18 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Scary thing is, Kalani’s still got some growing to do. 

Remind me how old he is again?

I'm also assuming we are encouraging and accelerating his football development through the David Neiz accademey or something similar.

1 hour ago, Roost it far said:

How?

Sell your soul 

A good win in the circumstances. The facts to consider are that Pickett and Fritsch had lean nights, as did Van Rooyen until the last quarter.  

Richmond are not that far from being a very good side. Had they kicked straight...

Some of the umpiring decisions/non-decisions were farcical. They were also inconsistent...

I liked the way Brayshaw and Richmond's Pickett helped each other to get up after a contest, and there was a similar incident of mutual respect in the last quarter. The game was played in good spirit.

 

 

 

Edited April 25, 20232 yr by Monbon

watched the replayed

I thought Lever was outstanding. had a few clangers but 10 marks, kept us organised. many spoils and intercepts 

3rd best on imo

15 hours ago, deva5610 said:

 

But he wasn't outside 5 metres behind the mark, hence the free kick. If he had stayed 5 metres out there wouldn't have been a free paid.

To be absolutely clear - The protected area extends 5 metres behind the player on the mark, and 10 metres either side.

That may be the rule. But it’s not the rule if you literally never pay it. I’ve watched close to every game this season (love Kayo!) and I can point to hundreds of examples of this. Watch the highlights of Florent’s kick against Port, there’s two players in that area, there’s countless other examples of players doing that. To the point that players had forgotten this is the rule. This is THE problem if you only pay it once in a hundred times it’s an enormous disadvantage to the one team it happens to. If the AFL wants to enforce that, fine, send out a memo at the start of the season that they will be harsh on this and pay it consistently, the whole time. What they did was cherry pick it once, six rounds and seven games into the season and have a huge impact on the game (reversing a point to a goal).
It’s the same as the Coniglio free a few weeks back, if no-one is paying it and you pull it out once and say it’s the rule, but never do it again, no matter how much you justify it it’s a huge disadvantage to the one team who cops it. 
The narrative coming into this season and last was that they were going to be lighter on the protected area and only pay it when it blatantly effected the ball carrier as the fifty was too big a penalty for indiscretions that didn’t affect the play, same with the stand rule being loosened. This is the complete opposite of that. 

Edited April 25, 20232 yr by deejammin'

1 hour ago, SFebes said:

Very good win and great last quarter by JVR. The pack mark and the eyes on the footy was great to see, along with composure. Liked the way we fought it out to the end (has been a positive in all losses also).

Concerns for me: (which can be worked through)

JVR first 3 quarters - We need Brown or TMAC there to take best defender. Hes also lucky he didn't give away 50 to Riewoldt for knocking the ball out of his hands (he missed).

Petty forward experiment needs to stop - Need him in defence

Pickett on another planet last night?

May carrying an injury?

Question marks over Sparrow, ANB, Rivers.

Hunter and Langdon do not do enough.

 

I do like how we are rotating players and getting the wins, hopefully peak at the right time of year, unlike all guns blazing for first half of last year. Hoping the next few weeks we get the wins and boost the %%.

I have no idea how you walked away from that game thinking Hunter and (in particular) Langdon didn't do enough.

The middle two quarters, their run and width was essential to keeping us in it, then turning the game around. Probably Langdon's best game of the year. 

36 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

I usually do watch the Fox pre and post game stuff. 

Here I was thinking, nah I'll give channel 7 a go and see what they hope to offer with hope that they have improved over the off season. How wrong was I, seriously cringe.

I watched the Fox Footy post game stuff this morning on Kayo and it was far better content. The interview with JVR was great, and majority of the discussions were all footy related.

I agree, which is a bit sad really given there are plenty of times the Fox crew say stupid stuff (Jonathan Brown sh*ts me).

But it's miles, miles, miles in front of the dross Channel 7 give us.

16 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Van Match Winner.

