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

[LIONS15v]

Change the rules because they don’t make sense

when you lose

 

[AstuteTiger]

Tigers fans in here whinging when edwards took out two of our best players with illegal tackles.

Not to forget when duursma was pushed into the fence. Later tackled after he got rid of it and injured.

Really? Nothing illegal with Edwards tackle, perfect actually, unfortunate for dursma the way he landed. if you think Edwards will get weeks you're clueless about the game.
That was stupid by Ross and dursma got the free no one complaining about that because no need to hip and shoulder a player over the line.

You port supporters are a piece of work. You got the rub of the green, 22 to 12, take your win and stop carrying on like port were hard done by.

 

[Black Saab]

This sounds relevant to last night's game.

Was relevant to the post I was responding to. Why are you still here?

 

[Black Saab]

when you lose

1-3 Brissy.

 

[Black Saab]

Wow. The denial is strong in this one.

What is it you disagree with?

 

[Stealth69]

Didn't get away with anything, it's allowed within the rules. It won them the game along with Drew's mark and tackle.

Rule is:

Since 2009, it has been illegal in AFL matches for a defender to deliberately concede a rushed behind when he is not under any pressure from the attacking team. In the event that a defender does this, the umpire awards a free kick to the attacking team on the goal-line at the spot where the defender conceded the score. The defender may still deliberately concede a rushed behind if he is under pressure from an attacker.

__________________________________________________

Are you watching netball or Aussie rules? There is more pressure in a game of netball than Robbie had

Even the commentators made it obvious what they thought about the incident with one exclaiming "Wow"!

Players were in the vicinity but the pressure was yet to be applied. If you think the incident warranted enough pressure then we move on...

I expect you are the type that jumps at shadows or a door creak

 

[Black Saab]

Tigers fans in here whinging when edwards took out two of our best players with illegal tackles.

Not to forget when duursma was pushed into the fence. Later tackled after he got rid of it and injured.

butters tackled by the legs and injured.

imagine the outcry if that happened to dusty and Cotchin. Victoria would be marching on Adelaide oval with pitchforks.

This is ridiculous. Essentially you are upset because the umpires didn't step in again where they had no right to. It's a tough game, Edwards was good, hard footy. The Ross incident was really dumb and unnecessary.

 

[LIONS15v]

1-3 Brissy.

and?

 

[philthy05]

This is ridiculous. Essentially you are upset because the umpires didn't step in again where they had no right to. It's a tough game, Edwards was good, hard footy. The Ross incident was really dumb and unnecessary.

so to be clear you’re upset over line ball decisions but late hits by players that resulted in injury are just part of a “tough game”?

 

[philthy05]

Really? Nothing illegal with Edwards tackle, perfect actually, unfortunate for dursma the way he landed.

You port supporters are a piece of work. You got the rub of the green, 22 to 12, take your win and stop carrying on like port were hard done by.

It was a tackle after he disposed of the ball. That is an illegal tackle.
Richmond supporters are claiming they are hard done by.
I’m pointing out what they’re overlooking.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Rule is:

Since 2009, it has been illegal in AFL matches for a defender to deliberately concede a rushed behind when he is not under any pressure from the attacking team. In the event that a defender does this, the umpire awards a free kick to the attacking team on the goal-line at the spot where the defender conceded the score. The defender may still deliberately concede a rushed behind if he is under pressure from an attacker.

__________________________________________________

Are you watching netball or Aussie rules? There is more pressure in a game of netball than Robbie had

Even the commentators made it obvious what they thought about the incident with one exclaiming "Wow"!

Players were in the vicinity but the pressure was yet to be applied. If you think the incident warranted enough pressure then we move on...

I expect you are the type that jumps at shadows or a door creak

What did you think of Dusty's throat fend off directly leading to a goal? Honest q.

 

[AstuteTiger]

It was a tackle after he disposed of the ball. That is an illegal tackle.
Richmond supporters are claiming they are hard done by.
I’m pointing out what they’re overlooking.

No he was in possession, I am talking about the one where dursma got tackled by Edwards, brilliant tackle. Just bad for him he landing awkwardly.
Yes, we were hard done by, you have to be looking at the game with rose coloured glasses if you thought we weren't. 22 to 12 and many goals by port by the umpires, that's a fact.
Out of bounds but called in = goal. Houli mark gets pinned for HTB, have u ever seen that? Rozee goals and there were others.

