Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glad we didn’t go hard after Jackson. Underwhelming in his first game for the purple and maybe the Dees have got themselves a top 10 pick after all…..

Heard on the grapevine that after clunking zero (yes 0) marks against the Aints, he has reached out to NN in an effort to understand what he needs to do in order to reach NN's lofty average of 1.75 marks a game.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

From reading the Crows board, apparently the Bulldogs didn’t even fully assess Smith for concussion, whereas GWS did for Wehr. That seems to have impacted in the grading?

Yay for player safety and all that 🙄🙄


GWS doing the right thing with their player seems to have impacted Macadam whilst the bulldogs inability to do the same with their player limits the penalty on Pickett

I might be wrong, but I feel that the bulldogs have a history of being loose with concussion protocols and if they haven’t already, they should be asked to explain why Smith wasn’t assessed
 
Sounds like the AFL have a gaping hole in their own policies whilst also being sued by a class action due to concussions.

Mark Brennan Thumbs Up GIF by Neighbours (Official TV Show account)
 


GWS doing the right thing with their player seems to have impacted Macadam whilst the bulldogs inability to do the same with their player limits the penalty on Pickett

I might be wrong, but I feel that the bulldogs have a history of being loose with concussion protocols and if they haven’t already, they should be asked to explain why Smith wasn’t assessed

Cause there was barely any head contact to Smith and he bounced up fine straight away, whereas Wehr stayed down for a while and had to be helped off.
 
First of all, Mcadam's one is a bump as the player is in possession of the ball or the ball is within 5 metres.

Pickett's one isn't a bump as the ball is outside of the area, it's rough conduct.

This is the first and biggest **** up. Pickett should be out for 4+ weeks for rough conduct as it's automatically intentional.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

First of all, Mcadam's one is a bump as the player is in possession of the ball or the ball is within 5 metres.

Pickett's one isn't a bump as the ball is outside of the area, it's rough conduct.

This is the first and biggest * up. Pickett should be out for 4+ weeks for rough conduct as it's automatically intentional.


Pickett was extremely lucky that he only got 2 weeks. Launching into Smith like he did was totally unwarranted and the it was just fortunate that he wasn’t significantly injured
 
First of all, Mcadam's one is a bump as the player is in possession of the ball or the ball is within 5 metres.

Pickett's one isn't a bump as the ball is outside of the area, it's rough conduct.

This is the first and biggest * up. Pickett should be out for 4+ weeks for rough conduct as it's automatically intentional.

I’m calling it, #VICBIAS
You could also add Pickett left the ground, or was that only a big, ‘No, no’ a few years ago?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I’m calling it, #VICBIAS
You could also add Pickett left the ground, or was that only a big, ‘No, no’ a few years ago?


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
That's what I thought, if you launched and your feet left the ground there was a huge suspension coming your way.
I'm sure they were all over that a few yrs back
 
So potential to injure can be overcome by "glancing blow". I like finding out just how wiggly the tribunal line is for the AFL.
Watching them come up with new ways to work around the bullshit they made up in the first place is a highlight for mine.

Clearly the MRO speak with a forked tongue.
 
Adelaide has appealed and rightly so. Interesting on 360 last night they ruminated on how McAdams bump was worse, they then asked Toby Greene and Lachie Neal what they thought and both of them said Pickett's bump was a fair bit worse. Crickets from the clowns at the desk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top