Could have finished five. Two blatant holds not paid. It's funny he was almost subbed off. Phew 

56 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I’d have to disagree….. the noise from Tigers fans was far greater. 70/30 Tigers is my best guess.

Where were you sitting?

54 minutes ago, Bang Bang Bang said:

Sorry if this has been covered on previous pages - but has Selwyn unlocked the secret ingredients of Darren Burgess? We've had barely any injuries this season and we're torching teams in last quarters 6/6 won I'm pretty sure and some of those convincingly. 

Adelaide zero injuries, Burgo's second year in. If Selwyn proves as good, we are in capable hands

15 hours ago, layzie said:

What did you guys think of the umpiring?

🤔suss

Max’s kick for goal last game v Cats 2021 showing 5 Cats players within the protected area of the man on the mark.

No 50m of course.

Learn  from it.
Get it repaid to us in a BIG FINAL.  Against  a team bonding at Hoyts last night.   

43 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

That may be the rule. But it’s not the rule if you literally never pay it. I’ve watched close to every game this season (love Kayo!) and I can point to hundreds of examples of this. Watch the highlights of Florent’s kick against Port, there’s two players in that area, there’s countless other examples of players doing that. To the point that players had forgotten this is the rule. This is THE problem if you only pay it once in a hundred times it’s an enormous disadvantage to the one team it happens to.
the AFL wants to enforce that, fine, send out a memo at the start of the season that they will be harsh on this and pay it consistently, the whole time. What they did was cherry pick it once, six rounds and seven games into the season and have a huge impact on the game (reversing a point to a goal).
It’s the same as the Coniglio free a few weeks back, if no-one is paying it and you pull it out once and say it’s the rule, but never do it again, no matter how much you justify it it’s a huge disadvantage to the one team who cops it. 
The narrative coming into this season and last was that they were going to be lighter on the protected area and only pay it when it blatantly effected the ball carrier as the fifty was too big a penalty for indiscretions that didn’t affect the play, same with the stand rule being loosened.

I watched the free again and I think Lever was on the borderline of 5m behind the mark. To apply a 50m penalty in those circumstances was ludicrous. 

11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Max’s kick for goal last game v Cats 2021 showing 5 Cats players within the protected area of the man on the mark.

No 50m of course.

I get what you are saying, red. But they are just probably outside the restricted area and they weren’t ‘demonstrative’ either.

47 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

That may be the rule. But it’s not the rule if you literally never pay it. I’ve watched close to every game this season (love Kayo!) and I can point to hundreds of examples of this. Watch the highlights of Florent’s kick against Port, there’s two players in that area, there’s countless other examples of players doing that. To the point that players had forgotten this is the rule. This is THE problem if you only pay it once in a hundred times it’s an enormous disadvantage to the one team it happens to. If the AFL wants to enforce that, fine, send out a memo at the start of the season that they will be harsh on this and pay it consistently, the whole time. What they did was cherry pick it once, six rounds and seven games into the season and have a huge impact on the game (reversing a point to a goal).
It’s the same as the Coniglio free a few weeks back, if no-one is paying it and you pull it out once and say it’s the rule, but never do it again, no matter how much you justify it it’s a huge disadvantage to the one team who cops it. 
The narrative coming into this season and last was that they were going to be lighter on the protected area and only pay it when it blatantly effected the ball carrier as the fifty was too big a penalty for indiscretions that didn’t affect the play, same with the stand rule being loosened. This is the complete opposite of that. 

And start paying it at the start of the round not the end of it. 

10 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I get what you are saying, red. But they are just probably outside the restricted area and they weren’t ‘demonstrative’ either.

Look back at my post and see the guy to the left jumping up with his hands in the air. I had 4 photos and I can assure you they are within 5 metres and 10 metres for the 2 on the outside.

Anyway we beat the 27 Tigers so we have the last laugh.

PS: which guy is actually on the mark, that’s how close they were, you can’t really tell.