Look most tiger supporters are talking about the umps, not saying port played bad or undeserving, understand the difference.
It was a great game, port got the choccies but tiger fans have every right to feel aggrieved with that low level of umpiring.

Anyway, I'm leaving it there I've said my piece. Enjoy your win. I will now look forward to next Thurs V the Saints.

 

[chooke]

Ummmm... Port won 36 flags in the SANFL in roughly a 120 year period. That's an AVG of a flag every 3.33 years.

Step into the the better comp and you guys have won 1 flag in nearly 25 years. That is an AVG of...wait for it...1 in every 25 years.

It just points out how inferior the SANFL was as a legit competition and how it couldn't go toe to toe with the VFL. It's also why none of the SANFL flags are recognised in the AFL. They are incompatible competitions without cross over history. The current AFL is the ongoing continuation of the VFL story and your mob is below mediocre and more like poor when it comes to success. Richmond on the other hand are whole other echelons above the Power historically and it is recognised as such.

What a load of crap. So how many flags can Richmond claim during the vFL state comp era? The port sanfl teams through this era would have easily beaten the Richmond vfl teams most of those years.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

What is it you disagree with?

We beat you to an AFL flag before you managed one against us.
We beat you to 3 AFL minor premierships before you managed one against us.
But yeah you are the kings.

 

[philthy05]

No he was in possession, I am talking about the one where dursma got tackled by Edwards, brilliant tackle. Just bad for him he landing awkwardly.

Want to bet on it?


Here is X in the action of kicking the ball. The pick dot on the right edge of screen is edwards hand. He isn’t even in the immediate area here.


Here is edwards tackling X. Duursma clearly is not in possession of the ball. This is just the beginning of the tackle


Here is edwards following through with the tackle well after X has disposed of it. He could have let go here but made a decision to follow through.

here is where the tackle finished. Edwards has followed through and brought X down resulting in him leaving the ground injured. Note that duursma has been slung from one side of edwards to the other in the second part of this tackle.
The whole thing happened incredibly quickly. You could argue that edwards might not have had time to pull up after duursma got rid of the ball, but that doesn’t explain why edwards followed through with the tackle, especially when he had the opportunity before he brought X around his body and to the ground. The real problem here is that edwards was not only late, but he had the option to end the tackle halfway through but instead follows through. This is the action that resulted in duursmas injury.

you are wrong. Duurs was not in possession. It was a late and reckless tackle that injured one of the best players on the ground at a key time in the game.

 

[Handyandy]

Now now take your rose coloured glasses off. If you want to play that game, we can play it better. This ball clearly out port goals. Houli marks it ump says touched fair enough but how the heck can houli hear that call with all that noise. No umpire pays holding the ball in that situation when a player believes he marked it, they give the benefit of the doubt. Rozee goals, so deduct 2 goals.
Grey deliberate handball through the goals deduct another that's 3 now. You see what I'm doing here. Bottom line tigers were reamed by the umps 22 to 12

View attachment 1098599

 

[Corkintheocean]

The microwaves will be getting dusted off from out in the garage in no time judging by how poorly Tigers fans are taking their L's.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Richmond fans crying over a lopsided FA count, ffs, your team are a bunch of dirty scraggers, to their credit it has earnt you 3 flags, dont like the discrepancy, tone it down but we all know you cant as its the cornerstone of your game.
No good crying when that game style and resultant FA count costs you in tight games though.

 

[AstuteTiger]

here is where the tackle finished. Edwards has followed through and brought X down resulting in him leaving the ground injured. Note that duursma has been slung from one side of edwards to the other in the second part of this
The whole thing happened incredibly quickly. You could argue that edwards might not have had time to pull up after duursma got rid of the ball, but that doesn’t explain why edwards followed through with the tackle, especially when he had the opportunity before he brought X around his body and to the ground. The real problem here is that edwards was not only late, but he had the option to end the tackle halfway through but instead follows through. This is the action that resulted in duursmas injury.

you are wrong. Duurs was not in possession. It was a late and reckless tackle that injured one of the best players on the ground at a key time in the game.

The only part I agree with you is it happened so quickly and it did. Edwards lays the tackle as dusrma is about to dispose of the ball or a split-second after.
Nothing malice in this tackle. Duursma does land awkwardly but that's just bad luck and from what I've heard not seriously injured thankfully.
Lmao end the tackle halfway through, you keep freeze-framing the incident, you do realise that's over within a few seconds. Maybe if Edwards had a remote control he could stop it, then walk away, then press play and off Duursma goes.



