Will AFL review Cotchin, Lynch and 3rd umpire?

[Mr Magic]

Kent had his back caved in off the ball when Marsh had the ball.for a shot on the boundary - camera csight it beautifully but not one ump saw it or of they did they did nothing about it - should have been 50

Yes.
Last week Richmond was penalised repeatedly for their indiscretions, but tonight they were mainly ignored by umpires who seemed to be more concerned by the deliberate out of bounds rule
Obviously they’re not capable on focusing on more than one rule in a game

[The_Dud]

The umps gave us plenty of shots at goal, we just kept missing them.

Are you serious?
Watch the replay and watch how King is treated compared to Lynch

Marsh missed one, Steele kicked one, Marshall missed one, Battle missed one from an inside 50 from a Ross (I think) free

And that’s just off the top of my head.

6.13 was the problem tonight.

[SaintPav]

Wasn’t a bump, unfortunately.

I thought we were a bit hard done by.

Still illegal contact on Jones
Off the ball
Unduly rough play

No argument here.

[CQ SAINT]

The umps gave us plenty of shots at goal, we just kept missing them.

Are you serious?
Watch the replay and watch how King is treated compared to Lynch

Marsh missed one, Steele kicked one, Marshall missed one, Battle missed one from an inside 50 from a Ross (I think) free

And that’s just off the top of my head.

6.13 was the problem tonight.

King does my head in. I'm getting impatient with the missed shots at crucial times. Luckily, he has heaps of upside to keep me interested.

[Mr Magic]

I’m not saying it wasn’t
BUT
Your assertion that we were somehow treated fairly or equally by the umpiring blows my mind.
It was so blatant that my WCE supporting cousin in Perth was texting me during the game as to how badly we were being officiated against.
But you’ve never seen a badly umpired game, only an occasional error

[The_Dud]

The umps gave us plenty of shots at goal, we just kept missing them.

Are you serious?
Watch the replay and watch how King is treated compared to Lynch

Marsh missed one, Steele kicked one, Marshall missed one, Battle missed one from an inside 50 from a Ross (I think) free

And that’s just off the top of my head.

6.13 was the problem tonight.

King does my head in. I'm getting impatient with the missed shots at crucial times. Luckily, he has heaps of upside to keep me interested.

It’s not like he’s shanking them, hit the post and just missed the post. With more experience and feeling more comfortable at the level should help.

Look at Lynch tonight, 2.5? So it’s not like he’s on his own.

[CQ SAINT]

The umps gave us plenty of shots at goal, we just kept missing them.

Are you serious?
Watch the replay and watch how King is treated compared to Lynch

Marsh missed one, Steele kicked one, Marshall missed one, Battle missed one from an inside 50 from a Ross (I think) free

And that’s just off the top of my head.

6.13 was the problem tonight.

King does my head in. I'm getting impatient with the missed shots at crucial times. Luckily, he has heaps of upside to keep me interested.

It’s not like he’s shanking them, hit the post and just missed the post. With more experience and feeling more comfortable at the level should help.

Look at Lynch tonight, 2.5? So it’s not like he’s on his own.

Yeah. I like it when he kicks the ball harder and flatter. It's not his drop, I think it is his toe point. He is trying to steer them.

[Devilhead]

Lynch has no eyes for the ball firstly - this is very clear

Carless conduct - could easily go Intentional
High contact - elbow to head
Medium to High impact - head split open
Potential to cause Injury - High - though this is only used for Ben Long so will not be taken into account

Final deliberation - 1 to 2 weeks - depending on Impact grading

If graded as intentional then its straight to Tribunal or 3 weeks (2 weeks with an early plea)

Unfortunately given Lynch plays for one of the AFL lovechild clubs they will say contact was unavoidable and he tried his best to minimise the impact - free to play

Cotchin will get off as he is untouchable

Lynch's knee to Howards head was intentional, low impact and high - that is automatic 2 weeks (1 week with early plea) - Lynch will get off as the tribunal will assess the contact being with his shoulder/neck area

Potential to cause injury is high but Ben Long rule applies and it will not be considered

[Josh Battle]

The media commentators and sports journos are concentrating on a love tap on Dougs from Lynch (albeit with his knee), when they should be scrutinising the elbow that Paton copped to his ear hole in the first quarter

Lynch was late in the contest and his arms were no where near the footy. Ben was bleeding badly and the umpires called out 'blood rule'

Very brave of Ben to contest and hold his ground when he knew the pack was fast approaching.

Will the MRO and the sports journos crucify Lynch like he deserves...the dirty prick? When Jezza Cameron cannoned into Harris Andrews he copped 6 weeks didn't he?

