P-man

Rarely seen a post game thread with this level of unanimous “hell yeah we stuck it right up em!”...ness. I’m still a bit hazy after a three day golf trip but even in my groggy state I could appreciate the significance of that win. Loved the absence of passengers across the four quarters. Also want to second the shout outs to Riv and Harry Petty. It’s awesome to see two young players visibly maturing with each game.

Can usually rely on the Saints to make you feel better about a loss.

Safe to say those who mystifyingly left Oliver out of their votes last week won’t be doing the same this week. 6. Oliver 5. Langdon 4. Lever 3. Petracca 2. Harmes 1. Gawn

If it was a win, as it should’ve been with the two bottled calls at the death, there would be more focus on how we were able to rally in the second half. We adjusted to block up the corridor and our intensity noticeably lifted. I’m not convinced Brown would’ve made much difference either. Our forwards struggled to get isolation all night and bombing it on his head would not have suited him. Crows to their credit were terrific and deserved the win. We lost but it can serve as an important lesson and could be a good kick up the backside before facing two of the best teams in it.

lol joke ending

Umpired have bottled it. How the hell was that not a free kick?

Oliver on 178 Supercoach points with 15 minutes still to play.

It really feels like we are being outworked. We look so slow.

Riv ?

That’s an absolute dart from Melk. Cop that one haters.

Salem is pivotal to our ball movement out of the back half. Garry Lyon said that to stop Melbourne you need to clamp down on Salem. Will be interesting to see what impact it has today. I guess that says a lot about where we are. His absence makes me intrigued rather than nervous. .

I despise them but can’t buy this. That’s basically their entire starting midfield. We got shown up in the pre season against the Dogs when we had Trac and a bunch of kids running through there. Granted their game doesn’t rely on dominance out of the middle but you can’t put a line through them until they have their best side on the park.

Castagna gets clearly tackled high. BT: “Rioli wrapped up in a good tackle!”

Rance would’ve earned himself an All Australian jumper with that mark that Balta just took.

Why do most Richmond supporters look like they’re missing a chromosome?

So under your application, someone who is chased down over 20 metres, dispossessed of the ball but makes an attempt to dispose it is not called for holding the ball? Cause that it me is arguably even worse.

But is congestion really as much of an issue as it once was? The general consensus is that the game has opened up a lot more this year. The new man on the mark rule has helped to some degree but there are also noticeably far less rugby games. In fact I can’t think of any off hand. This points to what we believe is actually broken. I don’t think the rule itself is broken. The application is what needs improving. If the umpires were more stringent on HTB, as we saw against Carlton, and more players were penalised more often for incorrect disposal, i.e. dropping it with no attempt made, the game would be in better shape. Although to be honest, I think it’s in pretty decent shape. At least in a viewing sense.

Amen. ...especially Hardwick.

Players are pretty clever these days, which admittedly could support either of our arguments. I just think in a 50/50 contest, removing prior is fraught with danger. One of the great elements of the game is two players whole heartedly competing for the ball. Once you tip the scales further in favour of the tackler, even slightly, that contest is no longer genuine. Plus even in your scenario, tap ons in lieu of taking possession of the ball doesn’t sound like a very appealing spectacle skills wise. I get what you’re saying but I’m not on board with removing prior. Better officiating is the answer for mine.

As for Hardwick, to me it’s just a plainly stupid idea removing prior opportunity. Why go for the ball at all in that case? Just wait for your opponent to gather it, tackle him, hey presto the ball is yours. Incentive to gain possession of the ball goes to the core of the game, surely. The ball winner needs some form of protection in the laws.

As Clint has rightly pointed out numerous times on this topic, if you have no prior but make an attempt to dispose of the ball or the ball is knocked out in the tackle, it’s play on. Hence the umpire who called play on because he “attempted to kick it” was actually correct. A lot of people don’t know the rule, including BT (shock horror). What frustrates me and I think many others is when they willingly just stone cold drop it and it isn’t called as incorrect disposal. Many of those are not called.

Not only that. Spargo is a regular on the team sheet. OD may have to jump ship if this keeps up for much longer.

I just want to be clear I understand this. The team is 9-0 sitting on top of the ladder and you’re the least excited you’ve been in the last 20 years?

I apologise that I could only give this post a love reaction. Top stuff Col. Particularly in articulating BT’s failings as a commentator. It’s not merely the fact he’s taking the [censored] out of Melbourne. You could sense Brayshaw wanting to disassociate himself from his inanity but having to pretend that something remotely resembling valid contributions were being made. I suggest “Steadytime” as the working title for the fourth mode that we are witnessing. Not too sleepy. Not too showy. Just right.

I know right. I never comment on votes but seriously...