Keays, Dawson now Tex.

[CrowToon]

OK... you almost had me, right up to the point where you suggested that Adelaide should be challenging the tribunal's decision to let Charlie off. How TF do you think they were supposed to do that?

Clubs can challenge (i.e. appeal) decisions made against their own players. They cannot now, nor have they ever been able to, challenge decisions made about other teams' players. Adelaide weren't even involved in that match, so they have no grounds whatsoever for getting involved.

The only parties to that decision are Charlie Cameron, the Brisbane Lions, the AFL, and (debateably) Melbourne (whose player was tackled dangerously). Adelaide are & were never a party to the decision, so they have no grounds for challenging.

No I meant we didn't challenge Crouch's ban. It seems like this year clubs are challenging everything just to see if they can get a result (and a few have) but we don't even try when it's our player here.

I think we were made to look a bit silly by not even trying. Just another example of sucking up and taking it.

Edit: ok I can see how it reads like that when I say challenge the finding. I meant only the Crouch one not the Cameron tribunal decision. Thats my bad. Ive fixed it up.

 

[Vader]

No I meant we didn't challenge Crouch's ban. It seems like this year clubs are challenging everything just to see if they can get a result (and a few have) but we don't even try when it's our player here.

I think we were made to look a bit silly by not even trying. Just another example of sucking up and taking it.

Edit: ok I can see how it reads like that when I say challenge the finding. I meant only the Crouch one not the Cameron tribunal decision. Thats my bad. Ive fixed it up.

On what basis should we have tried to challenge the Crouch decision? He was manifestly guilty, and we were lucky that he was only given 1 match.

The Brions appeal came from waaaaay out in left field, and I doubt there was anyone more surprised at its success than the Brions themselves. We were unable to appeal using the same loophole, as our window for appealing had already closed before we even knew the Tribunal was stupid enough to open said loophole.

We didn't look silly for not challenging. He was guilty, and we took it on the chin - the same as 99% of all similar charges. Normally appealing requires convincing the Tribunal that Michael Christian got the grading wrong, or that the player was completely innocent. Crouch was clearly guilty and, if anything, MC under-graded the Crouch hit, so appealing on those grounds would have made us look silly.

If anything, the Brions looked silly for trying what they did, right up to the point where the Tribunal revealed their own manifest stupidity, and agreed to allow it.

I get that you think the club should be more combative when it comes to appealing, and more proactive in their relationship with the AFL. Fair enough. But you need to pick your battles, and we would have been monumentally stupid to choose the Crouch suspension as a hill to die on.

 

[BRL121]

The Dawson shot would’ve been 45m out (man on the mark 38-40m out, very slight angle, but the favourable side for a lefty). Despite the after the siren heroics against Port (which was a lucky shank), Dawson’s set shot goalkicking record from outside 40m is not very good, at all. I’d say it was a 50/50 proposition.

We were paid a holding the ball free right on half time against Essendon that was an absolute howler, a far worse umpiring error than the final non-call in fact (not even the Adelaide crowd thought it was holding the ball lol), that resulted in Fog having an easy set shot from 40ish metres out after the HT siren, which he shanked. I’d say those 2 blown calls absolutely balanced each other out.

The Keays goal umpiring error absolutely stole 4 points from us - the Swans were beyond out on their feet and I agree with you there. Swans were a 5% chance at best of scoring a goal from that point onwards.

I disagree on the particular blown calls. The ridiculous HTB given to us simply balanced out the one given against us earlier at the opposite end of the ground. The Draper flop call stood by itself.

 

[Sanders]

To be fair, yes, there are many digressions and "deviations into another discussion" in threads.

However, I believe Sanders was referring to the 2024 fixture that "we wanted", after complaints were made to the AFL about the Sydney loss.
Nothing to do with the 2017 GF, or Richmond's "home ground" in any way.

Indeed. I’m assuming he knew that, and is only pretending to be confused

 

[Harris1991]

Indeed. I’m assuming he knew that, and is only pretending to be confused

What the hell is your problem champ. You stick your nose into a conversation I'm having with another poster regarding the unfairness of the AFL finals system then you pipe in with some random comment about the 2024 draw, which I never mentioned.

Get a life old man.

 

[jenny61_99]

What the hell is your problem champ. You stick your nose into a conversation I'm having with another poster regarding the unfairness of the AFL finals system then you pipe in with some random comment about the 2024 draw, which I never mentioned.

Get a life old man.

Oh dear.

 

[Sanders]

What the hell is your problem champ. You stick your nose into a conversation I'm having with another poster regarding the unfairness of the AFL finals system then you pipe in with some random comment about the 2024 draw, which I never mentioned.

Get a life old man.

Was I talking to you?

 

[Pugsley]

Was I talking to you?

 

[FR0GGY]

On what basis should we have tried to challenge the Crouch decision? He was manifestly guilty, and we were lucky that he was only given 1 match.

The Brions appeal came from waaaaay out in left field, and I doubt there was anyone more surprised at its success than the Brions themselves. We were unable to appeal using the same loophole, as our window for appealing had already closed before we even knew the Tribunal was stupid enough to open said loophole.

We didn't look silly for not challenging. He was guilty, and we took it on the chin - the same as 99% of all similar charges. Normally appealing requires convincing the Tribunal that Michael Christian got the grading wrong, or that the player was completely innocent. Crouch was clearly guilty and, if anything, MC under-graded the Crouch hit, so appealing on those grounds would have made us look silly.

If anything, the Brions looked silly for trying what they did, right up to the point where the Tribunal revealed their own manifest stupidity, and agreed to allow it.

I get that you think the club should be more combative when it comes to appealing, and more proactive in their relationship with the AFL. Fair enough. But you need to pick your battles, and we would have been monumentally stupid to choose the Crouch suspension as a hill to die on.

A good bloke and has young kids, deserved to get off.

 

[Geoffa32]

A good bloke and has young kids, deserved to get off.

I think the edge Charlie had was his volunteering for an Indegenous group.


We need our "good blokes" to take up volunteering just in case they get charged.




On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app