Review Geelong defeats Hawks at KP by 61 points

[Down at K Park]

No surprise burgoyne got off. Protected species. You can tell as soon as the commentators defended him.

Danger was stunned, you could see he was groggy when he got up. Imagine if it was hawkins on burgoyne. Life ban lol.

 

[Whit3y]

Did Burgoyne really get let off for that tackle? Really??

Wtf

 

[Grimoz]

Hawkins would have got 2 weeks minimum for what Burgoyne did, ****ing rubbish.

 

[Tony Barber]

I'm glad he got off.
No intent to hurt what so ever.

I reckon if I was to ever tackle danger I'd go extremely hard not expecting his lower body to give way like it did.
Flip it around. If a player like danger was tackled by us, shrugged it and burst 5m we'd be furious.

You need to make those tackles stick or it hurts you.

As to hitting the ground hard? Well that's the flip of the coin.
Liked how danger said 'that's footy'.

 

[Jeff76]

What about Chinguard the little pole smoker, he should’ve been looked at for the karate chop.

 

[Tony Barber]

I'd accept shorter quarters if meant substantially more games a year and older players staying in the game longer

I never want them to go back to 22 games.
It's stupid.
And 34 is way, way too many.

Leave it at 17 and make each game count.

 

[Grimoz]

I'm glad he got off.
No intent to hurt what so ever.

I reckon if I was to ever tackle danger I'd go extremely hard not expecting his lower body to give way like it did.
Flip it around. If a player like danger was tackled by us, shrugged it and burst 5m we'd be furious.

You need to make those tackles stick or it hurts you.

As to hitting the ground hard? Well that's the flip of the coin.
Liked how danger said 'that's footy'.

No intent to hurt? You're having a laugh aren't you, there was 2 motions and the 2nd motion was an intentional slam to the ground, he had already made the tackle and had hold of Danger, he didnt need to bodyslam him.

 

[Down at K Park]

No surprise burgoyne got off. Protected species. You can tell as soon as the commentators defended him.

Danger was stunned, you could see he was groggy when he got up. Imagine if it was hawkins on burgoyne. Life ban lol.

 

[steady2]

Don't think the Gold Coast would be welcome there.

View attachment 891296

Bye Curse? Broken
Kenneth Curse? Reinstated

 

[romeohwho]

I'm glad he got off.
No intent to hurt what so ever.

I reckon if I was to ever tackle danger I'd go extremely hard not expecting his lower body to give way like it did.
Flip it around. If a player like danger was tackled by us, shrugged it and burst 5m we'd be furious.

You need to make those tackles stick or it hurts you.

As to hitting the ground hard? Well that's the flip of the coin.
Liked how danger said 'that's footy'.

The no intent to hurt isn’t relevant, nor is burgoyne’s fair record and good guy clause. It’s a week every day of the week.

 

[Cataholic]

Oh boy, the Minister for War & Propaganda is bitter......

Ablett is a fat w***er, Burgoyne's tackle was nothing like a sling tackle, the umps 'apparently' are up Danger's bum, and we only won because of them and the Hawks playing poorly.

I'm quietly basking in it.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The no intent to hurt isn’t relevant, nor is burgoyne’s fair record and good guy clause. It’s a week every day of the week.

Seven weeks, sounds fair to me.

 

[Cataholic]

The no intent to hurt isn’t relevant, nor is burgoyne’s fair record and good guy clause. It’s a week every day of the week.

Yep, even Dunstall agreed.

As he said, if the AFL is fair dinkum it'd be an automatic week, but, as usual, the AFL has squibbed it yet again.

Spineless.

 

[Cataholic]

I'm glad he got off.
No intent to hurt what so ever.

I reckon if I was to ever tackle danger I'd go extremely hard not expecting his lower body to give way like it did.
Flip it around. If a player like danger was tackled by us, shrugged it and burst 5m we'd be furious.

You need to make those tackles stick or it hurts you.

As to hitting the ground hard? Well that's the flip of the coin.
Liked how danger said 'that's footy'.

Intent has no relevance whatsoever.

It's about the action, and Burgoyne's was the classic '2 action' sling that the AFL had vowed to eliminate from the game.

But, as usual, the AFL were gutless in backing their words.

