-
07-07-2020, 07:48 PM
#871
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
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.
-
07-07-2020, 07:56 PM
#872
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.
-
07-07-2020, 07:57 PM
#873
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.
-
07-07-2020, 08:00 PM
#874
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.
-
07-07-2020, 08:00 PM
#875
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.
-
07-07-2020, 08:03 PM
#876
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
comrade
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.
-
07-07-2020, 08:20 PM
#877
Re: MRO Thread
Let's hope we see consistency now then hey...!
(I just made myself laugh).
-
07-07-2020, 08:29 PM
#878
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
-
07-07-2020, 09:12 PM
#879
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.
-
07-07-2020, 09:55 PM
#880
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.
-
07-07-2020, 10:39 PM
#881
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...
-
07-07-2020, 11:46 PM
#882
Re: MRO Thread
Only person happy with this is Suckers
"Look at me mate. Look at me. I'm flyin'"
-
08-07-2020, 11:14 AM
#883
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.
-
08-07-2020, 11:15 AM
#884
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Grantysghost
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
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
08-07-2020, 11:22 AM
#885
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
bulldogsthru&thru
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 11:39 AM.
Reason: phone typing fun