Walker on Tuohy

[boncer34]

there's more than 1 post genius..

Indeed

Why? a free kick was paid, it was shirt front that went high, so he will cop a fine. It wouldn’t be big talking point if it wasn’t Tex.

 

[Dank Academy]

So out of all this we learn that the system is broken but that it some degree of consistency?
MRO should honestly just go by ‘the vibe’. 2 weeks would be a reasonable sanction IMO - he should have at least tried to get the ball.

 

[Beerfish]

So out of all this we learn that the system is broken but that it some degree of consistency?
MRO should honestly just go by ‘the vibe’. 2 weeks would be a reasonable sanction IMO - he should have at least tried to get the ball.

That's what Robbo goes on in the ensuing 360's the following week. He's got a feels based system.

 

[DrEvil_]

4 weeks. Weak dog.

 

[_Mike_]

I think Tex might be in some trouble. Looking at various angles of the replay it paints he picture that he was looking at Tuohy rather than the ball. With the way the one man band MRP is working so far I think we can expect anything but consistency.

Who knows when it comes to Christensen, a flip of the coin?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I think Tex might be in some trouble. Looking at various angles of the replay it paints he picture that he was looking at Tuohy rather than the ball. With the way the one man band MRP is working so far I think we can expect anything but consistency.

Who knows when it comes to Christensen, a flip of the coin?

This is awkward.

Christian has already deliberated 1 week.

 

[_Mike_]

This is awkward.

Christian has already deliberated 1 week.

He did, haven’t seen the news today, been busy. My bad

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Should be just the one week.
Tuohy played on.

That in itself is a flawed system as many have said numerous times. If he does the same bump to someone less tough than the Irishman and it ends with concussion and it's 2-3 weeks. Ditto Jeremy Cameron if that doesn't end with concussion then it'd have been 1 week or so.

Deeply flawed system.

That's my gut reaction too. Interestingly Phil Davis supported the penalty being relative to the impact in his weekly podcast. His argument was if you knife someone and they die the penalty is worse than if they didn't.

 

[Beerfish]

That's my gut reaction too. Interestingly Phil Davis supported the penalty being relative to the impact in his weekly podcast. His argument was if you knife someone and they die the penalty is worse than if they didn't.

That seems like a strange analogy to me. What about the intent? If you accidentally knife someone.. and didn't mean to kill them at all.. then..?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

That seems like a strange analogy to me. What about the intent? If you accidentally knife someone.. and didn't mean to kill them at all.. then..?

Had this discussion on our board. Murder-attempted murder- manslaughter. Bottom line none of us are lawyers.

I think the player's opinion matters most, they're the ones facing injury. It was Davis speaking for himself though, maybe AFLPA should have input.

 

[Beerfish]

Had this discussion on our board. Murder-attempted murder- manslaughter. Bottom line none of us are lawyers.

I think the player's opinion matters most, they're the ones facing injury. It was Davis speaking for himself though, maybe AFLPA should have input.

In most cases I think you're going to struggle when you start trying to argue a player's 'intent'. Hall/Staker type stuff aside that is.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

In most cases I think you're going to struggle when you start trying to argue a player's 'intent'. Hall/Staker type stuff aside that is.

Agreed.

 

[Beerfish]

Agreed.

So can we also put to bed right here then that it doesn't matter whether the player comes back on or not when you're talking about grading the severity of the impact because Tuohy came back on and Merrett didn't but the grading and penalty offered were the same?

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

So can we also put to bed right here then that it doesn't matter whether the player comes back on or not when you're talking about grading the severity of the impact because Tuohy came back on and Merrett didn't but the grading and penalty offered were the same?

I cant comfortably take that leap, without disputing your logic. If there's any chance it would make injuries like Andrew's sufferred less common then I'm for it.

 

[Generalissimo]

Sounds about right, three weeks minus the usual two week discount for hitting a Cat.

 

[Beerfish]

 

[wowlace]

Lucky guy

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Gibbs should definately contest that..

This is as soft as it gets.. Selwood should’ve been fined for bloody staging... watch the little cheats legs.. he helps initiate the contact and he actually lifts his feet off the ground as he drops to the ground..

So pathetic
View attachment 526916 View attachment 526917

What's pathetic is your couch analysis.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Sounds about right, three weeks minus the usual two week discount for hitting a Cat.

Maybe he just looked at the fixture and the ladder and said miss Brisbane game, fine, miss Melbourne game, maybe, no, miss Port game, definitely not,1-2 weeks, nah I'll just make it 1.

 

[Beerfish]

Thought it was strange during Christian's presser yesterday he said the first thing they take into account is 'the look' of it. So essentially the first thing they look at is 'the vibe'.

 

[Pessimistic]

One man jury which should mean consistency.....oh wait

 

[Sttew]

That's my gut reaction too. Interestingly Phil Davis supported the penalty being relative to the impact in his weekly podcast. His argument was if you knife someone and they die the penalty is worse than if they didn't.

But if you knife someone and they suffer a mere flesh wound you don't just get a fine.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

But if you knife someone and they suffer a mere flesh wound you don't just get a fine.

You've missed the point.

 

[Sttew]

You've missed the point.

No pun intended?