The Association Football AFL Thread 3.0

Remove this Banner Ad

Weird verdict. I still don't see how that's suspendable particularly when you can look at someone and hit them in the head.
Butters still being eligible but not Heeney is farcical, although I feel umpires won't give him votes in games he's dominated in for his antics.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Weird verdict. I still don't see how that's suspendable particularly when you can look at someone and hit them in the head.

Don’t think the Sydney lawyers put a great case forward. Getting it downgraded on force would have been their best bet.
 
Don’t think the Sydney lawyers put a great case forward. Getting it downgraded on force would have been their best bet.
While I agree, the verdict that he should have essentially had eyes in the back of his head was a bit odd.
 
If you have to bring out the good guy card then your defence is shit.

I think it was a comment at the end, not the core of the argument like it was for Cameron. It's also pretty relevant when intent is the point of contention.
 
Weird verdict. I still don't see how that's suspendable particularly when you can look at someone and hit them in the head.
Butters has been charged for striking 4 times this season IIRC.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rankine's I just completely disagree with on every level. Should've been no more than 1-2.

There's an accidental head knock, he needed something. But 4 weeks for the below?! That's insane to me. His shoulder is basically at his midriff ffs.

1720567117156.png
 
Rankine's I just completely disagree with on every level. Should've been no more than 1-2.

There's an accidental head knock, he needed something. But 4 weeks for the below?! That's insane to me. His shoulder is basically at his midriff ffs.

1720567117156.png

Reminds me a bit of Parker's. The actual contact from the bump was in the midriff, but it was head on head contact that stuffed Parker too.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top