Review Round 18, 2024 - West Coast vs. Brisbane Lions

[braddsey]

I like the way we’re arguing this one. Never hurts when the truth is on your side.

Lisa Hannon for the AFL argued Cameron “could’ve tried to pull or sit him (Duggan) down” early in the tackle before Cameron took three more steps before they ended up on the ground.

WTF?!?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Charlie could have tried to sit Duggan up? What sort of garbage argument is that. Jesus Christ.

His toes are barely touching the ground after the first step as Duggan drags him in the other direction, yet he’s somehow expected to generate enough traction to completely reverse the momentum of two adult men.

 

[Nunez]

His toes are barely touching the ground after the first step and Duggan drags him in the other direction, yet he’s somehow expected to generate enough tracking to completely reverse the momentum of two adult men.

It's laughable.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Did he hear Duggans teeth clatter?

This club has an amazingly rich history of being screwed over at the tribunal

 

[Dalions]

It's laughable.

Do we have a biomechanics specialist to help because Charlie needs help.

 

[Grasshopper17]

This will do me. "Entirely foreseeable"

 

[Nunez]

LOL. This is textbook scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Nunez]

This will do me. "Entirely foreseeable"

Jinx

 

[Dalions]

This will do me. "Entirely foreseeable"

Completely laughable, they are just arguing for arguing sake.
They have got nothing and they know it but they will not overturn the decision

 

[Nathan Barley]

The could've tried to sit him down is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Embarrassing

 

[Hollow Knight]

Oh my god. The foreseeable foot tangling argument is an all-timer.

Just ban tackles.

 

[braddsey]

This will do me. "Entirely foreseeable"

2 forces operating in different directions resulting in an uncontrolled outcome is entirely foreseeable. In that viewpoint, the only course of action is not to engage.

 

[martinson]

This will do me. "Entirely foreseeable"

Ha ha.

She's obviously never set foot on a footy field in her life.

 

[MSB ROYS]

AFL just making shit up!

 

[Hollow Knight]

The could've tried to sit him down is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Embarrassing

It’s hard to tell if this lawyer is incredibly dumb or if this is just the expected level of argument when Michael Christian handballs you an indefensible sanction to argue.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Normally the second tribunal appeal is a waste of time because you have to basically argue that the first hearing was a farce.

But if this ban is upheld, the AFL counsel has given us plenty of farcical nonsense to work with for a second appeal.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Normally the second tribunal appeal is a waste of time because you have to basically argue that the first hearing was a farce.

But if this ban is upheld, the AFL counsel has given us plenty of farcical nonsense to work with for a second appeal.

Is this one decided by ex footballers or is it the appeal?

 

[FLVanLandingham]

dang that other angle (or new to me) really does show the twist against Charles, and he has no force from his legs once he initiates contact....all on the eagles player

who knows..

 

[Hollow Knight]

Tribunal is deliberating. Pretty quick hearing really.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Tribunal is deliberating. Pretty quick hearing really.

this was scheduled to go for at least 2 hours.

 

[werdna78]

Tribunal is deliberating. Pretty quick hearing really.

They have probably made up their minds already and are just extending the deliberation for show.

 

[p4p1]

It’s hard to tell if this lawyer is incredibly dumb or if this is just the expected level of argument when Michael Christian handballs you an indefensible sanction to argue.

Or she is just arguing with what she has been given.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Surprised we didn’t get the umpire to explain why they didn’t pay a free kick.

 

[Elixuh]

The AFL likes to have its cake and eat it too. Previously the AFL has said 'players need to stand the player up in the tackle and not take them to ground aggressively' tries to do that and player with ball fights the tackle 'the player should now sit the player with the ball up'.

If the ban is upheld its essentially, if you choose to tackle and it goes wrong, irrespective of the contributing factors of the player with the ball, its strict liability.

 

[Pride of lions]

Is this one decided by ex footballers or is it the appeal?

The chairperson is a barrister specialising in defamation and media law! Not sure who the other members are. Absolutely farcical the whole process, sad to see how common sense and lived experience on a football field has been replaced by legal arguments.