Apparently.Pickett's airborne attack on Bailey Smith had less potential for serious injury?
Nothing they have said makes sense. It contradicts itself repeatedly.
It's a joke
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 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Apparently.Pickett's airborne attack on Bailey Smith had less potential for serious injury?
Our Club doesn’t deserve that, nor do our players. It has to be something that hurts the AFL.
Bookmark it for future reference
After a deliberation of around two-hours the Appeals Board found that the Tribunal did not err or commit an error of law.
Murray Kellam KC, overseeing the hearing, said “the potential for injury is a significant matter in the classification of offences”.
“In our view the Tribunal committed no error of law in concluding that the classification of impact was severe,” he said.
“It was open to the Tribunal to place great weight (on potential for injury) in our view.
“It found that Mr McAdam chose to bump at particular speed where a reasonably prudent player would have concluded there was a considerably risk of injury to a player with the ball.”
Mr Kellam said it should also be noted that the Tribunal contained two “highly experienced ex-AFL players” and it was “not bound by previous decisions”.
“The appellant has established no error of law in that regard,” he said.
That's why we need to call it out and make the point that we will be watching.“They simply can’t pick and choose”?
Oh yes the can and they will.
If we are talking about integrity then I’m afraid AFL and integrity can’t be used in the same sentence.
I'm waiting and hoping we will find a backbone.Has the club made a statement about the ruling..not just a summary but a club perspective
We have already publicly called out the BS during our testimony in both hearings. It's on record forever. Clubs very rarely go that hard at bringing up inconsistencies with other incidents in any public forum, but we had nothing to lose here and just went for it which I love.What I'm most interested in is the Crows response from here. Do we quietly walk away with our tails between our legs, or do we make a stand?
We need to come out and publicly call out the BS. We need to make it clear that we still believe the decision is wrong, that we have no faith in the MRO and that we believe there is a consistent and ongoing bias against teams outside of Victoria. That if we want a truly National game, we need to decentralise and move aspects of the running of the game away from Melbourne.
There will be a huge cry about it in Melbourne, but putting it on the agenda will make others take notice that we aren't F@#king around anymore.
We should point out that idiocy of the 3 suspensions from last week. That the only one to cause actual injury, and concussion at that, recieved the least sanction and that in a World where there are multiple lawsuits currently being set against the AFL for concussion, we believe it to be detrimental to the game. We should also point out that the AFL has decided that any forceful bump to the body is now suspendable due to the potential to cause injury and that we will be watching to see how many suspensions the AFL hand out for this in the following weeks.
We genuinely need to launch a few grenades the VFL's way.
As supporters, I have an idea. Just before the second quarter starts, as the TV coverage returns, we should chant "VFL, VFL, VFL" then when the siren sounds to start the quarter, break into a substantial boo.
It will be noticed and commented on by the media and make a clear point to our thoughts.
I disagree. Everytime we let it slide, we allow it to continue.We have already publicly called out the BS during our testimony in both hearings. It's on record forever. Clubs very rarely go that hard at bringing up inconsistencies with other incidents in any public forum, but we had nothing to lose here and just went for it which I love.
I don't think the bias argument helps our cause, Buddy got off lightly and plays for Sydney. All it would achieve is more gaslighting by people like Whately and Barrett, which is just a distraction for the club and not needed. Anyone sensible (or not employed by the AFL) knows, whether they are in Victoria or not, that Pickett's was the worst of the 3 incidents. It's already well and truly on the agenda and whinging to the media isn't going to help our cause.
Its difficult when the field umpires play for the opposition.Simple then defeat Richmond.
The appeal needed to establish that the decision was manifestly incorrect. Which is a next to impossible task.Pickett's airborne attack on Bailey Smith had less "potential" for serious injury?
I'm far from an AFL apologist but I feel we've examined this from all possible perspectives. It's been a bad week for us and Shane.
The AFL will continue to make up the rules as they go to suit their agenda and this time, it's Shane McAdam who copped it. We all know that Buddy and Kosi are lucky this time. We've made our protest by appealing and the AFL would have noted our discontent.
I found this clip from another era and it's pretty graphic. Irrespective of the week we've had, the behaviour in this clip needs to cease and the AFL should continue to try remove it from the game.
It's up to us all to continue to highlight our expectations to the tribunal as further cases come up throughout the year. McAdam was very stiff in this instance but we should make sure we don't allow him to remain the sole example used by the AFL.
Edit....Milburn got 3 weeks for this in 2008
I remember Leigh Matthews got deregistered for a month for coathangering Neville Bruns back in the dayThat was in 2001.
Though Wellingham in 2012 got 5 weeks for almost killing Kade Simpson (down to 3 weeks with early guilty plea lol).
I think the logic is something like this…Pickett's airborne attack on Bailey Smith had less "potential" for serious injury?
Would have been 2 months if it wasn’t BrunsI remember Leigh Matthews got deregistered for a month for coathangering Neville Bruns back in the day
Didn't matthews use the defence that what turned out to be a coat-hanger was actually a mistimed attempt at a cuddleWould have been 2 months if it wasn’t Bruns
Ordinary defence, I would have went I was pointing to get one of my teammates into position and he cut across my armDidn't matthews use the defence that what turned out to be a coat-hanger was actually a mistimed attempt at a cuddle
Same player. Bumped and taken from field.
In McAdam's case the player had tthe ball and could expect contact.
In this case the player was reaching for the ball and open. Duggan ignores ball and attacks player.
Has to be 5 weeks right? It's clearly worse than McAdams.
Correct.You see, the problem is that you are expecting consistency.
Same player. Bumped and taken from field.
In McAdam's case the player had tthe ball and could expect contact.
In this case the player was reaching for the ball and open. Duggan ignores ball and attacks player.
Has to be 5 weeks right? It's clearly worse than McAdams.