Mega Thread VICBias - Genuine Discussion Part 2

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Have they been graded higher with no sign of impact? I can't think of any.

Harrison Jones 1 week. Graded as medium.

Similarities: Pin an arm, rolled over, contact to the shoulder before head to the ground, opposition player got up and continued to play. Umpire didn’t even pay a free kick.

Is Jones in trouble for this sling tackle?

Essendon's Harry Jones could come under MRO scrutiny for this tackle on Zac Fisher

www.afl.com.au

 

[sr36]

Harrison Jones 1 week. Graded as medium.

Similarities: Pin an arm, rolled over, contact to the shoulder before head to the ground, opposition player got up and continued to play. Umpire didn’t even pay a free kick.

Is Jones in trouble for this sling tackle?

Essendon's Harry Jones could come under MRO scrutiny for this tackle on Zac Fisher

www.afl.com.au

Fair call. That one did look worse though, didn't it?

 

[p4p1]

Fair call. That one did look worse though, didn't it?

But how something looks doesn't always corollate with the level of the impact/damage caused.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Fair call. That one did look worse though, didn't it?

I think they are close enough to be graded the same. Hard to get two exact incidents but that’s pretty dam close.

Given Jones pinned his arm under himself it gave Cadman no ability to brace. Very lucky his head didn’t hit first or he could have been out for 3+.

 

[sr36]

But how something looks doesn't always corollate with the level of the impact/damage caused.

I appreciate what your saying. But the way I see it, there really cant ever be definitive readings between low/med/high/severe. So if you're looking to find fault, you can. However they both seem reasonable assessments to me. One a tad lucky. One a tad unlucky.

 

[Iamspock]

Cadman bounced up looking as fresh as a daisy. Not sure how you could argue with low impact for that one.

Careless/high contact/low impact = fine

Pretty straight forward one.

You haven't got your VicBias glasses on though.

 

[Orange crush]

Cadman bounced up looking as fresh as a daisy. Not sure how you could argue with low impact for that one.

Careless/high contact/low impact = fine

Pretty straight forward one.

That’s just the weaker gravity on mars

 

[sr36]

You haven't got your VicBias glasses on though.

It was a tough call for the AFL, but ultimately a win win.. Do they advantage the Vic team by letting him off? Or do they advantage their Vic opponents by suspending him for a week?

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Hint is in the name

Home GROUND Advantage

VFL, SANFL, WAFL all experience home ground advantage

VFL/AFL it was the late 1950s that had the biggest % of home team wins - three seasons in a row where the home team won 65% of games. 1930s, 6 seasons where home team won 60% of games.

No air travel, or hotel sleeping back then. Home GROUND advantage existed.

For comparison, in the 21st century AFL era 2001 onwards, have only been 5 seasons where the home team has won 60% of games.

lol that's a bit basic isn't? Just because that version of the name stuck doesn't make the reason for it's existence.

I would say the actual ground surface might have had more impact back in the day or at state level because grounds were more unique.

But it's more likely that biggest factor is actually the home crowd.

 

[doppleganger]

lol that's a bit basic isn't? Just because that version of the name stuck doesn't make the reason for it's existence.

I would say the actual ground surface might have had more impact back in the day or at state level because grounds were more unique.

But it's more likely that biggest factor is actually the home crowd.

Yeah the crowd another factor.

If the crowd isn't 90%+ going for one team, the crowd advantage doesnt exist.

 

[Astro35]

So the first round of finals fixtures should end this debate.

 

[doppleganger]

So the first round of finals fixtures should end this debate.

Agree

The 3 non-vic teams all get "earnt" home finals at their home ground.

The vic team who also "earnt" a home final, gets shunted to the MCG, a ground they have played 0 home games at in 2024.

 

[RUNVS]

Agree

The 3 non-vic teams all get "earnt" home finals at their home ground.

The vic team who also "earnt" a home final, gets shunted to the MCG, a ground they have played 0 home games at in 2024.

Except the 1 v 4 game gets one of the least desirable time slots. Sydney even requested the Friday night game, but despite finishing 1st that request was denied.

