Paddy Dangerdive | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

UKTiger

Tiger Legend
Jul 11, 2010
9,220
7,383
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
17,661
11,699
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
17,850
21,180
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
25,567
11,443
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
14,058
9,171
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
3,528
2,937
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 Legend
Oct 9, 2006
5,213
972
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
2,656
916
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 Superstar
Oct 12, 2010
1,193
2,799
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
984
1,079
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
39,639
15,415
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

23.21.159

A Tiger in Denmark
Aug 9, 2003
6,116
2,277
Denmark
www.dafl.dk
i dont think the rule is up for debate. the umpire missed the free kick. it happens..
Dangerfield's defence (if he had needed one) was that he was going for the ball.
And true, he had just punched THE BALL a split second before collecting Vlastuin.
So it follows that all three umpires were not watching the ball?
That defies belief.

Note also that before punching the ball, he leads with his elbow first which is an insight into his original intention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is 7!! WTF??
Aug 21, 2007
6,782
1,222
Ireland
Dangerfield's defence (if he had needed one) was that he was going for the ball.
And true, he had just punched THE BALL a split second before collecting Vlastuin.
So it follows that all three umpires were not watching the ball?
That defies belief.

Note also that before punching the ball, he leads with his elbow first which is an insight into his original intention.

Never would have thought I'd agree with Grant Thomas, but 2020 is a strange year...

20201027_125604.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users

waiting

Tiger Legend
Apr 15, 2007
14,058
9,171
Victoria
Hearing this morning that it was ‘his’ idea and went to Cotchin to ‘ask to hide the medals’ for Ablett.
Next ‘he’ will tell us that it was his idea to Cotchin to stop your celebrations so we can all ‘line up for Ablett’.

Me, me, me.

It’s was Jacks idea not yours!!
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 5 users

Butch67

Tiger Rookie
Mar 31, 2014
401
643
If raising the arm is to protect yourself why didnt Vlaustin raise his??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user