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

Who were your five best players against West Coast?


  • Total voters
    143
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

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

I don't think its very strong evidence. Plenty of possibilities - happens in a split second, how much did the ump see, umps routinely make errors etc

I know they don't count it anymore but Duggan's explanation of what he was trying to do in the tackle would be the most persuasive for a case like this (if it was helpful to us of course).
 
The first tribunal hearing should be the one comprised of ex-footballers.

The second one should be the one full of lawyers considering most of the grounds for a second appeal are limited to process and errors of law.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It seems to me to be a clear shift in the AFL’s thinking, to avoid liability in the future they want to shift it back onto the players.
So eventually all liability will be on the players themselves.
If they concuss someone they are the ones fully responsible.
Yuk!
 
The first tribunal hearing should be the one comprised of ex-footballers.

The second one should be the one full of lawyers considering most of the grounds for a second appeal are limited to process and errors of law.

Imagine trying to explain a point of law to the push up king. He'd probably be a model applicant's tribunal member tbh - easily confused and sides with the player.
 
It seems to me to be a clear shift in the AFL’s thinking, to avoid liability in the future they want to shift it back onto the players.
So eventually all liability will be on the players themselves.
If they concuss someone they are the ones fully responsible.
Yuk!

“Okay Gladiators, you are expected to fight to the death in the arena today, but for legal purposes, if someone gets hurt, it’s your fault. Now go on! Entertain us!”
 
It seems to me to be a clear shift in the AFL’s thinking, to avoid liability in the future they want to shift it back onto the players.
So eventually all liability will be on the players themselves.
If they concuss someone they are the ones fully responsible.
Yuk!
Well they don't want to take any legal responsibility for anything that happens in a game in case it costs them money.

Which is a very conceited position to take.
 
It seems to me to be a clear shift in the AFL’s thinking, to avoid liability in the future they want to shift it back onto the players.
So eventually all liability will be on the players themselves.
If they concuss someone they are the ones fully responsible.
Yuk!
I don't think that'll work. I think they need to extend the mandatory time off and if you have more than 1 in a certain time, there should be at least another week added.

Duggan has now had 2 concussions in a month, he probably shouldn't play for at least 4 weeks, maybe the rest of the year.

The onus will be on the AFL to protect players and teams from themselves.

And we can't play AFL without tackling, how silly would that look.
 
This'll either be overturned or taken further by the club. Impossible to enforce this ridiculous suspension.

Wonder if the Tribunal are trying to find some way to give him a week rather than let him off completely…
 
I don't think that'll work. I think they need to extend the mandatory time off and if you have more than 1 in a certain time, there should be at least another week added.

Duggan has now had 2 concussions in a month, he probably shouldn't play for at least 4 weeks, maybe the rest of the year.

The onus will be on the AFL to protect players and teams from themselves.

And we can't play AFL without tackling, how silly would that look.
I agree but it just feels as though the AFL are putting all onus on the players and it feels as though we are heading down a dark path imo.
 
Wonder if the Tribunal are trying to find some way to give him a week rather than let him off completely…

You can't even argue it's worth a week tbh. This isn't a negotiation, it's either a dangerous tackle as they describe and if it's not they can't concede some ground and say "but he should have sat him down or not tripped or let go of the tackle". It's nonsensical.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Message to players: don't tackle.
Message to fans: don't complain when tackles don't stick. Get used to corralling players.
Message to AFL: GFYS.
(is yourself / your self one or two words?)
 
I bet they already know they are going to let Bedford off and that it will be enough to satiate the masses.

Charlie is the one who will suffer so they can keep the system ambiguous enough to keep doing whatever the **** they want.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Back
Top