No Oppo Supporters 2023 General AFL Discussion - incl. AFL Grand Final

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks to a mole and she doubled down last night
Season 15 Mother GIF by The Simpsons
 

Log in to remove this ad.

She's a journalist with good sources.
That's what a good journo does, cultivate sources and then report.
To suggest she shouldn't break the story that Stewie Dew was on rocky ground because it might hurt his feelings is bizarre.
Perhaps the Suns shouldn't have sacked Dew because it would make Stewie upset as well?

She's good at her job, whether you like it or not.
Her source is just the AFL who have a good knowledge of all things Gold Coact because they are pulling the strings.
They just fed her with this one.
 
Dew back to the Swans for a 1 year transition?

Not sure about a 1 year transition but would have him back as an assistant in an absolute heartbeat.

The players apparently love Horse. I don't think booting him before he's ready to go is a solution, I think it's about getting the right support staff to complement him.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So if you show genuine remorse you get a reduced sentence? How does that work for those on a 1 week charge? Clearly Parker wasn't sorry enough for his bump.

What bump did Parker get suspended for? Do you mean his tackle? I agree that remorse is dumb but it's a bit of a different scenario to a 1 week suspension as 3+ is more about the degree of intent/force.
 
What bump did Parker get suspended for? Do you mean his tackle? I agree that remorse is dumb but it's a bit of a different scenario to a 1 week suspension as 3+ is more about the degree of intent/force.
But how is “intent” for a tackle different to “intent” for a bump. A tackle is a normally lawful act in the course of the game. It’s a necessary part of the game. A bump, is high risk and unnecessary. 3 weeks is pathetic for Nankervis’ act. It should be 3 weeks added on to however long Jake is out.
 
But how is “intent” for a tackle different to “intent” for a bump. A tackle is a normally lawful act in the course of the game. It’s a necessary part of the game. A bump, is high risk and unnecessary. 3 weeks is pathetic for Nankervis’ act. It should be 3 weeks added on to however long Jake is out.
It's enough , he meant to bump , but wouldn't have wanted to get him high.
 
But how is “intent” for a tackle different to “intent” for a bump. A tackle is a normally lawful act in the course of the game. It’s a necessary part of the game. A bump, is high risk and unnecessary. 3 weeks is pathetic for Nankervis’ act. It should be 3 weeks added on to however long Jake is out.

You're shooting the messenger, I'm just explaining why the degree and number of the weeks is mitigated by the players intent and actions post incident. I completely agree it's stupid players can go through the motions of an apology text etc. and it gets them a reduced sentence.
 
GWS: Israel Folau
Gold Coast: Carmichael Hunt
Tassie: ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top