News Insightful and Inciteful - 2022 Media Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stewart (Geelong) given 4 weeks.

Tribunal system is a shemozzle - MRO has scales and ratings and should have been able to determine number of weeks.

AFL and Club can then appeal if either don’t like decision. Just dragged out something unnecessarily which could have been dealt with quickly.
Sometimes. Other times, the MRO comes up with a ridiculous outcome and the tribunal is there to apply common sense (see Willie Rioli case earlier in the year).
 
Sometimes. Other times, the MRO comes up with a ridiculous outcome and the tribunal is there to apply common sense (see Willie Rioli case earlier in the year).

Did MRO do the initial sentence for Willie.

If so, his case is the perfect example of how MRO should work.

Penalty issued, WCE challenge get heard and case dismissed.

With Stewart MRO could have handed down sentence (circa 4 weeks) - if Cats were ‘happy’ case could have been wrapped up Sunday arvo. If not, go to the tribunal.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Did MRO do the initial sentence for Willie.

If so, his case is the perfect example of how MRO should work.

Penalty issued, WCE challenge get heard and case dismissed.

With Stewart MRO could have handed down sentence (circa 4 weeks) - if Cats were ‘happy’ case could have been wrapped up Sunday arvo. If not, go to the tribunal.
Ah, I get you. Good point.
 
Stewart (Geelong) given 4 weeks.

Tribunal system is a shemozzle - MRO has scales and ratings and should have been able to determine number of weeks.

AFL and Club can then appeal if either don’t like decision. Just dragged out something unnecessarily which could have been dealt with quickly.
Speaking of, did anyone catch this on AFL site:


Gaffy's mis-aimed fend off is apparently the worst possible offence that has happened on the footy field in the last 23 seasons.
 
Speaking of, did anyone catch this on AFL site:


Gaffy's mis-aimed fend off is apparently the worst possible offence that has happened on the footy field in the last 23 seasons.


Hall should have got longer. He broke his hand that game and was out for a few anyway. Equally, difficult to argue a broken jaw behind play isn't as bad as it gets
 
Hall should have got longer. He broke his hand that game and was out for a few anyway. Equally, difficult to argue a broken jaw behind play isn't as bad as it gets

Penalties have increased over the years as they crack down more on the outcomes.

If it were to happen today Hall on Staker and Solomon on Ling would have gotten worse than Gaff, they were far more deliberate and dirty IMO
 
Hall should have got longer. He broke his hand that game and was out for a few anyway. Equally, difficult to argue a broken jaw behind play isn't as bad as it gets
I'd argue Gaff was the next kick in the chain if he was free, he was definitely in play. But it's also punishing the result rather than the action, which occurs multiple times a quarter. Reacting to the shock value rather than the game mechanic if you will. The best comparison is the Bugg suspension, but apparently a brain injury is less serious than a jaw injury. If you don't want to see players breaking tags then pay the frees, but don't over-zealously punish them if an attempted break goes awry.

The next two on the list (Solomon and Hall) caved in a guys head in fairly unique circumstances; you don't see forwards fend off like that unless they are leading, and you don't see players jump front-on into a marking contest with their forearm. Those and the late Jonas hit are things you don't want in the game at all, and should cop the most weeks. Same with Greene bumping the ump. You don't want that in the game.

Also I'm pretty sure a couple of those 'big bans' were for multiple incidents in the same game when that was the AFL's thing circa 2007 (Baker, Farmer), and probably shouldn't make the list as they were otherwise 2-3 games.
 
I'd argue Gaff was the next kick in the chain if he was free, he was definitely in play. But it's also punishing the result rather than the action, which occurs multiple times a quarter. Reacting to the shock value rather than the game mechanic if you will. The best comparison is the Bugg suspension, but apparently a brain injury is less serious than a jaw injury. If you don't want to see players breaking tags then pay the frees, but don't over-zealously punish them if an attempted break goes awry.

The next two on the list (Solomon and Hall) caved in a guys head in fairly unique circumstances; you don't see forwards fend off like that unless they are leading, and you don't see players jump front-on into a marking contest with their forearm. Those and the late Jonas hit are things you don't want in the game at all, and should cop the most weeks. Same with Greene bumping the ump. You don't want that in the game.