This freeze-frame is taken within a millisecond, accidents occur in tackles. Look at the above screenshot Edwards is tackling as duursma just laying his boot on the ball. He had every right to tackle him and put him off so the kick doesn't have any penetration.

 

[AstuteTiger]

The microwaves will be getting dusted off from out in the garage in no time judging by how poorly Tigers fans are taking their L's.

What's with west toast fans trolling Richmond game day threads.

At RD 4
2019 2W, 2L = premiers
2020 1W, 1D, 2L = premiers

You keep holding on to that thought if it makes you sleep better at night, Tiger fans deep down know we can still win the flag again this year like we have done 3 times in the past 4 years.

 

[philthy05]

The only part I agree with you is it happened so quickly and it did. Edwards lays the tackle as dusrma is about to dispose of the ball or a split-second after.
Nothing malice in this tackle. Duursma does land awkwardly but that's just bad luck and from what I've heard not seriously injured thankfully.
Lmao end the tackle halfway through, you keep freeze-framing the incident, you do realise that's over within a few seconds. Maybe if Edwards had a remote control he could stop it, then walk away, then press play and off Duursma goes.

View attachment 1098968

This freeze-frame is taken within a millisecond, accidents occur in tackles. Look at the above screenshot Edwards is tackling as duursma just laying his boot on the ball. He had every right to tackle him and put him off so the kick doesn't have any penetration.

View attachment 1098969

Lol. You can’t even admit when you’re wrong even when you’re staring at the evidence

that first image where you admit duursma has disposed of the ball, edwards has not laid the tackle yet. His arms have not made contact. They are wide open, duursmas left arm (closest to edwards) is extended in front of him and Edwards has not yet made contact.

your second image shows duursma has clearly disposed of the ball, edwards has seen this, and as we both know and i proved with the images in my post edwards continued on with the tackle, bringing duursma from the side of him (screen right) to the other side of him

here is the image again showing where the tackle ended.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Tigers fans in here whinging when edwards took out two of our best players with illegal tackles.

Not to forget when duursma was pushed into the fence. Later tackled after he got rid of it and injured.

butters tackled by the legs and injured.

imagine the outcry if that happened to dusty and Cotchin. Victoria would be marching on Adelaide oval with pitchforks.

No, Tigers fans would be.

Why would you think the rest of Vic would you numpty?

 

[Total Power]

The Richmond players stopped to emphasise that Gray was under no immediate pressure.

Why don’t you crawl back into your bottle of spit and polish your prelim runners-up medal.

Of course they would emphasize that, why would a richmond player claim otherwise? when has an AFL player argued for a 50/50 decision that went against him . You are seriously not bright. Gray was surrounded by 3 richmond players all within 1 meter of him. He CAN rush the behind deliberately, umpire said he was under pressure, deliberate or not, it was the correct decision.

You guys are sore losers, way too salty, can't accept that you couldn't beat us , despite 6 blokes were out there on a limb and we barely had legs to run in that final quarter.

 

[AstuteTiger]

Lol. You can’t even admit when you’re wrong even when you’re staring at the evidence

that first image where you admit duursma has disposed of the ball, edwards has not laid the tackle yet. His arms have not made contact.

your second image shows duursma has clearly disposed of the ball, edwards has seen this, and as we both know and i proved with the images in my post edwards continued on with the tackle, bringing duursma from the side of him (screen right) to the other side of him

FFS the 2nd image is the follow on from the tackle, geez take the rose coloured glasses off and admit you're wrong.
I'm leaving it there, you won the game and still on here complaining about millisecond tackles. Nothing will happen to Edwards, if you think he will get suspended you're clueless.

 

[philthy05]

FFS the 2nd image is the follow on from the tackle, geez take the rose coloured glasses off and admit you're wrong.
I'm leaving it there, you won the game and still on here complaining about millisecond tackles. Nothing will happen to Edwards, if you think he will get suspended you're clueless.

the second image you posted shows edwards has the opportunity to end the tackle but chose to continue. I raised this as the issue in my post.

I’ve never said anything about Edwards getting suspended, you’re trying to deflect the argument because you have no grounds to challenge the facts I’ve shown you.