- Thread starter
- #676
Carlton will come out of the 8 with the doggies sneaking in (again)
MRP / Trib. 2022 MRO Discussion
- Thread starter KERRPOW
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So pretty much like watching our game against the Saints again.
Ochre
:o
Not surprised Cripps and TK both lost, the tribunal never let more than 0 players off on the same night.
Hilarious how differently the footy media reacted to the 2 incidents despite the obvious and important differences. They scream bloody murder when rioli contests a marking contest, outstretches his arms and doesn't make direct head high contact, Rowell also plays out the game. Yet cripps isn't contesting a mark, makes later contact, never actually plays for the ball and makes direct head high contact twice, and ah chee is concussed and will miss atleast a game and a half as a result.
I don't know if they're intentionally deceptive or if that's giving them too much credit and they just lack the brain power for any form of self awareness?
At least when they asked Jack Reiwoldt tonight, he said " When I first saw it, my first thought was that's 2 weeks".
He might act like a flog on the field, but I reckon he's pretty good in the media.
My main gripe is not the fact Kelly got a week for a dangerous tackle but more the fact there would have been half a dozen or more the same or worse that weren't even cited.
YOUR MISSION this weekend if you choose to accept is to watch what games you do and if you notice a similar "dangerous" tackle take a pic and note game time it happened and post it so we can actually get an idea what is missed and what is picked.
YOUR MISSION this weekend if you choose to accept is to watch what games you do and if you notice a similar "dangerous" tackle take a pic and note game time it happened and post it so we can actually get an idea what is missed and what is picked.
I was furious last night still am ....few things
1. AFL case "This has the potential to cause injury".......okay then there is about 2/3 tackles every game that has the "potential" to cause injury are we going to suspend all of them ????
2. Consistency.........there is none.....Cotchin the same as Kelly but gets off surprise surprise...they are a team fighting for a spot in the top eight. We are a bottom two team.... no one gives a F88K so suspend him
3. Precedent.....well its been set....each week every game there are about 2/3 tackles that can cause injury ....how many times does gaff get dumped each week into the ground??? ...lets see the players suspended then??....we should be losing 2.3 players every game based upon this farcial tribunal decision
4. WA Media/West coast response....so far timid as F88k nothing....just bend over and take it up the .....would be nice to see us stand up and tell the AFL to get ******ed
5. Going forward......so its final's time soon does anyone believe that someone is going to get suspended in the finals for the same tackle that kelly did ????...... Imagine Petracca slamming someone to the ground in a Prelim...would he cop a week ????.....The answer is a definite no...they will turn a blind eye
The system is biased and broken
Not surprised he got a week to be honest.
Sure, Berry contributed to the outcome by trying to dispose of the footy, but he's entitled to do that. I don't see why the tackler should get leniency for it.
Yes, the umpires didn't help by not paying some clear htb calls throughout the game, so TK tackled harder than he might otherwise have, but that's not going to help his defence.
Posters complain about how the AFL punishes the outcome and not the action/potential to cause injury - here it is the other way around and they are still complaining.
I agree the Cotchin tackle was similar, and if we are flat out punishing all sling tackles then he should have got a week for it. But there are always shades of grey - Cotchin's sling was obviously much slower and, I think, had less ferocity. So I can understand the argument for how Cotchin's tackle had less potential to cause injury and why he got off but TK didn't.
Maybe I'd feel different if this had any bearing whatsoever on our season.
Sure, Berry contributed to the outcome by trying to dispose of the footy, but he's entitled to do that. I don't see why the tackler should get leniency for it.
Yes, the umpires didn't help by not paying some clear htb calls throughout the game, so TK tackled harder than he might otherwise have, but that's not going to help his defence.
Posters complain about how the AFL punishes the outcome and not the action/potential to cause injury - here it is the other way around and they are still complaining.
I agree the Cotchin tackle was similar, and if we are flat out punishing all sling tackles then he should have got a week for it. But there are always shades of grey - Cotchin's sling was obviously much slower and, I think, had less ferocity. So I can understand the argument for how Cotchin's tackle had less potential to cause injury and why he got off but TK didn't.
Maybe I'd feel different if this had any bearing whatsoever on our season.
No problems if the AFL chooses to add the potential to cause injury but it has to be applied to every reportable offence. ie did it get raised in the Cotchin consideration? I doubt it did otherwise he would have been looking at a fine and/or suspension.
Cotchin's was slower but the result was Wines leaving the ground to be assessed from what I understand. No lingering effects but that's more than Berry's. Which him leaving the ground to be assessed and coming back is a hell of a lot closer to the potential to cause more injury than someone who gets up and takes his kick straight away. It still had a 360 dumping motion on someone with an arm pinned who's head obviously hit the turf pretty hard.
At the moment IMO the potential to cause injury just gets added when the AFL want to justify a week off. Otherwise fines for incidents that could be upgraded due to potential would and incidents that get let off altogether could become fines.
We know they are rubbery and the AFL like that so when a final comes along they can twist themselves in knots to get someone off at the tribunal if the need be.
Cotchin's was slower but the result was Wines leaving the ground to be assessed from what I understand. No lingering effects but that's more than Berry's. Which him leaving the ground to be assessed and coming back is a hell of a lot closer to the potential to cause more injury than someone who gets up and takes his kick straight away. It still had a 360 dumping motion on someone with an arm pinned who's head obviously hit the turf pretty hard.
At the moment IMO the potential to cause injury just gets added when the AFL want to justify a week off. Otherwise fines for incidents that could be upgraded due to potential would and incidents that get let off altogether could become fines.
We know they are rubbery and the AFL like that so when a final comes along they can twist themselves in knots to get someone off at the tribunal if the need be.
I suspect Cochin got off because they didn't want to (potentially) end his career with a suspension.
Potential to cause injury. Thats a somewhat broad concept open to interpretation. It could cover every action on the footy field. I recall a player doing a hammy running down the race at Subi pre garme. So lets not contest a ball.
A bit like many of the new rules that effectively require an umpire to read minds to be factually correct.
Because the AFL wants every decision they make to be "right" by making it impossible for it to be objectively wrong.
Smeg Head
Just take a bite
Correct weight, what a farce.
Throwing a ball back to an opponent after a free could hit them in the wrong side of the face and break their jaw. Potential to cause injury. 6 week ban
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
