- Moderator
- #1
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
He is not a KC…yet!
Just wait until an accidental knee to the head in a marking contest gets put up…..it’s coming
Shows up every week (feels like it ) mentally prepared and ready for the fight. Consistency.
By the AFL's logic Andrews should have been suspended for his effort at a spoil on H. Was nowhere near the ball. Fist to the head.
At least JVR only hit him with a bicep and the fist was far closer and more likely to make contact with the ball.
Has the Melbourne thug got off yet?
Must admit it’s nice to not be us for a change that has the only player suspended ever for a rule of the week crackdown
Unbelievably it’s still going
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
In no other job can you be this incompotent for this long and keep said jobAnother appeal upheld…Christian has got to go
#sackchristianflog
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
I don't know that Christian is to blame here, he's essentially enforcing the AFL's directive that any contact to the head will lead to consequences.
This incident is precisely why that sort of approach does not work..
the weather forecaster runs a close second but yeahIn no other job can you be this incompotent for this long and keep said job
The system is deeply flawed, no doubt.you're being generous - the whole 'system' - appointing one man - was designed to be manipulated.
It wasn't the rules that suspended Cripps for 2, or Van Rooyen, or that gave a week to Harry and Newman.The system is deeply flawed, no doubt.
There's a tendency here & elsewhere though, to blame the umpire or to blame Christian specifically, for issues of law or rule when, to my knowledge, neither party are involved in any change in directive but are tasked with ensuring compliance with it.
IMO if you don't like the law/rule, direct angst to those responsible for it, rather than those policing it.
The whole point of this case is Christian ****ed up the laws of the game (likely at the direction of the AFL). Graded as a strike rather than contact, the fact it was cited at all despite being a legitimate spoil, the fact that the tribunal agreed it was a legitimate spoil but still upheld the suspension. It was a series of idiots making things up as they went along, and why it was eventually overturned when an actual lawyer got to the bottom of it.The system is deeply flawed, no doubt.
There's a tendency here & elsewhere though, to blame the umpire or to blame Christian specifically, for issues of law or rule when, to my knowledge, neither party are involved in any change in directive but are tasked with ensuring compliance with it.
IMO if you don't like the law/rule, direct angst to those responsible for it, rather than those policing it.