- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3
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 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Still wrong thoughBetter than being suspended FFS
Time for a proper match review panel. At least 3 people on the panel.Michael Christian trying too hard to be relevant I guess - about time someone else came into his role
No forced changes this week. Love it.
You suck shit too BT you puppetOh and suck Slobbo!
I doubt there was a single tribunal member who agreed with all of that.The key aspects of what the case was explained in that report makes no sense at all…
Should of happened after his 1st season , he's a 6 pack short ..Michael Christian trying too hard to be relevant I guess - about time someone else came into his role
I suspect that there is an element of not wanting to create a precedent there.The opinion is a joke. They found that Mansell didn't duck. Really? What was that little dip of the head and shoulders just before Boyd made contact with him. All that finding did was make it easier for the duckers and divers to get free kicks from ducking their head and driving into a tackle.
Didn't Mark Austin suffer a broken neck from doing something like that? What's it going to take to get the AFL to get serious about idiots who put themselves into situations where they could suffer from serious injury, just to win a free kick.
That being said... good that Boyd got off the suspension.
Thanks for this. I had read it differently. But it could have been clearer.For those unfamiliar with legal wordings.
"We do not make that finding"
is not, "he didn't do it."
It's more like we don't want to say he did, because that's not what we're here to do.
They found, by the letter of the rules that they had to decide it was medium impact, and also that it wasn't because Boyd was obviously not trying to hurt Mansell
On Pixel 7a using BigFooty.com mobile app
Pretty much.I suspect that there is an element of not wanting to create a precedent there.
Kind if like "we agree but we don't want anyone else to use that defence so we'll let you off on a technicality. Here's your slap on the wrist and off you go".
While there still all there, appeal again.He still got fined ffs