One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: tiga on April 20, 2008, 10:38:18 PM
-
Not sure if anyone else has an opinion on this but I thought on first impressions that Brian Lake faked an Injury so a player with better accuracy could take the crucial shot at goal.
I saw him being taken off the ground and he seemed to be trotting freely to the boundary with just token support from the trainers. I wasn't at the game so I don't know the aftermath
but it sure looked fishy to me especially when he stood up and took a step or two when he claimed the mark and then he hit the ground quicker than a 2 dollar hooker!
-
yes fake 100%.
as soon as i saw it, i thought crap, which is why gilbee tried to have the kick. some sort of set play perhaps??
also when i got home from the game, i viewed the replay as he is seen chatting away to the trainers, shopwing no signs of discomfort.
must be looked at.........im sure caro tomorrow night on classified will bring it up.
-
must be looked at.........im sure caro tomorrow night on classified will bring it up.
Caro ??? Doubt it she will too busy having a whack at how we managed to lose the game especially after King (yesterday) and March (today) took her to task over her shoddy article last week
-
Plough thought it was fake...
"Was he injured, was he? I bet you he plays next week," Wallace said with a wry grin post-match.
But Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade insisted Lake's injury was genuine.
"He felt his hamstring but hopefully it looks like it might be back related, a spasm - he is having an ultrasound tomorrow, we will see how it is," Eade said.
http://news.smh.com.au/wallace-queries-lakes-injury/20080420-27dz.html
-
They way he walked off it certainly didn't look like he'd been shot as most hammies do. As for back related ... Rocket ...please -if he had a bad spasm he would not have been able to walk off by himself
-
Yeah, having had back spasms before, he would have hardly been able to get up off the ground.
-
fcukin cheats they are.
end of story
-
effin cheats they are.
end of story
Mate, not about cheating, it was a great pack mark, might also add if WE had the right players in the centre bounce with 2 mins to play, might of been different, why was Foley and Johnson on the bench was 2 minutes to go :banghead
-
effin cheats they are.
end of story
Mate, not about cheating, it was a great pack mark, might also add if WE had the right players in the centre bounce with 2 mins to play, might of been different, why was Foley and Johnson on the bench was 2 minutes to go :banghead
Jack, why do you take a thread and try to turn it into your own anti Wallace campaign all the time! If I wanted to start a discussion about why we didn't win I would have stated so in the subject line. Everything after your second comma is totally unrelated :banghead Can you at least once try and stick to the topic rather than drifting off into another of your Wallace diatribes! >:(
-
If we had a player shooting at goal to win the game and he couldnt kick over a jam tin, I would expect we would do exactly as the dogs did yesterday. They didnt cheat. We blew our chance. Thats it in a nutshell.
-
Part of the game, over it :whistle
-
Part of the game, over it :whistle
We agree
-
If we had a player shooting at goal to win the game and he couldnt kick over a jam tin, I would expect we would do exactly as the dogs did yesterday. They didnt cheat. We blew our chance. Thats it in a nutshell.
Exactly. The real problem was letting the game get to that stage in the first place.
-
Part of the game, over it :whistle
:thumbsup
-
Time for the club to just forget about it and move on.
-
Time for the club to just forget about it and move on.
I think it will take a few weeks to get over.
Really, should never ever lost the game,
The look at the players walking off the ground said it all.
-
Time for the club to just forget about it and move on.
I think it will take a few weeks to get over.
Really, should never ever lost the game,
The look at the players walking off the ground said it all.
Yep it would've have hurt to throw it away but the sun has come up today, we're still in the top 8 and it's only round 5. Matt Ryan the psychologist hopefully tells them it's just one game and not important in the grand schemes of things so don't dwell on it. Take out the positives, learn from the mistakes and get back on the horse. If we have players sulking over a round 5 result then they won't last two seconds once they start making the finals.
-
Faking claims offend Lake
Mark Stevens | April 22, 2008
Scans yesterday showed Lake, who has been the centre of accusations he faked an injury, does not have a hamstring tear.
However, there are still concerns about back and hamstring spasms.
The Dogs fear the back spasms may be related to a hip injury he suffered in the pre-season, which required surgery.