Also I'm pretty sure a couple of those 'big bans' were for multiple incidents in the same game when that was the AFL's thing circa 2007 (Baker, Farmer), and probably shouldn't make the list as they were otherwise 2-3 games.

Farmer was given 6 weeks for eye gouging, would get less today as it was the in focus thing at the time and they were punishing it heavier.

Baker's was a cumulative one
 
Is that what it was? Totally deserved then, completely unnecessary to the game.

6 weeks is excessive though when you consider Toby Greene and Andrew Brayshaw only got 1 week for the same thing recently.

Shows how stupid the AFL system is when it just moves towards trends and over compensating.
 
6 weeks is excessive though when you consider Toby Greene and Andrew Brayshaw only got 1 week for the same thing recently.

Shows how stupid the AFL system is when it just moves towards trends and over compensating.
This is why the legal system has precedent and sentencing guidelines. The AFL wants to be able to manipulate the outcome to fit the sentiment at the time, so there are no surprises that their sentencing is wildly inconsistent.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hall got his penalty reduced under the stupid discount for pleading guilty policy. Of course he was ****ing guilty! What was he going to challenge on?
 
Hall got his penalty reduced under the stupid discount for pleading guilty policy. Of course he was ******* guilty! What was he going to challenge on?

From memory it also got reduced for having a “good record”, despite actually having a bad record, because all his previous offences were more than a couple of years old so didn’t count.

Absolute bloody travesty.
 
My favourite piece of media of the last few weeks was Robbo last night on AFL 360, repeatedly arguing that Tom Stewart should not have been graded as "Careless" because he indeed acted without care. He said it 3 times...
 
My favourite piece of media of the last few weeks was Robbo last night on AFL 360, repeatedly arguing that Tom Stewart should not have been graded as "Careless" because he indeed acted without care. He said it 3 times...
I'm assuming you didn't see his theory on suspensions for players going forward.

He pondered whether players suspensions should only be against the club they got reported against.

So Tom Stewart should be banned from playing the next 5 games against Richmond.

Just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 
I'm assuming you didn't see his theory on suspensions for players going forward.

He pondered whether players suspensions should only be against the club they got reported against.

So Tom Stewart should be banned from playing the next 5 games against Richmond.

Just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Lol - imagine that with Gaff. Would be a premiership player and wouldn't have played in a derby until next year.
 
I'm assuming you didn't see his theory on suspensions for players going forward.

He pondered whether players suspensions should only be against the club they got reported against.

So Tom Stewart should be banned from playing the next 5 games against Richmond.

Just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Yeah I was going to mention that.

But when he was saying "It shouldn't be graded as careless, he acted without care" I actually had to rewind and listen again. It looked like Gerard was about to pull him up on it but eventually let it go..
 
Yeah I was going to mention that.

But when he was saying "It shouldn't be graded as careless, he acted without care" I actually had to rewind and listen again. It looked like Gerard was about to pull him up on it but eventually let it go..
Even by Robbo's poor standards is was a shocker.

Imagine getting a weeks suspension in round one and you next play the team in the GF and you have to miss.
 
I'm assuming you didn't see his theory on suspensions for players going forward.

He pondered whether players suspensions should only be against the club they got reported against.

So Tom Stewart should be banned from playing the next 5 games against Richmond.

Just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Would be an absolute free-for-all against Norf as the likelihood of you missing an important future match would be zero.
 
Do you love the footy as much as Fat loves the catters?

Do those blokes get credit with the betting companies? Scourge on the footy and society.

The fat shaming is disgraceful and I'm not even that fat.
 
I know it's early but had to read this twice.
Talk about having 50 cents each way.

Fremantle

IF ...​


we weren't aware this time last year of the Dockers' massive, but ultimately unsuccessful, bid to lure Lachie Neale ...


THEN ...​


we are this time around of the pitch for superstar-in-waiting Luke Jackson. It's never 'a done deal' in football until the signature is placed on the document within the allowed timeframe. But this is a nearly-done deal.

West Coast

IF ...​

the Dockers are way in front right now in the race for Luke Jackson ...

THEN ...​

should he choose to leave the Demons, the race is not necessarily over. Eagles will have way more draft pick scope to deal with Melbourne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top