I do appologize.
I appologize for not having the time until now to highlight your efforts to distort reality so you can swim against thr tide in this thread.
The footage isn't too hard to find, if you do actually want people to assess this for themselves.
Here's a link:
Kamdyn McIntosh is helped off the field after this clash with Dane Rampe
www.afl.com.au
I'd suggest you take a good look at the footage. If you stand by your suggestion that McIntosh's lower body crashes into his opponent's shin, then really it explains your stance on a lot of interpretations on this thread.
Impact is clearly hip to McIntosh's head. McIntosh's hip is in the vicinity of his opponent's ankles, but there is no real contact made from that part of his body. You need to look at the footage at the 24 second mark, which shows the angle you need to view, the angle you've ignored. At impact, there is a clear gap between McIntosh's body and the lower leg / ankle of his opponent. Freeze the footage and move it frame by frame.
I could point to a number of issues with your interpretation of the frees / non frees in the above.
But just to highlight how your interpretation changes to justify the Tigers getting reamded, you only have to look at your opinions on the Zorko hold, which was more a touch than a hold, not impeding his progess towards the ball at all (Free kick apparently), yet your interpretation on the Martin hold is that it's not a free kick because he wasn't thrown to the ground. It doesn't matter a zack wheter Rioli threw his opponent to the ground when it comes to assessing Martin's situation. He was held and clearly *smile* from re-entering the play and he was held for siginificant time, regardless of nott being thrown to the ground. But i guess if it's Richmond, it's different standards. I can see why you see it the way of the umpires, who seem to move all the grey against Richmond and to the favour of our opponents, hence the skewered stat anomaly we have. you're basically doing the same thing.
To suggest Baker had poor tackle technique beause he was standing in the wrong spot.........
This is a continuing motion of play. Baker is where he happened to be, manning an opponent wen the play came through him. To suggest he should have been corridor side, is to suggest he should know 8 or 10 seconds in advance who is going to have possession and what piece of ground exactly, that they are making their play through. The fact is that this free kick is nothing short of a joke, and there were to like this against Baker. One he didn't even tackle, simply put his hands in the air as the opponent barrels his head into Baker's chest.
We couldn't buy a high contact free kick, yet incidental contact was being paid against us with regularity. But i guess your interpretation changes accordingly.
For example, using your argument, Mitch Robinson should have stood corridor side of Dustin Martin to chop the handball off, and gone low. But no, he went high and came down like a blanket over Martin's head.
I could go on but i simply don't have the time!
t's just tiring!