Thanks Thanks:  98
Likes Likes:  1,022
Page 58 of 152 FirstFirst ... 8484950515253545556575859606162636465666768108 ... LastLast
Results 856 to 870 of 2278

Thread: MRO Thread

  1. #856
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,569
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Well, we're asking the question.

    BORDERLINE FLYING

  2. #857
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    E.J. Whitten Stand
    Posts
    17,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Good.
    Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.

  3. #858
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wherever the dogs are playing
    Posts
    60,880
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocket Science View Post
    Well, we're asking the question.

    So we should
    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.

  4. #859
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Doglands
    Posts
    39,500
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitcha View Post
    It's time for us to roll the dice on this one and not keep meekly surrendering. Was nowhere near as violent as what Burgoyne dished out earlier in the year and got off (good bloke excuse notwithstanding). The North player had BOTH arms free and should have been somewhat responsible for protecting himself. Regarding Jack Redden's punch to Blakey while on the ground, didn't Lachie Hunter get a week for the exact same thing round one last season. Different sets of rules for different players and different clubs and about time we stood up for ourselves and highlighted the inconsistencies.
    Fully agree, we should challenge even if it means a 2 week penalty
    Western Bulldogs Football Club "Where it's cool to drool"

  5. #860
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    18,741
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Even the accepting of an early suspension vs risking an additional week is complete bullshit as a concept. You have highly questionable decisions on inconsistently ruled matters and you risk an additional week just for asking a reasonable question?

    It's a complete shitshow.
    Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.

  6. Likes Grantysghost liked this post
  7. #861
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,048
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Grantysghost View Post
    Agree with you regarding consistency, however personally I feel the tackle Crozier laid was fair, where the player tackled had the option to brace for impact but decided to handball instead. In the same game you can fairly knee someone in the back of the head with force whilst attempting a mark, another traditional part of our game; personally I view them the same but I am aware the laws are different for the two. I think the two actions where arms are pinned then player slung certainly should be outlawed.
    If we are talking head injuries in tackles a case could be made Atley was negligent in his tackle on Smith which lead to a far more serious injury.
    That is a long bow to draw.

    Smith was unaware and basically turned into Atley.

    There are incidents that are unavoidable but Crozier did apply a slinging motion, although i do agree that his tackle was certainly on the lighter end of any scale of such tackles.
    Life is to be Enjoyed not Endured

  8. Likes Grantysghost liked this post
  9. #862
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    6,735
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog Joe View Post
    That is a long bow to draw.

    Smith was unaware and basically turned into Atley.

    There are incidents that are unavoidable but Crozier did apply a slinging motion, although i do agree that his tackle was certainly on the lighter end of any scale of such tackles.
    You could argue it's on the onus of the tackler not to tackle a player who is completely unaware he is about to be tackled. Obviously i'm purely playing devils advocate and that would be a ridiculous expectation but the comparison is somewhat relevant.

    The thing with Crozier's tackle is also that his momentum was going in the direction of the supposed "swing". It would be very difficult for him to stop his momentum and apply an effective tackle. I think he did as much as he could to not hurt the guy. I can see both sides of the coin but if he gets a week for that it's going to set an interesting precedent for tackling going forward.

  10. #863
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Kennel
    Posts
    15,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldogsthru&thru View Post
    You could argue it's on the onus of the tackler not to tackle a player who is completely unaware he is about to be tackled. Obviously i'm purely playing devils advocate and that would be a ridiculous expectation but the comparison is somewhat relevant.

    The thing with Crozier's tackle is also that his momentum was going in the direction of the supposed "swing". It would be very difficult for him to stop his momentum and apply an effective tackle. I think he did as much as he could to not hurt the guy. I can see both sides of the coin but if he gets a week for that it's going to set an interesting precedent for tackling going forward.
    Yes I think that's right. I certainly wouldn't advocate Atley being in any trouble for it, however it was deemed a legal tackle that caused a serious head injury. That was my comparison in saying I believe Crozier also tackled legally, between the knees and shoulders; the discussion point being the perceived sling/momentum into the turf. No one likes to see head injuries but it happens during fair play. I'm glad we challenged be interesting to see what arguments we use at the tribunal. Good discussion.

  11. #864
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5,048
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldogsthru&thru View Post
    You could argue it's on the onus of the tackler not to tackle a player who is completely unaware he is about to be tackled. Obviously i'm purely playing devils advocate and that would be a ridiculous expectation but the comparison is somewhat relevant.

    The thing with Crozier's tackle is also that his momentum was going in the direction of the supposed "swing". It would be very difficult for him to stop his momentum and apply an effective tackle. I think he did as much as he could to not hurt the guy. I can see both sides of the coin but if he gets a week for that it's going to set an interesting precedent for tackling going forward.
    There are precedents and Bulldog precedents.

    With the MRO we are much more likely to cop the suspension, evidence Hunter, Cordy, Redpath and Hayes.

    Unfortunately we can't actually challenge someone else getting off even if the tribunal affirms the suspension.

    It won't prevent the profile player exemption being applied in the future.

    If the tackle had been laid by Bont or Shaun Higgins, I feel confident it would have been no case to answer.
    Life is to be Enjoyed not Endured

  12. Likes bulldogsthru&thru liked this post
  13. #865
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Warragul
    Posts
    9,529
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bulldogsthru&thru View Post
    The thing with Crozier's tackle is also that his momentum was going in the direction of the supposed "swing". It would be very difficult for him to stop his momentum and apply an effective tackle. I think he did as much as he could to not hurt the guy. I can see both sides of the coin but if he gets a week for that it's going to set an interesting precedent for tackling going forward.
    If the suspension is upheld the precedent is that ANY tackle that results in a player hitting their head on the ground with a reasonable amount of force will be a suspension, regardless of how the tackle is executed. I think that is a ridiculous precedent.

    On one hand they adjust the holding the ball interpretation to reward the tackler and on the other they want to punish tacklers for reasonably executed tackles that may occasionally be unfortunate enough to cause injury.

  14. Likes ratsmac liked this post
  15. #866
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    E.J. Whitten Stand
    Posts
    17,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    When do we find out about Crozier?
    Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.

  16. #867
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    The Kennel
    Posts
    15,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by comrade View Post
    When do we find out about Crozier?
    Tribunal is tonight.

  17. #868
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wherever the dogs are playing
    Posts
    60,880
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Tribunal on now
    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.

  18. #869
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,569
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocket Science View Post
    Well, we're asking the question.

    And we have our answer.

    Crozier suspension upheld.

    Can't say I'm shocked.
    BORDERLINE FLYING

  19. #870
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Algester, Qld
    Posts
    8,181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: MRO Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocket Science View Post
    And we have our answer.

    Crozier suspension upheld.

    Can't say I'm shocked.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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