Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

[dukedog]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Lol. Amazement

[dukedog]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Looked up the rule. No one can touch it. Clearly hasnt been like that for 30 years

[Twodogs]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

The same ruling worked in our favour in the GF so I'm happy to cop this one

Yep. That's play in for everybody but a GWS player. They get all sorts of mystical gifts from the umpires. Not that the AFL are desperate for em to succeed or anything.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Interested in your comments on Matthew Boyd YHF.
I'm curious as to whether you watched the game live, or on TV?

TV. I'm Brisbane based. No denying he still has great fitness, but he seemed a liability in many situations last nihht. His going to ground in the two on one we had with Dustin Martin late was nearly catastrophic.

[Ozza]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-game-rules/part-d-pre-match-provisions/afl-rules-marking-the-football/

[GVGjr]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

How would Boyd's be a mark if the Richmond player touched it second?

Correct call was made. Sorry.

Yep, looking at the replay he didn't have a clean mark

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

No free kick or mark paid to TBoyd in front of goal in the last five minutes. WTF?

Absolute shocker. Had to be a mark or a free.

He was held and could only extend one arm to mark.

[Ozza]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

TV. I'm Brisbane based. No denying he still has great fitness, but he seemed a liability in many situations last nihht. His going to ground in the two on one we had with Dustin Martin late was nearly catastrophic.

Ok, reason I was asking was that I think there was plenty Boyd did that wouldn't be picked up on TV (in the same way that I'm sure players like Dahlhaus could be appreciated more on tv because its easy to miss the players under the packs etc at the ground).

I really rated Boyd's game last night because of his defensive positioning. There were countless times that I thought he made the right decision on which Richmond player to close down - and particularly in the second half - he was instrumental in halting Richmond's ball movement.

In regards to the Dustin Martin play, Easton Wood was most at fault there. Boyd originally competed with Martin in the marking contest and then Wood didn't take the first option to give it back over to Boyd - then he failed to protect the space in front of him so that Boyd could pick up the ball and Martin slid in from behind Boyd. I don't think Wood will enjoy seeing that back in the review.

I'll watch the game back during the week and see how he looked on TV, but I really thought Matt Boyd stood up for us in defence.

[comrade]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Boyd just can't chase anymore. There was a passage when Richmond were streaming forward and he just gave up the chase, thinking his involvement was over. Richmond then stuffed the next disposal up, but because Boyd was out of the contest, he couldn't impact it.

He still has value, but it is diminishing.

[dukedog]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-game-...-the-football/

Rules state. Caught or controlled. So controlled is caught. Why have controlled when u can just have caught? Sending me a link of that garbage is just that. Umpires adjudication of the rule is nothing but a joke. So really. The rule is interpretation at the time. Which means. Its 50/50 at best. Id say they pay that more often than not. My opinion as a spectator. Keep throwing me links mate. For laughs.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

The only interesting thing of the non paid mark (and non free kick) was the commentary/ramblings of Ling. All year I've heard 'he had enough of it for mine' and 'I've seen worse paid before' and 'they should really be paid'. But on Tom's, it was 'the correct call the umpire' (for at best a slight touch & at best nanoseconds in duration).

Make of it what you will.

[comrade]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Ling is a Bulldog hater. No doubt it stems from his relationship with Chris Scott, who has an unhealthy obsession with Bevo.

[Bornadog]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Rules state. Caught or controlled. So controlled is caught. Why have controlled when u can just have caught? Sending me a link of that garbage is just that. Umpires adjudication of the rule is nothing but a joke. So really. The rule is interpretation at the time. Which means. Its 50/50 at best. Id say they pay that more often than not. My opinion as a spectator. Keep throwing me links mate. For laughs.

The only interesting thing of the non paid mark (and non free kick) was the commentary/ramblings of Ling. All year I've heard 'he had enough of it for mine' and 'I've seen worse paid before' and 'they should really be paid'. But on Tom's, it was 'the correct call the umpire' (for at best a slight touch & at best nanoseconds in duration).

Make of it what you will.

At the ground it looked like a mark as well as a free to Boyd, however, watching the replay this morning, clear tap by Richmond player before Boyd grabbed again, plus there was no free kick there, minimal hold of arm. Boyd should have had both hands on the ball.

[Ozza]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Rules state. Caught or controlled. So controlled is caught. Why have controlled when u can just have caught? Sending me a link of that garbage is just that. Umpires adjudication of the rule is nothing but a joke. So really. The rule is interpretation at the time. Which means. Its 50/50 at best. Id say they pay that more often than not. My opinion as a spectator. Keep throwing me links mate. For laughs.

I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at and why you seem to be angry about it.
The rule clearly states that if another player touches it, then its not a mark. That's what happened, so its clearly not a mark and hasn't ever been a mark.

I do think that technically Boyd should have gotten a free kick for Cotchin holding Boyd's arm, although would have been a very soft free kick as the hold was only for a split second.

[Ozza]

Re: Bankers And Anchors - Round 7, 2017 vs Richmond

Ling is a Bulldog hater. No doubt it stems from his relationship with Chris Scott, who has an unhealthy obsession with Bevo.

What is the Bevo/Chris Scott issue?