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 2 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Not to undermine @Hollow Knight’s great work, but you can monitor on fox footy (should you be a big footy nerd and need the info the second it’s posted. Which you clearly do, it’s why we’re all here!).
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/
They have David Zita’s coverage live feed.
Exactly. This screams amateur hour. Yet again.What a circus. It is embrassing a professional code can act like this.
Winneke is one of the top barristers in the country. It is amazing that we could get him to act on our behalf on such short notice. Anderson is nowhere near his level.Helps not having Anderson.
Just heard them say on the radio that 16 other clubs will now be making a beeline for him in future cases such that he has elevated himself tonight. Carlton obviously only use Peter Farrelly.Winneke is one of the top barristers in the country. It is amazing that we could get him to act on our behalf on such short notice. Anderson is nowhere near his level.
It shows how far removed from the sport the tribunal is these days... though that's not necessarily on the AFL, it's also on the clubs.Winneke is one of the top barristers in the country. It is amazing that we could get him to act on our behalf on such short notice. Anderson is nowhere near his level.
Bedford off too on the same error of law. Great that he got off. We still know nothing more on the legality of the tackle!
More the latter. They focused on the outcome, not the act.So because the tribunal was focused on what he should’ve done instead of what he did that’s the reason he got off?
Or is it more that what he did wasn’t necessarily dangerous but just the fluke circumstance?
Isn't is as simple as - under the laws of the game the tackle was legal, therefore the result while unfortunate doesn't change the fact the tackle was legal.
No different to having a car accident at 55 in a 60 zone. If what you were doing was legal the outcome can't change the fact your actions were legal by letter of the law.
A little more in the verbage of the appeal board decision regarding Bedford:So because the tribunal was focused on what he should’ve done instead of what he did that’s the reason he got off?
Or is it more that what he did wasn’t necessarily dangerous but just the fluke circumstance?
Driving a player head first like Ralphy described isn't legal though
A little more in the verbage of the appeal board decision regarding Bedford:
We must say that in coming to that view, we've also looked closely at the video of the incident to see whether any inference could be drawn about whether or not conduct of the player was likely to cause injury. We have to say that we were unable come to a view that that inference ought to be drawn.
I read that to say that they looked at the footage of the tackle, and they can't assess from the footage whether the tackle was likely to cause injury, so perhaps some concession that the tackle was legal.
We can probably guarantee that the laws will be modified in the offseason that taking a player to ground with arms pinned is considered likely to cause injury. One more loophole closed...
He's not the only one. Dwayne Russell (who is usually pretty balanced IMO) was also pretty adamant that Charlie drove Duggen into the ground with unnecessary force. Dwayne Russell is correct though - if the penalty was 1-week for an accidental tackle resulting in injury, then we would have all accepted it and moved on.Who made Ralphy judge and jury? Hence the long drawn out and costly process we just endured. It just goes to show how open to interpretation the rules are that it got this far.
But for me that's the reality of the game. These cases are with us to stay from here on in.
If the AFL were to make such an amendment, I wonder if anyone is willing to take a look at the statistics of the number of such tackles resulting in injury. If there's 1000 tackles where a players is taken to ground with arms pinned, and 10 of those tackles result in concussion, then that's a 1% chance of getting concussed from such a tackle. That doesn't make it likely to happen in my book.Yep reckon you are spot on - if the conduct wasn't to deliberately cause injury it has to be legal.
As for that loophole closing, another will open somewhere else - like the once banned chicken wing that's now OK - it's almost a certainty. Welcome to the future of AFL...