Edited April 25, 20232 yr by Redleg

4 minutes ago, rpfc said:

I get what you are saying, red. But they are just probably outside the restricted area and they weren’t ‘demonstrative’ either.

In fairness, this was after the siren when Max had to kick over the mark  so the encroaching Cats couldn’t affect the play. Was the 50 paid last night because Cumberland could, in theory, have played on allowing Jake to take advantage of being where he was?

From game day thread- PUNTROADEND

Dees got away with 2 massive throws that qtr. Pathetic umpiring.

Yeah but we've had the best run I've seen for the past 25 years outside of that. Umpires can't kick basic goals for us; Dusty, Samson, MJ.

Yeah but we've had the best run I've seen for the past 25 years outside of that. Umpires can't kick basic goals for us; Dusty, Samson, MJ.

4 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Steven May knew.  He was telling Lever all about it after the 50 was paid.

He asked the umpire and then relayed what the ump said. He had no idea. He looked surprised when the ump told him.

5 hours ago, bobby1554 said:

Would be interested to know what aspect of that win you thought was “luck”? If it’s Richmond missing some shots, there is a thing called implied pressure

The luck been tigers aren’t a finals level team and are presently in the bottom 4. Tigers of only a few years back would have put us on our backside. We have lost 2 of 3 games against the present top 8

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

The

It's an obscure new rule that many of us plebs knew nothing of before now.  Listing to Mathew Richardson's cometary, he obviously didn't understand it either as his comment was that "but he's behind the mark".  Now I want to see it paid consistently across all games??!

The timing and position of this free really rubbed salt into the wounds of me as a Melbourne supporter.  Richmond shouldn't have been having the shot on goal in the first place as the free kick after the May mark was so bloody marginal and they then proceeded to shepard our players out of marking contests all over the place for the rest of the night.

The Gus Brashaw deliberate out of bound and non paid 50m penalty for talking the player from the man on the mark were diabolical.

I understand the umpires have a tough job, but despite being non fully professional, they still get paid pretty good coin for what they do and I'm so tired of them being beyond scrutiny in the AFLs eyes.

The AFL should have (if they don't already) a board or commission that evaluates umpires. 

They can decide who is good enough for the big leagues and who should stay at VFL level.

Wonder if McIntosh will get cited for his deliberate knee on May in the 2nd quarter? Pretty dirty action however not much contact so probably won't be.

Edited April 25, 20232 yr by Nascent

8 minutes ago, Garbo said:

The luck been tigers aren’t a finals level team and are presently in the bottom 4. Tigers of only a few years back would have put us on our backside. We have lost 2 of 3 games against the present top 8

To say nothing of the injury toll on their lift.

Nothing to be  optimistic about from  that win. 

As usual Goodwins presser was a pretence of having  a " plan".

He talked about working on the forward structure for the last half of last season..and did nothing!

This season it looks like " structuring" the big men on game day .

Chaos to come for sure.

Essendon,St.Kilda and Carlton better collapse or the Dee's will miss finals

4 minutes ago, IRW said:

To say nothing of the injury toll on their lift.

Nothing to be  optimistic about from  that win. 

As usual Goodwins presser was a pretence of having  a " plan".

He talked about working on the forward structure for the last half of last season..and did nothing!

This season it looks like " structuring" the big men on game day .

Chaos to come for sure.

Essendon,St.Kilda and Carlton better collapse or the Dee's will miss finals

I applaud your your overt cynicism.

Tell us your version of what you would say in the press conference?

10 minutes ago, IRW said:

To say nothing of the injury toll on their lift.

Nothing to be  optimistic about from  that win. 

As usual Goodwins presser was a pretence of having  a " plan".

He talked about working on the forward structure for the last half of last season..and did nothing!

This season it looks like " structuring" the big men on game day .

Chaos to come for sure.

Essendon,St.Kilda and Carlton better collapse or the Dee's will miss finals

Is this Dr. D in disguise