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 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I have a neck injury from sleeping and muscle going ping, I obviously don;t play contact sports because I don;t trust my body, Blakey should do the same if he gets a neck injury from that. Utter baby giraffe moment.
Reckon he would be stiff to get rubbed out as well, threw himself at McCluggage in an attempt to stop him from breaking away.Intrigued to see what they make of the Sicily tackle. I genuinely have no idea what they'll decide.
Umpire makes an instantaneous decision in the game - Christian is the one who sits down with a slow mo and heaps of camera angles and decides whether its reportable or not.Seriously hope the umpire that paid the free against butler gets dropped, ridiculous decision.
I think Sicily is gone just because of the “sling” action. Not that he actually slung McCluggage but that motion is pretty much banned now plus McCluggage was properly concussed, just don’t see how it gets cleared.
Reckon he would be stiff to get rubbed out as well, threw himself at McCluggage in an attempt to stop him from breaking away.
Unfortunate the way he went down, I saw it as a dead set unlucky accident.
Chrisso is a ****ing stooge, the whole mro/mrp system needs an overhaul but that won’t happen this week.Umpire makes an instantaneous decision in the game - Christian is the one who sits down with a slow mo and heaps of camera angles and decides whether its reportable or not.
And once again his judgement has been questionable.
Well we had Jack Rush QC."Sally has extensive trial experience in the County Court and Supreme Court of Victoria and has appeared in a number of murder trials in the Supreme Court."
AFL picked their lawyer perfectly for that, if that isn't overkill I dont know what is
You're right about the whole thing needing an overhaul.Chrisso is a ******* stooge, the whole mro/mrp system needs an overhaul but that won’t happen this week.
That umpire shouldn’t be near the elite level.
Aish to miss in excess of a week, at least two.You're right about the whole thing needing an overhaul.
Looks like Mansell has copped three weeks because Aish's headband came off!!!
And he got 3 matches
I’d love to know how they reconcile the Mansell one when Hunter Clark has his face caved in by McKay a couple years back and somehow that was fine.
Touched the ball Clark had in his hands but you’re right that would be the argumentAs we knew with Paddy, when you try and protect yourself in any capacity, even if the person is coming at you at a rate of knots, if a pint of you collects their face, you are gone in the AFL as you bumped them either intentionally or carelessly. Mansells problem was he stated he braced instead of stating that he was contesting the ball.
McKay had a sliver of pinky on ball, so they reasoned it was a contest as opposed to this one where Aish had ball and Mansell indicated "I braced" instead of the "I touched the ball with a fraction of a mm by using my shoulder to rearrange a face" that McKay did. At least, that'd be the AFL logic.
Umpire makes an instantaneous decision in the game - Christian is the one who sits down with a slow mo and heaps of camera angles and decides whether its reportable or not.
And once again his judgement has been questionable.
Chrisso is a ******* stooge, the whole mro/mrp system needs an overhaul but that won’t happen this week.
That umpire shouldn’t be near the elite level.
21 suspensions they were saying last night on 360 lol. The game is a borefest and total jokeThis is great news, but what needs to happen is for the AFL to appoint a Footy Boss (Brad Scotts old job), and fix this mess once and for all so we don't get multiple players each week facing the tribunal for clear football actions.
My thoughts on the tackling/concussion dilemma the AFL has on it's hands.
The current approach of suspending tacklers if there is any hint of a head knock isn't working. With the speed of the game and the split seconds of decision making time involved it's a bit like Russian roulette. Very fair players may well be the unlucky tackler with no malice intended.
I think the answer is to make a shift back to rewarding the tackler very quickly if the ball isn't disposed of immediately or if a prior opportunity existed. I know that the crowd enjoys a strong tackle breaker such as a Dusty "don't argue", but if it's not a clean out it needs to become a quick "holding the ball".
We also need to see an end to 360deg plus rotations of a player while he finds a teammate to handball to. Sorry, that takes too long. Gone.
Dodged a tackle? Fantastic! But a second tackle has zero leeway. Gone.
Couldn't dispose of the ball because it conveniently got knocked/thrown/guided out in the tackle? Tough luck. Gone. Hold on to it tighter or don't allow yourself to be tackled.
Player sees tackler and tries to run around them? They had prior. If they get caught, they are gone.
Player stands in the tackle until a teammate runs past for the handball? Nup, didn't immediately dispose of the ball. Gone.
In essence the AFL needs to reward the tackler if the player with the ball has any prior opportunity to dispose of the football and doesn't take it. Thereby removing the need to pin arms or take the player to ground or linger in the tackle. Hopefully the would reduce the risk of concussions from tackles.
It wouldn't be a big change, just a quicker application of the rules with less leeway for the player being tackled.
This sounds so simple, and dare I say it, retrograde.My thoughts on the tackling/concussion dilemma the AFL has on it's hands.
The current approach of suspending tacklers if there is any hint of a head knock isn't working. With the speed of the game and the split seconds of decision making time involved it's a bit like Russian roulette. Very fair players may well be the unlucky tackler with no malice intended.
I think the answer is to make a shift back to rewarding the tackler very quickly if the ball isn't disposed of immediately or if a prior opportunity existed. I know that the crowd enjoys a strong tackle breaker such as a Dusty "don't argue", but if it's not a clean out it needs to become a quick "holding the ball".
We also need to see an end to 360deg plus rotations of a player while he finds a teammate to handball to. Sorry, that takes too long. Gone.
Dodged a tackle? Fantastic! But a second tackle has zero leeway. Gone.
Couldn't dispose of the ball because it conveniently got knocked/thrown/guided out in the tackle? Tough luck. Gone. Hold on to it tighter or don't allow yourself to be tackled.
Player sees tackler and tries to run around them? They had prior. If they get caught, they are gone.
Player stands in the tackle until a teammate runs past for the handball? Nup, didn't immediately dispose of the ball. Gone.
In essence the AFL needs to reward the tackler if the player with the ball has any prior opportunity to dispose of the football and doesn't take it. Thereby removing the need to pin arms or take the player to ground or linger in the tackle. Hopefully the would reduce the risk of concussions from tackles.
It wouldn't be a big change, just a quicker application of the rules with less leeway for the player being tackled.
Agreed. I'm happy to protect the ball winner in that a player shouldn't be penalized where there is genuinely no prior opportunity. I'd hate to see a situation where the ball is on the ground and no one is prepared to pick it up.I think that the problems in that is that stupid AFL laws o the games thing. They have a protect the ball winner first focus. I think it will happen though.
Dont like the Mansell one either.
I agree with whomever on the telecast said Aish made no effort to protect himself.
The collision was always coming and who won the ball was really only determined in the last split second. The suspension is probably 'technically' correct with how things are going recently but something needs to be written into the 'would a reasonable player' arguments, it can't be only the offending parties responsibility to be a 'reasonable player'. Would a reasonable player brace for expected contact in this scenario? A question that is never asked, duty of care goes both ways
Possibly a painful amount of free kicks initially. But I suspect players an coaches would adapt pretty quickly.This sounds so simple, and dare I say it, retrograde.
Like the rules of an earlier era.
Seems like I have seen football played in this standard before.
What are the consequences of such a change, the detrimental consequences?
Any?