Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isn't the rule that potential to injure can upgrade it by two, so because Picketts was glancing it was initially low, but upgraded to high, whereas McAdams was medium upgraded to severe. The problem with these two incidents imo is the AFL has so strictly stuck to their formula.


Probably, that would be the most coherent argument they have put forward. But I'd argue there is no way it was a glancing blow and that's where my amusement from it comes. To me it feels as though they are making up a new metric in their formula; was the blow glancing?
Earlier we heard (not sure if it was anyone official but was reported) it was because the GWS player was assessed for concussion and that Smith wasn't that was the difference between the charge.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It's a bit like when nata was pinged for tacking a bloke smaller than himself, they added mayo to the rough conduct rule or something.
So now they're adding glancing to the bump rule (even though every man and his french bulldog can see it wasn't glancing).
Also strange that the media or the afl don't seem to have said FA about the dogs not checking the bogan for concussion, surely it was a prime example of what the protocols for?
 
Probably, that would be the most coherent argument they have put forward. But I'd argue there is no way it was a glancing blow and that's where my amusement from it comes. To me it feels as though they are making up a new metric in their formula; was the blow glancing?
Earlier we heard (not sure if it was anyone official but was reported) it was because the GWS player was assessed for concussion and that Smith wasn't that was the difference between the charge.

I'd argue the Bulldogs have failed in their duty of care not to pull Smith from the ground and test him.
 
I'd argue the Bulldogs have failed in their duty of care not to pull Smith from the ground and test him.
and potentially this where I see the backtrack and flip flop around to coming up with the glancing blow metric. As it was initially reported the difference was the concussion testing which lead to questions about why the Bulldogs didn't test Smith.
 
man this is going to go down a bit of a rabbit hole.

waiting for some muppet to unhurl a nazi flag at a roo's game.

Odds on it will be at a Port game, they have history
3F56A67600000578-0-image-a-79_1492490880204.jpg
 
I'll take one Albanian & one Serbian flag, or one Armenian flag & Azerbaijani flag, or one Russian flag and one Ukraine flag.

Either ban them all or ban none. Can't pick and choose.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Each year these click bait headlines get more and more desperate. That said i did burst into laughter reading the second bit
BCBAC482-24A2-48EE-B6CD-B958C862BDAF.jpeg F59E3F31-D631-4F01-9708-A1CE4B5768AD.jpeg
 
It's a bit like when nata was pinged for tacking a bloke smaller than himself, they added mayo to the rough conduct rule or something.
So now they're adding glancing to the bump rule (even though every man and his french bulldog can see it wasn't glancing).
Also strange that the media or the afl don't seem to have said FA about the dogs not checking the bogan for concussion, surely it was a prime example of what the protocols for?
If the NN rule of potential to cause injury was applied, Pickett should have got 8 weeks.

The angle of that shoulder charge towards the head was insane.

But apparently only NN scared the piss out of the Melbourne nancy boys as AFL house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top