Autopsy AFL 2021 Round 4 - Port v Tigers Fri April 9th 7:50pm EST (AO) Tigercast link in OP!

[BF Tiger]

I guess Tom Lynch was pulled from Richmond's forward 50 by a black hole or something then. You clowns are relying on an AFL tweet thats misrepresenting what occured. If you were at the game you would've how inaccurate that tweet is.

Have a look at this and tell me if it was a black hole that drew Lynch down the ground to save the game?

Last Two Minutes | Port Adelaide v Richmond | Preliminary Final, 2020 | AFL

The Wolf Blass Wines Last Two Minutes between Port Adelaide and Richmond was seriously tense! How good are preliminary finals?For unique access to much more ...

www.google.com

 

[Duckimus Prime]

That’s not what the footage shows.

And if you want to mention inflammatory mouthing off maybe Hamish Hartlett needs to brought up.

So what you're saying is that you're going on just the very limited camera footage, and didn't actually see what occured at the game. So you're relying on the AFL's tweet which completely misrepresents what you actually would've seen if you were at the game.

In other words, you're completely divorced from reality here because you weren't at the game and didn't actually see what happened.

 

[BF Tiger]

So what you're saying is that you're going on just the very limited camera footage, and didn't actually see what occured at the game. So you're relying on the AFL's tweet which completely misrepresents what you actually would've seen if you were at the game.

In other words, you're completely divorced from reality here because you weren't at the game and didn't actually see what happened.

Why would the AFL and the media start misrepresenting Tom Lynch’s actions when they took great delight in doing so all season? How many cameras at the ground and none of them have had footage aired of what you’re accusing Lynch of? At the very least there would be behind the goal footage.

It is far more likely Lynch was down the ground having followed the play, setting up for a potential kick-in or because Riewoldt was closer to goal.

Regardless, Duursma still broke from his team-mates to run and confront Lynch 30 metres away.

And tell me... because I wasn’t at the Grand Final last year are Richmond really back-to-back premiers or am I divorced from reality?

 

[BF Tiger]

So what you're saying is that you're going on just the very limited camera footage, and didn't actually see what occured at the game. So you're relying on the AFL's tweet which completely misrepresents what you actually would've seen if you were at the game.

In other words, you're completely divorced from reality here because you weren't at the game and didn't actually see what happened.

Here’s a screenshot of Lynch maybe 45 seconds before Duursma kicked his goal. Can you tell me where the action is on the ground? Here’s a hint... it’s not the Richmond F50.

You couldn’t lie straight in bed Duckimus.

 

[LIONS15v]

Do you have an actual reason you oppose my suggestion or is it just ‘muh you go for Richmond your opinion doesn’t count’?
Because that’s the only argument you’ve given so far.

Something must have erked you off if you're still defending yourself almost 3 days after the game on the game-day thread haha...

Again.. guaranteed you wouldn't be asking to change the rules because "it doesn't make sense" (LOL) if it produced a moment that benefitted richmond on friday night.

You probably wouldn't blink if it happened it another game.. which it does on a regular basis (including to richmond on occasion in recent times)

 

[HTT]

Something must have erked you off if you're still defending yourself almost 3 days after the game on the game-day thread haha...

Again.. guaranteed you wouldn't be asking to change the rules because "it doesn't make sense" (LOL) if it produced a moment that benefitted richmond on friday night.

You probably wouldn't blink if it happened it another game.. which it does on a regular basis (including to richmond on occasion in recent times)

Again, you continue to deflect from my question. Why should the goal line be treated any different from the boundary line?

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Again, you continue to deflect from my question. Why should the goal line be treated any different from the boundary line?

Because there's a penalty (a rushed behind).

Just like this one (how far from the line is this? More than 9 mtrs judging by the goalsquare.)

Are you saying this should have been deliberate?

 

[HTT]

Because there's a penalty (a rushed behind).

Just like this one (how far from the line is this? More than 9 mtrs judging by the goalsquare.)

Are you saying this should have been deliberate?


View attachment 1100366View attachment 1100367

Would it be deliberate if it was the boundary line? If yes, then yes.

 

[BF Tiger]

Because there's a penalty (a rushed behind).

Just like this one (how far from the line is this? More than 9 mtrs judging by the goalsquare.)

Are you saying this should have been deliberate?


View attachment 1100366View attachment 1100367

In short, the rule is a mess. Grimes may have been further out but was under more immediate (closer) pressure and never took clean possession of the ball, tapping it through instead. Gray was closer to goal but had more Richmond players around. He did take clean possession and handball it through.

There is a penalty, a rushed behind, but that can also be a reward. Firstly, it’s not a goal. Then the defending team gets clean possession with a man on the mark 20 metres away being told to “stand”. The defending team could quite possibly be well in the centre square with the ball, looking at their forward options, within 5 seconds of rushing a behind like this.

TBH I’m happy for both not to be paid under the current guidelines, but would not have been surprised if one or both had been paid. But maybe it does need an “insufficient intent” type of clause attached to it. Or maybe if it is rushed through the team kicking in can’t take the kick immediately.

Another massive grey area in the game.

 

[WilloTree]

There are some reasonable and level-headed supporters who contribute well to bigfooty.

It seems there use to be more.

Is it just me or is it the Richmond and Carlton supporters who make this a complete pile of s**t?

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Would it be deliberate if it was the boundary line? If yes, then yes.

So, 4-5 meters from the line whilst being tackled, in the last 10 mins of the final quarter of a close low scoring final?
(you see where I'm going with this?)

 

[HTT]

So, 4-5 meters from the line whilst being tackled, in the last 10 mins of the final quarter of a close low scoring final?
(you see where I'm going with this?)

