Paddy Dangerdive | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Paddy Dangerdive

DavidSSS

Tiger Champion
Dec 11, 2017
3,971
4,425
Melbourne
Think because it’s was in play’.

That’s the reasoning I heard.
Someone can ‘clarify’ the rule.

Ok, let's look at the actual rules as published by the clowns at the AFL:

Under section 18.3 Prohibited Contact it states:
18.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:​
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;​

The words "incidental", "accidental"and "in play" are nowhere to be seen.

The umpires and the AFL are telling porkies.

Under reportable offences we have the following:

22.2 REPORTABLE OFFENCES
22.2.1 Degree of Intent – Clarification​
Where any of the Reportable Offences listed in Law 22.2.2 specify that conduct may be​
intentional or careless:​
(a) any report or notice of report which does not allege whether the conduct was​
intentional or careless shall be deemed to and be read as alleging that the​
conduct was either intentional or careless; and​
(b) the Tribunal or other body appointed to hear and determine the report may find the​
report proven if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the conduct was​
either intentional or careless.​
22.2.2 Specific Offences​
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:​
(a) intentionally or carelessly:​
(i) striking another person;​
(ii) kicking another person;​
(iii) kneeing another person;​
(iv) Charging an opponent;​
(v) engaging in Rough Conduct against an opponent;​
(vi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when​
that Player has their head down over the football;​
(vii) head-butting or making contact to another person using the head;​
(viii) making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the eye region of another​
person;​
(ix) making unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face of another​
person;​
(x) scratching another person; or​
(xi) tripping another person whether by hand, arm, foot or leg;​

Note the wording: intentionally or carelessly striking another person.

How was that not an intentional or careless striking of another person?

There is a simple answer to this: it wasn't.

The AFL can't even follow their own rules, and they wonder why they lack credibility. They just make it up as it suits as they go.

What a f***en joke, disgusting.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16 users

Althom

Tiger Matchwinner
Jul 23, 2016
735
614
Ok, let's look at the actual rules as published by the clowns at the AFL:

Under section 18.3 Prohibited Contact it states:


The words "incidental", "accidental"and "in play"are nowhere to be seen.

The umpires and the AFL are telling porkies.

Under reportable offences we have the following:



Note the wording: intentionally or carelessly striking another person.

How was that not an intentional or careless striking of another person?

There is a simple answer to this: it wasn't.

The AFL can't even follow their own rules, and they wonder why they lack credibility. They just make it up as it suits as they go.

What a f***en joke, disgusting.

DS
They continually trip themselves up.
The "rules" only get applied when they feel like it.
The reasoning their legal people use when a player is in front of the tribunal is not applied on a consistent basis - anything but.
It's a massive crock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

waiting

Tiger Legend
Apr 15, 2007
9,699
4,182
melbourne, victoria
Ok, let's look at the actual rules as published by the clowns at the AFL:

Under section 18.3 Prohibited Contact it states:


The words "incidental", "accidental"and "in play" are nowhere to be seen.

The umpires and the AFL are telling porkies.

Under reportable offences we have the following:



Note the wording: intentionally or carelessly striking another person.

How was that not an intentional or careless striking of another person?

There is a simple answer to this: it wasn't.

The AFL can't even follow their own rules, and they wonder why they lack credibility. They just make it up as it suits as they go.

What a f***en joke, disgusting.

DS
Thanks DS knew you would clarify it all ...

Watch what happens next year.

Im convinced that he said’ player is an ALFPA ‘spokesperson ‘ went to the ‘nothing to see here ‘ bracket.

Absolutely furious still with this.

Irrespective whether we win the GF, Vlastuin didn’t have his jaw broken, that ‘he’ is a good bloke ( he didn’t mean it ) , we didn’t retaliate , to me it shows more to me who OUR players are than how INCONSISTENT the MRO are and the AFL. Period.

*cant even say his name I’m so peeved off**
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

No 4

I did what I did for the Tigers - Bridget
Feb 11, 2005
3,329
424
nunawading/mitcham
all I know is 2017 final against geelong. dangerfield had no impact. 2019 preliminary final, dangerfield has no impact. 2020 grand final, dangerfield had no impact.

The best was selwood acknowledging our greatest. I remember prior 2017 he would ask his teammates to smash us at every opportunity. How the wheel has changed
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

UKTiger

Tiger Legend
Jul 11, 2010
5,297
1,583
Shipston on Stour, UK
Ok, let's look at the actual rules as published by the clowns at the AFL:

Under section 18.3 Prohibited Contact it states:


The words "incidental", "accidental"and "in play" are nowhere to be seen.