 

[The_Todd07]

Oh boy, the Minister for War & Propaganda is bitter......

Ablett is a fat w***er, Burgoyne's tackle was nothing like a sling tackle, the umps 'apparently' are up Danger's bum, and we only won because of them and the Hawks playing poorly.

I'm quietly basking in it.

Happy I'm married to a Saints supporter.
She's used to disappointment so isn't fussed when we beat them.
That said, even though we met after 09, mentioning it is not in my best interest

 

[Cataholic]

The no intent to hurt isn’t relevant, nor is burgoyne’s fair record and good guy clause. It’s a week every day of the week.

Correct..... the AFL wanted it stamped out because of the potential for harm associated with a sling tackle.

That the instigator is lucky enough the guy doesn't get hurt is of no consequence in the assessment.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

No surprise burgoyne got off. Protected species. You can tell as soon as the commentators defended him.

Danger was stunned, you could see he was groggy when he got up. Imagine if it was hawkins on burgoyne. Life ban lol.

Burgoyne was always going to get off. It's the consequence of the action rather than the action itself. It's why there will always remain inconsistencies with the system.

If it was Cale Morton or some other skeleton with growth deficiencies, Burgoyne would have spent the next two weeks on the sidelines.

It's just the way it is until the system is changed.

 

[Grimoz]

Happy I'm married to a Saints supporter.
She's used to disappointment so isn't fussed when we beat them.
That said, even though we met after 09, mentioning it is not in my best interest

"She's used to disappointment" so many good lines running through my head right now

 

[Shai]

Just as an aside, I'm glad we didn't expose Clark to the snipers at this stage of his career.

 

[Cataholic]

Happy I'm married to a Saints supporter.
She's used to disappointment so isn't fussed when we beat them.
That said, even though we met after 09, mentioning it is not in my best interest

I don't breathe a word about footy, and after results like last night's, I'm doubly careful.

Barbs get thrown to invite a bite, but I know way better than to fall for that. It unleashes a fury that is daunting........

 

[Spearman]

Burgoyne was always going to get off. It's the consequence of the action rather than the action itself. It's why there will always remain inconsistencies with the system.

If it was Cale Morton or some other skeleton with growth deficiencies, Burgoyne would have spent the next two weeks on the sidelines.

It's just the way it is until the system is changed.

exactly, fragility of the receiver is the determiner.
all anybody who complains about these decisions wants is consistency.
I am firmly of the conviction that the AFL keeps it that way to fuel the conversation and clicks. their metrics do not and will never match those of footy fans.

 

[ATSAM]

I'm glad he got off.
No intent to hurt what so ever.

I reckon if I was to ever tackle danger I'd go extremely hard not expecting his lower body to give way like it did.
Flip it around. If a player like danger was tackled by us, shrugged it and burst 5m we'd be furious.

You need to make those tackles stick or it hurts you.

As to hitting the ground hard? Well that's the flip of the coin.
Liked how danger said 'that's footy'.

Really!!!

 

[cats_09]

Burgoyne was always going to get off. It's the consequence of the action rather than the action itself. It's why there will always remain inconsistencies with the system.

If it was Cale Morton or some other skeleton with growth deficiencies, Burgoyne would have spent the next two weeks on the sidelines.

It's just the way it is until the system is changed.

Exactly this

They really need to change the wording from "impact" to either consequence or outcome, because that's what they are using to determine if an action is a fine, suspension or no case to answer

Alternatively, what would be better is rather than focusing on the outcome of the action, actually focus on the action itself and the potential to cause injury not just if there is a resultant injury

When it comes to an incident like last night where it's been deemed 'rough conduct (dangerous tackle)', maybe that action should be an automatic 1 week suspension, with loading/additional weeks for any injury or concussion caused. Surely that type of tackle is what the AFL has spoken about wanting out of the game

Maybe a review of what's deemed a reportable offence and have some deemed to be an automatic one week suspension and not reliant on the grading system to determine penalty, because too often the penalty is determined by the outcome & not the action

 

[you pick one]

 

[cats_09]

Ultimate the difference is that the Carlton medical report said that Kreuzer was concussed, while Danger played out the match and there's been no reports of concussion

Penalties are based more on the outcome than the action