- Aug 16, 2019
- 947
- 1,773
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The AFL doesn't care, they are well aware of the inconsistencies with the tribunal. They just don't care . Something about absolute power corrupting absolutely.
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.
They literally went thereIt'd be weight differential for sure.
If it’s potential, the guy swinging his fists at his opponents face probably should have been suspended also…AFL proves again that they're a joke.
Exceptional circumstances only if you have played 200+ games come on. Sorry TB has only played 138, is a premiership player and B&F winner.
Is it punishment determined by outcome or potential? Still no clearer. Backflipped from their outcome position to potential injury. Happy for it to be potential, or based on risk level or tackling action but ******* be consistent.
Playing the Sun's who the AFL have spent bigCan’t wait to hear the reasoning. In the same week we’ve had a guy cleared for an off the ball hit to the head whilst the guy tackling a bloke whose head hit the ball gets his ban upheld? Make it make sense
With all of the recent talk about resting players, this is a perfect opportunity to rest Barrass given his back issues. Doesn't make the tribunals decision any less egregious, but it's a small silver lining to come out of a shocking decision.
Can't say I rate David Grace KC.We haven't gone there often, but just out of curiosity what is our win loss record at the tribunal? Any one got the numbers?
Can't say I rate David Grace KC.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone:Did they actually mention that the reason why Cameron got overturned was because Cameron was the smaller guy tackling the bigger guy but unfortunately Barrass was the bigger guy tackling the smaller guy even though both tackles were pretty much identical. Did they mention any of that, if not then it's absolutely bullsh*t but if they did actually say it at the tribunal then I can understand.
It be nice if the club can appeal again provided they didn't mention the "bigger guy" card and say "Hang on Charlie Cameron used the good bloke card and he got off yet, Barrass doesn't? This is bullsh*t."
In this golden age of streaming, where great movies and television shows are available at the click of a button, why exactly would I do that?Hammer is going to town on the AFL right now about the tribunal. Live streaming on YouTube for anyone who wants to jump on and rewind a couple minutes