The umpires and the AFL are telling porkies.

Under reportable offences we have the following:



Note the wording: intentionally or carelessly striking another person.

How was that not an intentional or careless striking of another person?

There is a simple answer to this: it wasn't.

The AFL can't even follow their own rules, and they wonder why they lack credibility. They just make it up as it suits as they go.

What a f***en joke, disgusting.

DS

Sadly when one of the AFL's love children commit an offence like the one in question mere rules will not apply. It is a systematic problem within the AFL that needs weeding out but how this can be done unless all clubs work together I don't know. It certainly is not just a Richmond thing as watching other matches, bias can be seen
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
12,024
1,358
Ok, let's look at the actual rules as published by the clowns at the AFL:

Under section 18.3 Prohibited Contact it states:


The words "incidental", "accidental"and "in play" are nowhere to be seen.

The umpires and the AFL are telling porkies.

Under reportable offences we have the following:



Note the wording: intentionally or carelessly striking another person.

How was that not an intentional or careless striking of another person?

There is a simple answer to this: it wasn't.

The AFL can't even follow their own rules, and they wonder why they lack credibility. They just make it up as it suits as they go.

What a f***en joke, disgusting.

DS
i dont think the rule is up for debate. the umpire missed the free kick. it happens..
 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
8,400
4,223
i dont think the rule is up for debate. the umpire missed the free kick. it happens..

Yep thats the way I saw it. I don't think they thought it wasn't a free, I think they missed the forearm hitting Vlas in the face. No idea what positions they were in and whether they should have seen it but I read it as they missed it, much like they missed Abletts incorrect disposal straight after.
 

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
19,547
2,337
Think because it’s was in play’.

That’s the reasoning I heard.
Someone can ‘clarify’ the rule.
Pretty sure ALL the high contact calls are in play every game of the year.
Maggots generally pay a free for all illegal contact regardless of accidental contact or not. The only area they are supposed to allow a bit of grey interpretation is incidental contact in a marking contest. Pathetic that a free wasn't paid at the time, Dangerflog near on decrapitated poor old Flossy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

waiting

Tiger Legend
Apr 15, 2007
9,699
4,182
melbourne, victoria
Pretty sure ALL the high contact calls are in play every game of the year.
Maggots generally pay a free for all illegal contact regardless of accidental contact or not. The only area they are supposed to allow a bit of grey interpretation is incidental contact in a marking contest. Pathetic that a free wasn't paid at the time, Dangerflog near on decrapitated poor old Flossy.
And all three of them saw neither what happened with Nick nor incorrect disposal for Ablett ( but I will allow ) that one to go through to the ‘keeper’...
 

achillesjones

"just kick it to Royce"
Apr 19, 2004
2,254
879
Three umpires couldn't see what was blatantly obvious to those in the back row of the Gabba stands.

At the start of a grand final!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

K3

Tiger Champion
Oct 9, 2006
4,409
107
Yep thats the way I saw it. I don't think they thought it wasn't a free, I think they missed the forearm hitting Vlas in the face. No idea what positions they were in and whether they should have seen it but I read it as they missed it, much like they missed Abletts incorrect disposal straight after.

Way more elbow than just forearm I reckon.

He could have avoided it too!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Mac

Tiger Champion
Sep 16, 2003
2,522
387
I think the real point we’re overlooking here is what is the most amusing twist on his name?

While I like the simplicity of Stagerflog, or the impending warning of “Danger!....Fail!”, I quite enjoy the circusesque grandiosity of
Backflip Stagerflop

Thoughts?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3 users

Number8

Tiger Matchwinner
Oct 12, 2010
532
1,070
Melbourne
I think the real point we’re overlooking here is what is the most amusing twist on his name?

While I like the simplicity of Stagerflog, or the impending warning of “Danger!....Fail!”, I quite enjoy the circusesque grandiosity of
Backflip Stagerflop

Thoughts?
Backflip Dangerflop gets a good run in our household!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Mantikorr

Tiger Matchwinner
Apr 26, 2006
810
686
I'd like to go the other way and say people who go missing in big games "pulled a Dangerfield"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

zippadeee

Tiger Legend
Oct 8, 2004
33,479
8,453
I lost count how many times he selwood played for free kicks.
It was unbelievable.
Rapt the umpires didn't get sucked in.
Did number 26 yell at Dangerfield "nothing in it"?
Last qtr 5 or 6 minutes to go??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users