The club again insisted the pain had been too severe for Lake to take the shot.
"He's still a bit tight. We don't know whether it's cramp or spasm from his back," Eade said. "He certainly tightened up there, no doubt about that.
"There's no tear. There's no damage to the muscle. He's never done a hamstring before and it's foreign to him. He didn't know what it was."
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23577941-19742,00.html
-
Wight should have had kick
Mark Stevens | April 22, 2008 12:00am
CAMERON Wight, a defender with only one career set-shot goal to his name, should have taken the last-gasp kick that broke Richmond's heart. The Bulldog was the player nearest to Brian Lake when he soared to take a pack mark with just 37 seconds left in Sunday's thriller.
Wight was shoulder-to-shoulder with Lake as he jumped, with Dogs forward Scott Welsh further away in front of the pack.
Umpire Simon Meredith eventually pointed to Will Minson, the third-closest player to Lake, to take the shot from 45m after Lake stumbled away and headed for the bench.
Minson goaled to level the scores, sealing a draw, and questions were immediately raised about the validity of Harris's injury.
AFL umpires director Jeff Gieschen yesterday conceded Minson was the wrong man to take the kick.
Asked if the right player ended up with the ball, Gieschen said: "Technically not.
Related LinksVideo: Brown questions Lake injury
"When you look at that incident, you see a number of players flying for the ball in the pack," Gieschen said.
"Will Minson was in the front of that pack, very close to it."
In Meredith's defence, it was an extremely difficult call amid the chaos.
"The umpires don't get a chance to stop the game, go back and have a look at replays and see who is exactly there," Gieschen said.
Wight, being groomed as a tall defensive option, has kicked only 5.3 in his 31-game career.
From set-shots, he has only 1.2, and given his lack of experience with clutch goalkicking, he has rarely looked comfortable in the role.
Lindsay Gilbee, the best field kick in the Bulldogs side, headed to the scene in the hope of being given the kick, only for the umpires to decide that Minson had been closest.
Richmond forward Nathan Brown had his own take on the issue.
"I think the umpire may have thought that Lindsay wasn't there in the first place and he looked around and thought Will's probably not the greatest kick," Brown said.
"But unbeknown to the umpire, Will Minson's goalkicking is phenomenal."
The "Where's Willy?" question was one of many issues up for review at the AFL umpiring department yesterday.
Goal umpire Mark Harrison won the support of Gieschen for a decision in the second term of the Bulldogs-Richmond clash.
Tiger Matthew Richardson admitted he thought the ball was over the line when he marked a shot by Daniel Giansiracusa, but Gieschen said the video evidence was not as damning. "It's not as cut and dried," he said.
"There's one particular angle that I think people should probably have a look at.
"The whole of the ball has to cross the whole of the line, which includes the back of the padding."
Gieschen said no angle could conclusively reveal the ump got it wrong.
Damien Sully, the umpire at the centre of the bad-bounce controversy on Saturday night, is facing the axe this week.
Gieschen did not confirm Sully's omission yesterday, saying a decision would be made in the next 24 hours and he would discuss it with the umpire.
But Sully's fate is believed to have been sealed and he will be missing from the AFL panel this week.
"We're really disappointed in that bounce. Everybody's seen it and everybody realises that it was a bad bounce," Gieschen said.
"No one's more disappointed than the umpire himself."
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,23577940-19742,00.html
-
16.6 DISPOSAL WHERE PLAYER AWARDED FREE KICK OR MARK IS INJURED
Where a player is awarded a free kick or a mark and, in the opinion of the field umpire, that player is suffering from an injury which will prevent him disposing of the football, the player who is nearest to and on the same team as the player awarded the free kick or mark, shall dispose of the football at the location (or as near as possible) where the free kick or mark was awarded.
Here's a pic of the marking contest from the Age:
http://www.realfooty.com.au/ffximage/2008/04/21/svFOOTBALL_wideweb__470x458,0.jpg
-
What the hell was Richo doing standing behind the pack?
:lol
Need to see the video again.
-
What the hell was Richo doing standing behind the pack?
:lol
Need to see the video again.
Richo said he lost the flight of the ball and was disappointed since he should have been third man up and at least tried to spoil it. But that's football.