-
24-08-2020, 08:02 PM
#991
Re: MRO Thread
Lot worse than the Crozier one
He won’t escape that
-
24-08-2020, 08:15 PM
#992
Re: MRO Thread
Lynch once more gets away with it. AFL want him in the big game on Thursday night
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.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
24-08-2020, 08:28 PM
#993
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Lynch once more gets away with it. AFL want him in the big game on Thursday night
This case against Lynch has been correctly assessed. There was absolutely nothing in it, despite Hurley trying to manufacture something else.
Lynch should have been suspended the previous week, but you can't revisit that one.
Life is to be Enjoyed not Endured
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
24-08-2020, 10:13 PM
#994
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Lynch once more gets away with it. AFL want him in the big game on Thursday night
Surely you dont want footballers missing games because of soft stuff like that?
The curse is dead.
-
24-08-2020, 10:39 PM
#995
Re: MRO Thread
I dont get the point of the 3 strikes goes to the tribunal system ? If that's the case you have to be tried on all 3 right? If its just the last one, which in this case was nothing whats the point.
I'm missing something surely.
-
24-08-2020, 10:47 PM
#996
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
chef
Surely you dont want footballers missing games because of soft stuff like that?
Agree, but I am still angry at Redpath getting 2 weeks for the same thing and one more on appeal. The only difference was Davis dropped to the ground, and GWS medicos lied
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.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
25-08-2020, 10:41 AM
#997
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Grantysghost
I dont get the point of the 3 strikes goes to the tribunal system ? If that's the case you have to be tried on all 3 right? If its just the last one, which in this case was nothing whats the point.
I'm missing something surely.
You have to actually commit an offence before priors come into it. If you are found not guilty of stealing a car you can hardly be sentenced on the basis that you have previously been guilty of stealing cars.
-
25-08-2020, 10:58 AM
#998
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Axe Man
You have to actually commit an offence before priors come into it. If you are found not guilty of stealing a car you can hardly be sentenced on the basis that you have previously been guilty of stealing cars.
It's not a court of law so not sure the analogy works, however your concept makes sense to me.
Why have a 3 strikes system at all if none of the offences merit a suspension. As this case clearly was. Either take into account an accrued total and get a week or just get on with it. I vote the latter.
-
25-08-2020, 11:12 AM
#999
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Grantysghost
It's not a court of law so not sure the analogy works, however your concept makes sense to me.
Why have a 3 strikes system at all if none of the offences merit a suspension. As this case clearly was. Either take into account an accrued total and get a week or just get on with it. I vote the latter.
If he had have been found guilty of the strike he would likely have received a 1 week suspension due to the previous 3 strikes, where in isolation it would have been only a fine.
-
25-08-2020, 11:25 AM
#1000
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Axe Man
If he had have been found guilty of the strike he would likely have received a 1 week suspension due to the previous 3 strikes, where in isolation it would have been only a fine.
Thanks for explaining.
I'm not a fan of that system at all ! What if he does it again next week do the strikes start again. Ambiguity reigns supreme.
I think just take each case on it's merit, or accrue points towards a suspension like we used to have from memory.
-
25-08-2020, 03:56 PM
#1001
Re: MRO Thread
I thought these were all auto one week now?
Ed Langdon, Melbourne, has been charged with Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) against Laitham Vandermeer, Western Bulldogs, during the third quarter of the Round 13 match between the Western Bulldogs and Melbourne, played at Metricon Stadium on Saturday August 22.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Low Impact and High Contact. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction as a first offence.
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.
-
25-08-2020, 04:22 PM
#1002
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
bornadog
I thought these were all auto one week now?
Low impact = fine. Medium impact = 1 week (what Dahlhaus and Crozier have received).
-
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Likes
-
25-08-2020, 09:27 PM
#1003
Re: MRO Thread
Surprise , surprise, surprise
Dahlhaus cleared
What an absolute disgrace. Once again the afl gets all tough on dangerous tackles then cools off
Tribunal is in disarray
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
25-08-2020, 09:28 PM
#1004
Re: MRO Thread
Hayden Crozier is owed a game of football
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
25-08-2020, 10:06 PM
#1005
Re: MRO Thread
Too bad Crozier didn’t do his tackle this week. Would have gotten off in this weeks MRO spin the suspension wheel