View attachment 1100383

Yes. If you handball the ball directly out of bounds, it is deliberate out of bounds. As it should be on the goal line.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Here’s a screenshot of Lynch maybe 45 seconds before Duursma kicked his goal. Can you tell me where the action is on the ground? Here’s a hint... it’s not the Richmond F50.

You couldn’t lie straight in bed Duckimus.

View attachment 1100234

And the ball went out of play and he ran back up the field of play to take up his proper position in Richmond's structure.

You know 45 seconds is quite a long time in footy. Teams can have move the ball the entire length of the field in less than that time.

Last night we saw Steven Motlop drop an easy chest mark 10m into Port's defensive half, less that 20seconds later he was marking the ball for a shot on goal 20m out.

I was at the game he was in Richmond's attacking half and ran up the ground himself. Duursma reacts to Lynch's actions. Maybe call out Duursma for getting sucked in by Lynch, but don't go with the completely inaccurate description of the events in the game.

 

[BF Tiger]

And the ball went out of play and he ran back up the field of play to take up his proper position in Richmond's structure.

You know 45 seconds is quite a long time in footy. Teams can have move the ball the entire length of the field in less than that time.

Last night we saw Steven Motlop drop an easy chest mark 10m into Port's defensive half, less that 20seconds later he was marking the ball for a shot on goal 20m out.

I was at the game he was in Richmond's attacking half and ran up the ground himself. Duursma reacts to Lynch's actions. Maybe call out Duursma for getting sucked in by Lynch, but don't go with the completely inaccurate description of the events in the game.

I’m not saying it’s inconceivable but how about you locate some footage to back you up because what you’re proposing is a bit lot ridiculous... that Tom Lynch intercepted a Duursma handball near the the Port half forward boundary line, was illegally dumped after disposing of the ball, didn’t get a free kick, ran minimum 60 metres back inside the Richmond 50m arc while the ball was camped in the Port forward line possibly leaving Port with a spare player forward late in the quarter, saw Duursma mark, goal and shoot his load(ed arrow) and then ran 60m back towards Duursma to mouth off. What did he have to mouth off about... Duursma didn’t miss, Port Adelaide were leading... And then he would have had to run another 100m back to the goal square to be in position for the ball-up.

As I mentioned earlier the media had a field day tearing strips off Tom Lynch last year. He was their #1 target. Yet not one outlet brought up what you have proposed. I guess you think Tom Lynch asked for that beer shower in his post-game interview as well.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Will Duursma play that game? Maybe he shouldn’t. Seems to have pretty bad luck against the Tigers... injured knee this time, dropped a premiership last time.

View attachment 1099446

Classy.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Enviable Tradition]

In short, the rule is a mess. Grimes may have been further out but was under more immediate (closer) pressure and never took clean possession of the ball, tapping it through instead. Gray was closer to goal but had more Richmond players around. He did take clean possession and handball it through.

There is a penalty, a rushed behind, but that can also be a reward. Firstly, it’s not a goal. Then the defending team gets clean possession with a man on the mark 20 metres away being told to “stand”. The defending team could quite possibly be well in the centre square with the ball, looking at their forward options, within 5 seconds of rushing a behind like this.

TBH I’m happy for both not to be paid under the current guidelines, but would not have been surprised if one or both had been paid. But maybe it does need an “insufficient intent” type of clause attached to it. Or maybe if it is rushed through the team kicking in can’t take the kick immediately.

Another massive grey area in the game.

This is all Port supporters have been saying.

Pay both or pay neither.

Either way dont have a soil about it deciding the result of the game as it cut both ways.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BF Tiger]

Classy.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

It's a great gif, yeah.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I’m not saying it’s inconceivable but how about you locate some footage to back you up because what you’re proposing is a bit lot ridiculous... that Tom Lynch intercepted a Duursma handball near the the Port half forward boundary line, was illegally dumped after disposing of the ball, didn’t get a free kick, ran minimum 60 metres back inside the Richmond 50m arc while the ball was camped in the Port forward line possibly leaving Port with a spare player forward late in the quarter, saw Duursma mark, goal and shoot his load(ed arrow) and then ran 60m back towards Duursma to mouth off. What did he have to mouth off about... Duursma didn’t miss, Port Adelaide were leading... And then he would have had to run another 100m back to the goal square to be in position for the ball-up.

Sure when Channel 7 release any behind the goal footage from that time in the game. I mean really, why don't you show us the footage showing where Lynch was?

Its what happened.

 

[BF Tiger]

Sure when Channel 7 release any behind the goal footage from that time in the game. I mean really, why don't you show us the footage showing where Lynch was?

Its what happened.

Because your the one making the claim that Lynch was the flog so you prove it. Until you do your claim is baseless. Just find something - anything - that might support your claim apart from “but it’s what I saw”. Surely there’d be a mention in the game day thread, either at the time it happened or something post-match. All your fellow Port supporters would no doubt have taken any chance to lay the boots into Tom Lynch.

Start digging Duckimus.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Because your the one making the claim that Lynch was the flog so you prove it. Until you do your claim is baseless. Just find something - anything - that might support your claim apart from “but it’s what I saw”. Surely there’d be a mention in the game day thread, either at the time it happened or something post-match. All your fellow Port supporters would no doubt have taken any chance to lay the boots into Tom Lynch.

Start digging Duckimus.

Tom Lynch is a massive flog and there is ample proof of that.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BF Tiger]

Tom Lynch is a massive tow-time premiership flog and there is ample proof of that.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

EFA

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I'm not sure what tow-time is but I'm sure its a game played by flogs.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BF Tiger]

I'm not sure what tow-time is but I'm sure its a game played by flogs.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Well done you picking up on the typo. Flogs and flags - that's what we're about at Punt Rd.