Toast Round 20 = Richmond 57-93 Collingwood

[Bianconeri]

What he did was within the rules. There is nothing different he could have done except quickly rush off to Bunnings and buy his opponent a stepladder.

You can’t block someone’s run and jump whilst getting no where the ball yourself.

He could have jumped and went the spoil instead of staying on the ground.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You can’t block someone’s run and jump whilst getting no where the ball yourself.

He could have jumped and went the spoil instead of staying on the ground.

Absolute rubbish. He was literally standing at the fall of the ball. He is permitted to hold his ground.

 

[Bianconeri]

Absolute rubbish. He was literally standing at the fall of the ball. He is permitted to hold his ground.

The ball didn’t fall to him though. In the end he got no where near it.

 

[gouki88]

The ball didn’t fall to him though. In the end he got no where near it.

That has nothing to do with whether Perryman was making a genuine attempt for the footy, which he was, hence the contact is allowable

 

[Kirby]

The ball didn’t fall to him though. In the end he got no where near it.

So, you're just going to die on this hill?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

So, you're just going to die on this hill?

Pez pushed him on to the hill.

 

[Bianconeri]

That has nothing to do with whether Perryman was making a genuine attempt for the footy, which he was, hence the contact is allowable

Pez took his eye off the ball and stepped towards the right which takes away the sole objective defence.

So, you're just going to die on this hill?

Yes

 

[sideswipe]

Pez took his eye off the ball and stepped towards the right which takes away the sole objective defence.


Yes

You don't need to die. Just bask in the glorious afterglow that comes with agreeing with the umpire.

 

[gouki88]

Pez took his eye off the ball and stepped towards the right which takes away the sole objective defence.

No, it doesn’t.

He neither:
A) held or blocked the opposition player;
B) unduly pushed or bumped him;
C) deliberately interfered with his arms;
D) made front-on contact; nor
E) made an unrealistic attempt

Perryman’s contact quite obviously falls under 18.5.3 of the rules

 

[sideswipe]

No, it doesn’t.

He neither:
A) held or blocked the opposition player;
B) unduly pushed or bumped him;
C) deliberately interfered with his arms;
D) made front-on contact; nor
E) made an unrealistic attempt

Perryman’s contact quite obviously falls under 18.5.3 of the rules

Whether rightly or wrongly, the scump saw it differently. Let it go.

 

[gouki88]

Whether rightly or wrongly, the scump saw it differently. Let it go.

Never!

 

[Bianconeri]

No, it doesn’t.

He neither:
A) held or blocked the opposition player;
B) unduly pushed or bumped him;
C) deliberately interfered with his arms;
D) made front-on contact; nor
E) made an unrealistic attempt

Perryman’s contact quite obviously falls under 18.5.3 of the rules

Nope, he definitely blocked.

 

[Pistol Night]

Pez pushed him on to the hill.

I heard Checkers pushed him off the hill and Pez blocked him at the bottom

 

[Granit1962]

You can’t block someone’s run and jump whilst getting no where the ball yourself.

He could have jumped and went the spoil instead of staying on the ground.

I’m not disagreeing, the rules confuse me. Didn’t like the free kick however.

It looked to me Pez made good position, held his ground, glanced, and the Richmond player jumped well, get both hands on the ball and if he had of held it would have been a great mark. Apart from jumping out the way, can’t see Pez had any other option. If he had of jumped into Richmond player, that may have been more dangerous and possibly tunnel him.

Would prefer to see these kind of actions not paid as a free kick.

 

[BillyElliott]

I’m not disagreeing, the rules confuse me. Didn’t like the free kick however.

It looked to me Pez made good position, held his ground, glanced, and the Richmond player jumped well, get both hands on the ball and if he had of held it would have been a great mark. Apart from jumping out the way, can’t see Pez had any other option. If he had of jumped into Richmond player, that may have been more dangerous and possibly tunnel him.

Would prefer to see these kind of actions not paid as a free kick.

Yep, Pez held his position. It was the Tiger's player who chose to take an unrealistic flying leap & dropped the mark.

 

[Bianconeri]

Yep, Pez held his position. It was the Tiger's player who chose to take an unrealistic flying leap & dropped the mark.

He got both hands on the ball, in what way was that attempt unrealistic?

 

[BillyElliott]

He got both hands on the ball, in what way was that attempt unrealistic?

Well if it wasn't unrealistic, and he got both hands on it..how did Pez impede him?

He didn't hold onto it. And that wasn't Pez's doing.

 

[Bianconeri]

Well if it wasn't unrealistic, and he got both hands on it..how did Pez impede him?

He didn't hold onto it. And that wasn't Pez's doing.

Pez looked at him, then moved to the right into his path whilst getting no where near the ball in that contest himself. How did Pez not impede him?

 

[BillyElliott]

Pez looked at him, then moved to the right into his path whilst getting no where near the ball in that contest himself. How did Pez not impede him?

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/footy-fans-demand-answers-over-questionable-richmond-free-kick/news-story/8f5a87c9d80f7c3658d9cdcd509b053a

Seems the only ones who agree with you are Tiger fans & the umpire. Even Tom Hawkins couldn't understand it.

 

[Bianconeri]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/footy-fans-demand-answers-over-questionable-richmond-free-kick/news-story/8f5a87c9d80f7c3658d9cdcd509b053a

Seems the only ones who agree with you are Tiger fans & the umpire. Even Tom Hawkins couldn't understand it.

It’s not my fault they don’t understand the rules.

 

[BillyElliott]

It’s not my fault they don’t understand the rules.

I think they'd know the rules better than biased Tiger fans & many of the umpires out there officiating the game these days.

I had plenty of Tiger supporters around me who couldn't believe he was paid a free. It was almost mark of the year. But he dropped it.

 

[Bianconeri]

I think they'd know the rules better than biased Tiger fans & many of the umpires out there officiating the game these days.

I had plenty of Tiger supporters around me who couldn't believe he was paid a free. It was almost mark of the year. But he dropped it.

I think they wouldn’t

 

[BillyElliott]

I think they wouldn’t

Haha. Ah yes, the umpires are better than they've ever been.

 

[domus]

Pez took his eye off the ball and stepped towards the right which takes away the sole objective defence.


Yes

Unbelievable. Crowds know when they see a tunnelling or shepherd-it was neither and an utterly atrocious decision. The duty of care lies with the idiot trying to jump on Perryman's head. Pez did nothing wrong. I always judge an umpire's decision by the "what would have been the reaction had he not blown his whistle?

There is no doubt no Richmond fan would have batted an eyelid had there been no whistle. The same applies to that atrocious "not 15" call- again against Perryman, who had just delivered a 25 metre pass. No play on call- literally zero reaction from the crowd. That barometer tells us that both decisions were incorrect.

 

[Bianconeri]

Crowds know when they see a tunnelling or shepherd-it

Clearly they don’t