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.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Funkalicous said:The Tribunal has two things to consider: 1) Did he make contact with Lockyer's eyes. 2) Did he intend to eye-gauge. That should be it! Obviously the Tribunal wasn't sure and took the soft option.
If he's not eye gouging then how can touching the face be unreasonableeddiesmith said:He wasnt up for eye gouging, they never used eye gouging in his report
He was charged with unreasonable contact with the face which he is guilty of
Lajon said:you were arguing against the 6 weeks pickett received ... which in most supporter's eyes was completely fair.
common sense would argue that Scotland should have received a suspension at either end of the spectrum (none or a lengthy break). The tribunal's first stuff-up for the year.
Hornet said:If he's not eye gouging then how can touching the face be unreasonable
The Phat Side said:fwiw I dont think Scotland meant it. You can tell the way he pulled his hand away quickly when it appeared he realised where his hand was.
hotpie said:.......or maybe he meant it, then quickly decided that proceeding wasnt a good idea. Thats more likely. The fingers were bent like they woudl be in an eye gouging situation. It was a momentary brain explosion, which luckily for him he checked before he did any damage.
Wojee said:I think it's more likely for someone to accidentally grab someone's face .
Wojee said:Pray tell how you suppose you can grab someone without bending your fingers.
Funkalicous said:Scotland was up for eye-gauging and as such the Tribunal can only sentence him for that charge alone. If the Tribunal deems him to be guilty, he should get the set penalty. It doesn't matter what Scotland's hand was doing on Lockyer's face, he's not up for touching his face. That's just circumstantial evidence afterall.
The Tribunal has two things to consider: 1) Did he make contact with Lockyer's eyes. 2) Did he intend to eye-gauge. That should be it! Obviously the Tribunal wasn't sure and took the soft option.
Funkalicous said:The tribunal is just as ********ed as ever. If he eye-gouged Lockyer, he should get 10 weeks, if he didn't, 0 weeks. The tribunal trying to go both ways just shows how unprofessional they are.