Paddy Dangerdive

[TrialByVideo]

.... and another thing that riled me regarding this unacceptable incident. Elbows walked away looking at his elbow and did not show a skerrick of concern for an unconscious Flossy!

I'm with you there. .... watch Jayden Short after Simpson is KO'd..... he's not even responsible for the incident but goes to check on him and is ordered by the ump to move away.
Then, when he's finally on the cart, he gives him a tap.

Our blokes don't get enough credit for caring about the opposition. ..... more than some of their own teammates!

 

[Eddie from Elwood]

I'm with you there. .... watch Jayden Short after Simpson is KO'd..... he's not even responsible for the incident but goes to check on him and is ordered by the ump to move away.
Then, when he's finally on the cart, he gives him a tap.

Our blokes don't get enough credit for caring about the opposition. ..... more than some of their own teammates!

No, we're unsocialble..........apparently.

 

[Eddie from Elwood]

My issue with it was that it was two actions. He didn't just follow through on the punch. He punched, started drawing his arm back, then extended again. That means he had the chance to keep pulling his arm back and brace for the collision. I still think that would have meant Vlas makes contact with his shoulder and probably still ends up KO'ed. But to me it makes him responsible the action.

Regardless, I'm confused why Richmond weren't paid a free for high contact. After the halt in play, the ump balled it up, surely it should have been a free kick.

 

[year of the tiger]

Regardless, I'm confused why Richmond weren't paid a free for high contact. After the halt in play, the ump balled it up, surely it should have been a free kick.

yes mistake number 1 by the umpire

My issue with it was that it was two actions. He didn't just follow through on the punch. He punched, started drawing his arm back, then extended again. That means he had the chance to keep pulling his arm back and brace for the collision. I still think that would have meant Vlas makes contact with his shoulder and probably still ends up KO'ed. But to me it makes him responsible the action.

yes mistake number 2 by the match review system

.... and another thing that riled me regarding this unacceptable incident. Elbows walked away looking at his elbow and did not show a skerrick of concern for an unconscious Flossy!

yes - mistake number 3 - it was deliberate and Danger knew it - he looked as guilty as hell and didn’t care one bit for the welfare of our player

 

[waiting]

Regardless, I'm confused why Richmond weren't paid a free for high contact. After the halt in play, the ump balled it up, surely it should have been a free kick.

Think because it’s was in play’.

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

 

[Ridley]

We should have had 2 frees in that pattern of play, the high on Vlastuin and then HTB against Ablett. Ball was out of his left hand and in free air when he actually got his handball away.

Yeah I said the exact same thing to my wife as we were watching the footy shows last night. Danger knocked Vlastuin out with an elbow to the face; no free kick. Then Cotchin tackled Ablett and the ball popped out then he hit it with his fist. That's a throw but of course no free kick paid.

It makes our achievements so much more impressive when you consider the continual poor run we've had from the umpires over the past 4 years in comparison to other clubs. They miss so many free kicks to us.

 

[year of the tiger]

Think because it’s was in play’.

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

That doesn’t make sense Waiting does it - most high contact occurs in play

 

[waiting]

That doesn’t make sense Waiting does it - most high contact occurs in play

Think the word was ‘accidental’.
Cant recall the exact words but something along those lines I said.

 

[mrposhman]

That doesn’t make sense Waiting does it - most high contact occurs in play

The umpire missed the free kick and allowed play to continue. When the play was stopped when it was evident how seriously Vlas was injured, the ball was in play and not in either teams possession so they started with a ball up.

 

[waiting]

The umpire missed the free kick and allowed play to continue. When the play was stopped when it was evident how seriously Vlas was injured, the ball was in play and not in either teams possession so they started with a ball up.

Three umpires and they ‘all missed it’.

Amazing

 

[Willo]

Think the word was ‘accidental’.
Cant recall the exact words but something along those lines I said.

Probably “incidental contact”. Catch all phrase when they should pay a free kick but don’t want to

 

[Harry]

probably not intentional but definitely reckless. He had the option to grab the ball with both hands and ride the tackle but opted to leave his arm up high and only worry about his own safety. He *smile* himself when he saw vlasuin coming

 

[Fighting Fury]

I'm interested in how the people who see it as 'deliberate, dog act, blatant, lifted his arm etc' explain the complete lack of any remonstration from any Richmond player, despite the game being completely stopped for over 7 minutes and the incident being replayed multiple times?

Doesn't seem very Richmond man to watch one of your team mates be intentionally knocked unconscious and just stroll off into the huddle for a chat? The photo shows Nathan Broad standing next to Dangerfield right afterwards, and he certainly isn't backward in coming forward to fly the flag for his team mates.

To me the logical explanation is they all felt it was a normal footy collision with a really unfortunate outcome.

Not sure, but I can't recall seeing a replay at the ground.
They tend not to do that to reduce likelihood of players remonstrating Richo.

 

[blx]

I understand the argument that it was 'in play' but it was still reckless.

Even if it was only 1% reckless, it is still reckless.

So the only lesson you can take out of it is you can now elbow a player in the head if they are 'in play' even if you are reckless.

That's what the system says which. That is why it has absolutely ZERO credibility.

The twist in the whole saga is the EXACT same incident will happen next year and it will be sent straight to the tribunal and the player will be rubbed out.

Being kind, its a rort.

 

[artball]

reckless intent from DangerElbow and Christian

 

[DavidSSS]

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

 

[Althom]

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.

 

[waiting]

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**

 

[DavidSSS]

, to me it shows more to me who OUR players are than how INCONSISTENT the MRO are and the AFL. Period.

This.

DS

 

[No 4]

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