Daicos dangerous tackle on Daniel

Remove this Banner Ad

Or there were 5 clear frees ignored in the last quarter of a one point Prelim. Why wouldn't they highlight that?

Do you think if DeGoey was legged or Daicos had his head taken off 50 out with no free the media would be saying nothing.
Or if Elliot gone pole driven into the ground and had a GWS defender lying on back.
No I don't. I'll let you try to work out what I was saying.
 
No I'm not. I'll let you try to work out what I was saying.

What your saying is that the bad umpiring has only been highlighted because of the two games being played. They are prelims and one team got a distinct advantage and it is now being discussed.

Should they ignore it?
 
What your saying is that the bad umpiring has only been highlighted because of the two games being played. They are prelims and one team got a distinct advantage and it is now being discussed.

Should they ignore it?
No. That was about the Daicos tackle.

What I'm saying is that you're a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist who is too myopic to realise that the AFL rules are designed to help your club so that teams like Collingwood don't always dominate the comp. There isn't an AFL conspiracy to advantage Collingwood or any other big club - the AFL has done the opposite and have clearly brought in rules designed to bring clubs like Collingwood back to the field, so that clubs like yours can compete. It's just not debatable unless you are a tin foil hat wearer.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

No. That was about the Daicos tackle.

What I'm saying is that you're a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist who is too myopic to realise that the AFL rules are designed to help your club so that teams like Collingwood don't always dominate the comp. There isn't an AFL conspiracy to advantage Collingwood or any other big club - the AFL has done the opposite and have clearly brought in rules designed to bring clubs like Collingwood back to the field, so that clubs like yours can compete. It's just not debatable unless you are a tin foil hat wearer.


Then your happy obviously that 5 blatant frees were ignored to get you into a GF.
 
Then your happy obviously that 5 blatant frees were ignored to get you into a GF.

Yep. Always happy for my team to get the rub of the green - be it umpiring decisions or bounce of the ball.

And despite my concern for society, I'm also happy to laugh at the tears of conspiracy theory nuffies.
 
Emotion Reaction GIF



ITT: people with such little knowledge of the game that they think tackling someone to the ground without even pinning their arms is suspension worthy 😂😂😂
Um, actually that's exactly what the rules are now.

This is the tackle Serong was suspended for:

1695616488087.png

Notice no arms pinned.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'd argue that the issue is most people not understanding the rules and also not seeing significant differences between different incidents.

Yes I'd argue that every time an incident involves a player from their own club the player is innocent and can't possibly be suspended.
 
Yes I'd argue that every time an incident involves a player from their own club the player is innocent and can't possibly be suspended.
Or just as commonly "neutrals" who ahve a bias against a club think it should be suspended.

a) it's a standard tackle from behind
b) his head hits the turf because Pendlebury grabs his free arm after Daicos has tackled him
c) like most standard tackles from behind, you can't tell whether the tackler pushed him forward or whether the players momentum came from him playing for an in the back free.

It's farcical that anyone could actually think that incident was suspendable. Really shows that you have absolutely no idea about the game or are just so ridiculously biased that you can't see clearly on anything Collingwood or are just a simple troll.
 
Or just as commonly "neutrals" who ahve a bias against a club think it should be suspended.

a) it's a standard tackle from behind
b) his head hits the turf because Pendlebury grabs his free arm after Daicos has tackled him
c) like most standard tackles from behind, you can't tell whether the tackler pushed him forward or whether the players momentum came from him playing for an in the back free.

It's farcical that anyone could actually think that incident was suspendable. Really shows that you have absolutely no idea about the game or are just so ridiculously biased that you can't see clearly on anything Collingwood or are just a simple troll.

Yet players have been suspended all year for it. Then again jump off the ground knock a bloke out is allowed.
 
a) Yet players have been suspended all year for it. b) Then again jump off the ground knock a bloke out is allowed.
a) no they haven't
b) For the Maynard case: read the careless conduct tribunal guidelines and the relevant charges and then come back and explain to me what jumping has to do with the charge. Then read the Tribunal findings and tell me how they are wrong.

I know it's a bit tough to expect you to read the rules - and it's much easier to just complain about corruption of the rules without knowing the rules.
 
a) no they haven't
b) For the Maynard case: read the careless conduct tribunal guidelines and the relevant charges and then come back and explain to me what jumping has to do with the charge. Then read the Tribunal findings and tell me how they are wrong.
**** me how many times do the Maynard finding have to be explained. There will probably be rule changes because of it but the amount of details people want to ignore to keep their pissy sooking up is laughable. On Daicos, every ****n media talking head that either love or despise Collingwood we're of the opinion it wasn't an issue. They must all be on the secret Vicbias, umpire assisted, tribunal cheating Collingwood panel we've assembled this year. Get around us
 
* me how many times do the Maynard finding have to be explained. There will probably be rule changes because of it but the amount of details people want to ignore to keep their pissy sooking up is laughable. On Daicos, every *n media talking head that either love or despise Collingwood we're of the opinion it wasn't an issue. They must all be on the secret Vicbias, umpire assisted, tribunal cheating Collingwood panel we've assembled this year. Get around us
You're underestimating the Machiavellian Vicbias evile genius of the AFL.

They knew that a Vic player would knock out another Vic player in an unusual incident in a final, so they wrote guidelines that would enable that Vic player to get off, denying the other Vic club what they felt was justice. Then rather than running a kangaroo court where they made a statement based on the vibe, they had an independent tribunal follow their evilly composed guidelines to advantage an entire state - most of whom hate Collingwood and wanted him suspended.

Evil corrupt Vicbiased genius from the AFL.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Daicos dangerous tackle on Daniel

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top