I can't see the image posted below/can anyone post it here in another format/ Kosi? Do your stuff please

Lynch has no eyes for the ball firstly - this is very clear

Carless conduct - could easily go Intentional
High contact - elbow to head
Medium to High impact - head split open
Potential to cause Injury - High - though this is only used for Ben Long so will not be taken into account

Final deliberation - 1 to 2 weeks - depending on Impact grading

If graded as intentional then its straight to Tribunal or 3 weeks (2 weeks with an early plea)

Unfortunately given Lynch plays for one of the AFL lovechild clubs they will say contact was unavoidable and he tried his best to minimise the impact - free to play

[Munga]

Ben Paton. Bloody courage.

[I love the saints!]

The umpires were crap! And that non-free resulted in a goal for them from some prick's bum.

[fugazi]

Martin with arms wrapped around Ross's waist in a marking contest....no free
Billings taken put in the goal square....no free
Cotchin attacks Jones off the ball....no 50

And about 10 others

I never thought I'd be going for Port Adelaide

[Superboot]

Kent had his back caved in off the ball when Marsh had the ball.for a shot on the boundary - camera csight it beautifully but not one ump saw it or of they did they did nothing about it - should have been 50

Correct. At the same end, same quarter. Both inside 50 so would have been certain goals.

Same umpire?

[saynta]

Martin with arms wrapped around Ross's waist in a marking contest....no free
Billings taken put in the goal square....no free
Cotchin attacks Jones off the ball....no 50

And about 10 others

I never thought I'd be going for Port Adelaide

Yeah, me too.

[suss]

One really strange thing I heard after Hannebery toe-poked the ball over the boundary line and he was pinged for deliberate out of bounds, the umpire said to him “bad luck”. It shows, doesn’t it, that the umpire thought he didn’t mean to kick it over the boundary, which I thought was odd because isn’t the test whether it was intentional???

[suss]

Martin with arms wrapped around Ross's waist in a marking contest....no free
Billings taken put in the goal square....no free
Cotchin attacks Jones off the ball....no 50

And about 10 others

I never thought I'd be going for Port Adelaide

Yeah, me too.

We were murdered.

[CURLY]

The umps gave us plenty of shots at goal, we just kept missing them.

Are you serious?
Watch the replay and watch how King is treated compared to Lynch

Marsh missed one, Steele kicked one, Marshall missed one, Battle missed one from an inside 50 from a Ross (I think) free

And that’s just off the top of my head.

6.13 was the problem tonight.

Marsh free was out on the full umpire hardly a lucky call then ignored Kent getting barrelled from behind.

Battle took a contested mark not a free

Marshall another mark

[Leo.J]

The umpires had a very bad night, missed a lot of frees more than usual...and it definitely helped one team more than the other.

Richmond play on the edge, they went over the line a lot last night. It’s the umpires responsibility to keep the game within the rules, they failed, and it cost us.

Our mistakes are irrelevant.

[happy feet]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/afl-c ... 1ef5b6dc6a

As supporters of our club we need to post the above story on every social media site around, you will find the AFL monitors social media activity.

[Sainter_Dad]

One really strange thing I heard after Hannebery toe-poked the ball over the boundary line and he was pinged for deliberate out of bounds, the umpire said to him “bad luck”. It shows, doesn’t it, that the umpire thought he didn’t mean to kick it over the boundary, which I thought was odd because isn’t the test whether it was intentional???

Not anymore - the umpires just use the "It went straight over the line" when they want to pay it - or "it may have bounced at a 45-degree angle - but it was clear what your intent was".

FFS - the rule was introduced to stop players using the boundary line as a get out of jail - not to penalise a clear kick forward for someone t0 run onto that is miscued, or the player who runs onto the ball and it bounces off his knee and goes 'straight over'.

[ace]

They'll have a look, and then move on

They'll have a look, have a good laugh at St Kilda's expense, and then move on

[saynta]

Fine only for the tigers coward.

[CQ SAINT]

The umpires had a very bad night, missed a lot of frees more than usual...and it definitely helped one team more than the other.

Richmond play on the edge, they went over the line a lot last night. It’s the umpires responsibility to keep the game within the rules, they failed, and it cost us.

Our mistakes are irrelevant.

True, except for the 5 easy goals we missed.

[Leo.J]

The umpires had a very bad night, missed a lot of frees more than usual...and it definitely helped one team more than the other.

Richmond play on the edge, they went over the line a lot last night. It’s the umpires responsibility to keep the game within the rules, they failed, and it cost us.

Our mistakes are irrelevant.

True, except for the 5 easy goals we missed.

Our mistakes don’t make the bad umpiring exceptable.

[CQ SAINT]

The umpires had a very bad night, missed a lot of frees more than usual...and it definitely helped one team more than the other.

Richmond play on the edge, they went over the line a lot last night. It’s the umpires responsibility to keep the game within the rules, they failed, and it cost us.

Our mistakes are irrelevant.

True, except for the 5 easy goals we missed.

Our mistakes don’t make the bad umpiring exceptable.

It cost us what?

It only cost us because Richmond made the most of their scoring opportunities when it counted and we didn't. That is what cost us. Umpiring is rarely good.