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.
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Semi Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
… and don’t get Andrews to provide Charlie tips on giving evidence.Please don’t use our lawyer for CC.
Carrying on like a pork chop when we are down by 50 points with just over a quarter to go?If our appeals are unsuccessful, perhaps we bring Robertson in and get him to play the Mitch Robinson role in the forward line.
Yeah, I'm aligned. I would have been happy with 2 (to match the games the victim misses). As much as we don't like it and accidents will happen, concussion is bad and the AFL need to do whatever they can to stamp it out.So what Charlie did is slightly less bad than rankin dog shotting off the ball. Make it make sense.
Surely we appeal this. 3 weeks is excessive.
I think it was the dodgy surface that made Duggan lose his feet
Cmon massive difference. You can’t tell me Harley didn’t intend to hurt the Saints player as his slinging tackle was deadset aggressive and miraculously didn’t injure his opponent. Charlie simply tackled Duggan and Duggan was also trying to shrug Charlie off. Completely different tackles.Unfortunately it doesnt matter - the tackler has some sort of "duty of care" to the player they are tackling, to ensure they dont hurt them. Harley copped 2 games for the same thing, and his bloke didnt even get hurt.
And concuss him.I think it was the dodgy surface that made Duggan lose his feet
I dont honestly think Harley was trying to hurt the Saints player - I think he was attempting to stop a player from escaping a tackle with the ball. The head hitting the ground was an accident. But he still copped 2 weeks for something that didnt even phase the other bloke at the time. Again, its "optics".Cmon massive difference. You can’t tell me Harley didn’t intend to hurt the Saints player as his slinging tackle was deadset aggressive and miraculously didn’t injure his opponent. Charlie simply tackled Duggan and Duggan was also trying to shrug Charlie off. Completely different tackles.
What’s the second game that Duggan misses; it’ll only be one just like Starc will only miss one?Yeah, I'm aligned. I would have been happy with 2 (to match the games the victim misses). As much as we don't like it and accidents will happen, concussion is bad and the AFL need to do whatever they can to stamp it out.
The issue is if the umpires don't blow the whistle more quickly, then the tackle goes the extra step and this happens.
I think their grading system needs to have a "footballing incident" criterion. If poor tackling form gets suspended, then anything off the ball needs to be 1 match, on top of whatever the rest of the grading is.
Could’ve fooled me; the potential for injury was I think far greater in this tackle than Charlie’s even though the outcome to the player being tackled was different. Anyway, you couldn’t get starker incidents so it’s pointless comparing themI dont honestly think Harley was trying to hurt the Saints player - I think he was attempting to stop a player from escaping a tackle with the ball. The head hitting the ground was an accident. But he still copped 2 weeks for something that didnt even phase the other bloke at the time. Again, its "optics".
Unfortunately guys the AFL wants to stamp out any and all contact with the head moving forward - accidental or not. They are starting to have blokes come after them for brain injuries caused during their playing days, and they know they are going to have to pay out the arse for these cases.
Charlie doesnt deserve 3 weeks - thats absolutely wrong. But the fact of the matter is that we live in a world where "it was an accident" isnt seen as a good enough case to plead anymore - someone has to be the "bad guy" in an incident and "claim responsibility", so the AFL can turn around and punish them for it in order to meet HR requirements.
In a few years im willing to bet that players will be told specifically not to pin the arms in a tackle, because it will be cited as being dangerous.
Would like to see one of Maclaughlan or Lloyd get a gig ro rest Logan.Maybe one of the new boys in ? If we need a like for like or as close as we have
A massive part of this issue is the new administration at the AFL as I’ve banged on all year. They’re simply out of touch and as Luke Hodge just said, too many of the rule makers and administrators making the rules have never played the game, out of touch and therefore have an unrealistic understanding of the nuances of playing the game particularly in these sorts of incidents.Charlie gets 3 games even two game suspension, or even One well it's a bit of a joke isn't it.
There is no consistancy at all, between common sense and just random pulling up certain players and letting others off with a slap.
Are we now saying when you elect to tackle and you hurt someone you will get weeks.
Ffs, get a grip, it's all about money and liabilities not even about the health of these blokes.
Maybe players should have velcroed tags on their shorts , rip them off and in a high squeeky voice yell tagged.
No thanks.