 

[doppleganger]

Except the 1 v 4 game gets one of the least desirable time slots. Sydney even requested the Friday night game, but despite finishing 1st that request was denied.

Least desirable time slots?

The only one played in daylight on Sat arvo, the actual time slot of the GF!

But yes, it is the poor Swans dudded again, not the Dogs who dont get their "earnt" home final at their home ground.

 

[SC_Power]

Cadman bounced up looking as fresh as a daisy. Not sure how you could argue with low impact for that one.

Careless/high contact/low impact = fine

Pretty straight forward one.

What would you have said if it were Nathan Murphy copping that exact same tackle?

What would we be saying if it were Todd Marshall?

Exact same tackle, exact same impact, but now it’s 1-2 weeks because of the outcome.

Do we need to educate players on which players they can tackle and which they can’t?

 

[SC_Power]

It was a tough call for the AFL, but ultimately a win win.. Do they advantage the Vic team by letting him off? Or do they advantage their Vic opponents by suspending him for a week?

Or just enforce consistency?

Odd for the AFL I know

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Do we need to educate players on which players they can tackle and which they can’t?

Thought the Nic Nat rule established that you couldn't tackle anyone smaller than you.

But there is no precedent in tribunal cases, I think that's what trips up the lawyers and KC types defending the players. The tribunal just makes it up on a case by case basis with a million factors outside the actual incident influencing their decisions.

 

[sr36]

What would you have said if it were Nathan Murphy copping that exact same tackle?

What would we be saying if it were Todd Marshall?

Exact same tackle, exact same impact, but now it’s 1-2 weeks because of the outcome.

Do we need to educate players on which players they can tackle and which they can’t?

It's for a different thread, but it's a pretty standard legal principle that the outcome of a misdemeanor affects the punishment.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Except the 1 v 4 game gets one of the least desirable time slots. Sydney even requested the Friday night game, but despite finishing 1st that request was denied.

AFLdo whatever tf they wanna do. This should be the last year that this bs happens.
It should be -
Finish 1st, 1st game (home)
Finish 2nd, 2nd game (home)
Finish 5th, 3rd game (home)
Finish 6th, 4th game (home)

Sorry MCG, your home teams have to earn the right like every other team in the "AFL". But all isn't fair in the AFL.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Except the 1 v 4 game gets one of the least desirable time slots. Sydney even requested the Friday night game, but despite finishing 1st that request was denied.

do you lot ever stop complaining?

 

[SC_Power]

Thought the Nic Nat rule established that you couldn't tackle anyone smaller than you.

But there is no precedent in tribunal cases, I think that's what trips up the lawyers and KC types defending the players. The tribunal just makes it up on a case by case basis with a million factors outside the actual incident influencing their decisions.

Yet the appeals tribunal used precedent to explain Houston’s penalty. So many holes in this Swiss cheese.

 

[Underarm]

Except the 1 v 4 game gets one of the least desirable time slots. Sydney even requested the Friday night game, but despite finishing 1st that request was denied.

You mean the GF slot?

If they put Brisbane before Swans/Giants people would have complained about the extra 6 hrs of rest.

 

[sr36]

Except the 1 v 4 game gets one of the least desirable time slots. Sydney even requested the Friday night game, but despite finishing 1st that request was denied.

Yes, Sydney are incredibly disadvantaged by playing on Saturday afternoon. I think they have grounds for a supreme court injunction.

 

[SC_Power]

It's for a different thread, but it's a pretty standard legal principle that the outcome of a misdemeanor affects the punishment.

Except where it doesn’t. And that’s why threads like this exist.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Agree

The 3 non-vic teams all get "earnt" home finals at their home ground.

The vic team who also "earnt" a home final, gets shunted to the MCG, a ground they have played 0 home games at in 2024.

Still waiting to hear the Bulldogs president say he has called an extraordinary meeting with the AFL as we are very annoyed at having to play at the MCG. Still waiting for that president to get on all media outlets and say the AFL has shafted his club by not allowing them to play at their home ground.

But nothing just crickets.........

Try and Move Port Adelaides game to another ground and see what happens.

Stop complaining when all Vic clubs are complicit with the arrangement and obviously got a handout to stay happy about it.