Certified Legendary Thread David Mackay PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

Result?


  • Total voters
    58
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

this is the anti-chooklotto tribunal thread, designed to demonstrate how corrupt the tribunal is

the anti-David Mackay thread is here:


please post accordingly
 
Last edited:
My son is recovering from a collarbone repair surgery after being cleaned up in a tackle in a local 3rd grade match.

Making Caleb Daniel look tall, he's thinking that probably Aussie Rules isn't the sport for him now, especially playing against 3rd graders many of whom are carrying a few extra kilos.

I do note, of course, that this is a choice of recreational footy, not professional footy. However, at any level this is a risky game. Most games are. Sport (especially at a professional level) by the very definition (competitive physical activity) is pushing the human body to its limits. When you do that, sometimes you go past the limits and injuries happen.

Cricket is a non contact sport. Tell Phil Hughes' family that's risk free.
 
So my controversial take, the AFL are partly to blame for this. Changed the rules in regards to 'bumping' contact that players these days don't know how to prepare for collisions leave themselves wide open so when something like this does happen the injuries end up being worse. Look at the way Clarke goes in expects zero contact and doesn't prepare for it. Mackay has been around before the recent rule changes and does brace for contact.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'm surprised at the number of media experts suggesting David ought be suspended because he attacked the contest too hard.

It just doesn't sound right at all.

I also didn't realise Christian didn't see anything in it,but Hocking did. Surely if this is thrown out, Hockings position is under review.
Surely he shouldn’t even be interfering?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

They don't give a flying F***. It's the Crows lets smash them.:mad:

Just imagine being a high-level bureaucrat at VFL House, and wanting to implement or even just ask the question about something as F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L as this, and then just dropping it into the bye weekend

Perhaps the most disgraceful thing for footy I’ve ever seen

I'm surprised at the number of media experts suggesting David ought be suspended because he attacked the contest too hard.

It just doesn't sound right at all.

I also didn't realise Christian didn't see anything in it,but Hocking did. Surely if this is thrown out, Hockings position is under review.

He must go, this is inexcusable, there must be a radical overhaul of the sport’s governing body

Imagine if he got off and we dropped him next week :D

For lulz we need Neil Craig to come out with a DVD and proclaim that’s not how we wanna play
 
Heading the ball is a serious concern in that game.

Again, as a soccer player this is my biggest area if concern. As a tall Defender i'm fully expected, and have been for the last 20 years, to get my head to the ball first when a keeper kicks the ball out, or from corners. Most games i'd make at least 1-2 dozen headers, and have often come off with headaches after the game. Lots of literature coming out now in regards to early dementia in former soccer players, particularly defenders.
 
Again, as a soccer player this is my biggest area if concern. As a tall Defender i'm fully expected, and have been for the last 20 years, to get my head to the ball first when a keeper kicks the ball out, or from corners. Most games i'd make at least 1-2 dozen headers, and have often come off with headaches after the game. Lots of literature coming out now in regards to early dementia in former soccer players, particularly defenders.

Not to mention the elbows flying around when people go up to header the ball
 
Dunstall absolutely nails it, with Whateley once again trotting out AFL scripted lines.

So if DMac is suspended the ruling/interpretation is essentially against him because he ran into a contest and collided (not high contact) at top speed whilst having his eyes on the ball and in fact win the contest and his team got the clearance.

Ridiculous.


Going forward, if DMac found guilty, a player needs to assess the speed of his opponent upon entering the contest and match (slow down) his opponent's speed to show duty of care.








Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
I can't see him getting off. The media is coming around to it being a suspension.

Bad luck for Dmac as it was a really great contest with an unfortunate outcome for both involved.

On SM-A205YN using BigFooty.com mobile app
The media tends to favor the controversial angle for more clickbait. Doesn’t mean they’re right just because they make more noise.
 
So if DMac is suspended the ruling/interpretation is essentially against him because he ran into a contest and collided (not high contact) at top speed whilst having his eyes on the ball and in fact win the contest and his team got the clearance.

Ridiculous.


Going forward, if DMac found guilty, a player needs to assess the speed of his opponent upon entering the contest and match (slow down) his opponent's speed to show duty of care.








Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
The sad thing is that the AFL could simply add a new rule this week eg. “show more duty of care”, instead of having to use DMac as an example for punishing someone who is currently not breaking any rules that the AFL can find. It is gutless ownership of the situation by the AFL.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Certified Legendary Thread David Mackay PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE

Back
Top