Thanks Thanks:  98
Likes Likes:  1,022
Page 59 of 152 FirstFirst ... 9495051525354555657585960616263646566676869109 ... LastLast
Results 871 to 885 of 2278

Thread: MRO Thread

  1. #871
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    E.J. Whitten Stand
    Posts
    17,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Yankee Hotel Foxtrot View Post
    Absolutely ridiculous. The AFL bent over backward to make sure Shaun Burgoyne didn't cope a game, yet Crozier goes for a much less forceful tackle.
    Apparently the impact was deemed ‘medium’ because it had the potential to cause injury. Potential, ffs. The North bloke played out the game, won’t miss any games through injury.
    Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.

  2. #872
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hillside. (carn the sharks)
    Posts
    3,906
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    I'm hearing it's not over yet
    They've done studies you know, 60% of the time, it works every time!
    Brian Fantana.

  3. #873
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hillside. (carn the sharks)
    Posts
    3,906
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Apparently we have appealed again and asked for a 3k fine instead because 1 week in a shortened season is too much
    They've done studies you know, 60% of the time, it works every time!
    Brian Fantana.

  4. #874
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18,733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    I mean, if it was the same as the Bourgoyne incident and the AFL said that particular incident isn't what we want to see and suspended Crozier I could live with that.

    But it was just such a lesser and different example.

    Gordon doesn't need money, he should tell the AFL he's not representing them in fair process if they aren't prepared to uphold fair process themselves.
    Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.

  5. #875
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Hillside. (carn the sharks)
    Posts
    3,906
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    No sorry for false hope, last ditch bid fails
    They've done studies you know, 60% of the time, it works every time!
    Brian Fantana.

  6. #876
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Eastern Suburbs
    Posts
    3,086
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by comrade View Post
    Apparently the impact was deemed ‘medium’ because it had the potential to cause injury. Potential, ffs. The North bloke played out the game, won’t miss any games through injury.
    Not that I believe Parfitt should've been sighted at all but his aggressive tackle on Rowell, with no arms pinned, resulted in significant injury to Rowell but nothing to see here. Really what's the difference. One bloke doesn't protect himself with his arms free, the other (Rowell) uses his forearm to stop a face plant and breaks his collarbone in the process.

    The level of inconsistency and over judicious footprint that the AFL under McLaughlin, Hocking and co. stamps on this game really dampens enjoyment of this game.

  7. #877
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Kennel
    Posts
    15,227
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Let's hope we see consistency now then hey...!

    (I just made myself laugh).

  8. #878
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,822
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Medium impact? Since when do they take potential injury into account. Certainly not when anything actually malicious happens.
    I should leave it alone but you're not right

  9. #879
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wherever the dogs are playing
    Posts
    60,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    I am so angry with this, just another injustice to a Bulldog player. I really have had it with AFL administration and the running of football
    FFC: Established 1883

    Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.

  10. #880
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    1,844
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    The only thing we can ask for is that it's consistent that a sling tackle gets a week. No protecting stars, no outcome based suspension.

  11. #881
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    5,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    If any other player get off for a similar tackle we need to kick up a stink. It may not make us popular with our peers but we should be seeking consistency. I'll spew if D. martin or Selwood does the same thing and gets a fine.
    Don't piss off old people
    The older we get the less "LIFE IN PRISON" is a deterrent...

  12. #882
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Only person happy with this is Suckers
    "Look at me mate. Look at me. I'm flyin'"

  13. #883
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Kennel
    Posts
    15,227
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Not sure Picasso could have made this more abstract....

    AFL QC Jeff Gleeson argued the act was worthy of its medium impact grading due to the potential to cause injury, even though Mahony’s arms were not free.

    “A sling tackle can be a dangerous tackle, regardless of whether your arms are free,” he said.

    “It simply does not render a dangerous tackle non-dangerous because the arms were free. The player may be able to brace for contact, but he may not.

  14. #884
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    6,735
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Grantysghost View Post
    Not sure Picasso could have made this more abstract....

    AFL QC Jeff Gleeson argued the act was worthy of its medium impact grading due to the potential to cause injury, even though Mahony’s arms were not free.

    “A sling tackle can be a dangerous tackle, regardless of whether your arms are free,” he said.

    “It simply does not render a dangerous tackle non-dangerous because the arms were free. The player may be able to brace for contact, but he may not.
    Same goes for any tackle. Has Jeff watched a game of footy in his life? We’re this close to becoming a contact free sport

  15. Likes Grantysghost liked this post
  16. #885
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Kennel
    Posts
    15,227
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldogsthru&thru View Post
    Same goes for any tackle. Has Jeff watched a game of footy in his life? We’re this close to becoming a contact free sport
    You're basically giving the guy with the ball two bites of the cherry. He's fairly tackled the arms are free he has the option to dispose of the ball. I'm OK with that. But not he is tackled his arms are free AND he has the option to wait until an advantageous disposal appears; this increases the likelihood of unprotected impact. Way too much onus on the tackler there.
    Last edited by Grantysghost; 08-07-2020 at 10:39 AM. Reason: phone typing fun

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •