totally non clear.
So the umpire called 'POINT' and no clear contradictory evidence was presented.
Therefore they are making it up as they go along.

 

[Matt_352]

What I don't get was the vision was inconclusive as you say, no question, so why wasn't it ruled "umpire's call"? The goal umpire told the field umpire that he thought the ball was over the line, but he wanted it checked.

Yeah I think it should have been umpires call.

 

[itsadrizzle]

I still can't get over the non-holding the ball call in the 3rd qtr after the Mihocek play-on, Graham clearly throws it out. And of course Richmond got the holding the man call in the 50 not long after in the last. So frustrating knowing how ineffective Richmond were at scoring when the umpires didn't have their fingerprints on the play.