Dr Jan Itor
Club Legend
Not that I expected any good news out of this but I’m still disappointed.
They’re absolutely ruining the game.
They’re absolutely ruining the game.
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.
It was two guys going for the ball and collided, happens every game. The only thing that got the suspension was Aish got concussed, and his headband flew off. Utter bullshit decision.And u would think a footballer like Aish would have awareness and brace himself with the potential of someone coming the other way??? Isn't that what we are taught???
Absolutely but I've learnt, if u go for the ball, u need to be aware that there will be someone else going for it so u need to have awareness and braceIt was two guys going for the ball and collided, happens every game. The only thing that got the suspension was Aish got concussed, and his headband flew off. Utter bullshit decision.
And Stewart's blatant thug act on Meatball only got a week more.Wtf.. How does that get upheld? Dangerfeild should have got 20 weeks for the hit in the granny.
On VOG-L09 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Absolute crazy stuff.And Stewart's blatant thug act on Meatball only got a week more.
Would be epic if they all wore one this weekend.My take away from this is All our players should wear headbands from now so when they get bumped and fly off cartoon style, we might get a free kick if we're extremely lucky and kind to the umpires
I think their lawsuit is the main hip pocket hit at the moment (thus the dumb suspensions).Not watching any AFL this weekend. Only way is to hit em in the hip pocket with TV ratings. * em.
text form:
"It is submitted on behalf of Mansell that the Tribunal applied the incorrect test of whether or not the action of Mansell was a bump or not by asking itself whether the contact was simply reflexive or involuntary. In our view, the premise on which ground one is based is flawed. We consider that it's clear from a reading of the Tribunal’s brief reasons that it did not apply any such test. The reasons make it clear that the Tribunal relied upon video footage in coming to the conclusion that a meter or two from impact, Mansell turned and bumped his opponent. This was the primary finding of the Tribunal.
It was submitted by the AFL that finding this action was not simply reflexive or involuntary was a secondary finding. The Tribunal’s reasons make it clear that this finding was not the sole test in the consideration of whether or not there was conduct amounting to a bump.
There was no error of law on the part of the Tribunal.
The other argument is that the Tribunal erred in resolving the issue of whether Mansell was contesting the ball, by considering whether the actions of Mansell involve the bumping of the other player. It was argued on behalf of Mansell that the Tribunal erred in that it relied upon its finding that there had been a bump in then determining whether the ball was in contest at the time.
Whilst the reasons of the Tribunal are brief, in our view it’s clear from those reasons that the Tribunal did adopt a two-stage process of considering the issue before it.
It determined that Mansell had bumped his opponent, the Tribunal went on to state, ‘The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball.’ It determined that he was not doing so on the basis that, from a meter or two prior to the collision, he had turned and bumped and that his hands were not reaching out for the ball.
Similarly, the Tribunal found that at the time of impact the ball was not in contest. Mansell conceded as much in his evidence. When he was asked as to whether he was seeking to pick up the ball or knock it out, he said ‘No, I was just trying to protect myself and I mentioned that before and I thought I couldn't impact the ball, so I protected myself.’
Over the fact that the same findings or at least similar findings of fact establish to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that there was a bump and that the bump occurred when there was no longer when Mansell was no longer contesting the ball does not mean that the Tribunal erred as argued by Mansell. In our view, there is no error of law.
We observe Mansell has a heavy onus to discharge in establishing that the findings of the Tribunal were so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the decision.
We observe also that the Tribunal included highly experienced members with a long history of involvement in Australian rules football at the elite level.
The Tribunal, as is clear from the reasons, relied upon the video evidence before it in coming to their conclusions. With respect to grounds two and four, we do not consider in either case the heavy onus carried by the appellant has been satisfied in this application before the Board.
It was open on the evidence for the Tribunal to find that Mansell engaged in bumping his opponent, and it was open to the Tribunal to conclude on the evidence that Mansell was not contesting the ball at the time of impact.
Those findings in our view were well within the range of possible outcomes of the evidence before the Tribunal.
We dismiss the appeal, and we confirm the findings of the Tribunal."
Where's the marty for the sausage rolls!?They wrote that before the appeal was even heard. I knew it was over when that fat * checked the oven was on for his sausage rolls for morning tea.
The black arm band when someone dies the black head band for the death of the bump/the tackle/the sport? Take your pickMy take away from this is All our players should wear headbands from now so when they get bumped and fly off cartoon style, we might get a free kick if we're extremely lucky and kind to the umpires
I mentioned that in the “umpires” board.My take away from this is All our players should wear headbands from now so when they get bumped and fly off cartoon style, we might get a free kick if we're extremely lucky and kind to the umpires