Chris

Members
  • Content count

    2,165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Chris last won the day on February 28

Chris had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,442 Excellent

About Chris

  • Rank
    Master Demon

Previous Fields

  • Favourite Player(s)
    Bernie, Salem, Davey, Green, Junior, Yze

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Moorabbin
  • Interests
    Clean and fair sport, not sure why I follow the AFL given that! Sailing and skiing (i am a Melbourne supporter after all)

Recent Profile Visitors

2,276 profile views
  1. What I would love to see is a bloody big sign outside the G (or even better, inside the G) stating 'Never forget the dons and Dank'. Would be a nice touch as a tribute to our diggers as it plays on the sign in the primary school in Villers-Bretonneux which reads 'Never forget Australia'. This sign is in place as thanks to not only our diggers who took the town 99 years ago tomorrow, but also as thanks to the Victorian School children who raised money after the war to help rebuild their school in France. On an aside and sorry for the history lessen, the school children of Villers-Bretonneux in return raised money for the rebuilding of the schools lost in the Black Saturday bush fires, a truly special relationship forged in blood and tears that far too few know anything about.
  2. They stopped the Melbourne Brisbane womens game due to lightening earlier this year. It has to be pretty close for them to do it though.
  3. he should get one made out of a pearl coloured material that changes with light (red and blue of course). That way he can argue it is all one colour but still have a red and blue headband. Would love to see the rules committee deal with that. I do wonder what happens if part of a headband gets dirty and is then a different colour to the rest of it, are the AFL going to start making players wash their headband every time it gets dirty? Could be like the blood rule, play stops while the offending player leaves the ground to get their headband cleaned!
  4. The ump just paid a lions free and advantage really late once they were clear (he paid the free late as well), a nothing free that will even the ledger a bit.
  5. Umpire guessed that really late, conspiracy says it was once it was clear the dogs player wasn't clear.
  6. Love how the dogs are so full of themselves that there is no recognition of the ANZACs on their jumper because Bob's 300th is far more important to recognise! Screw them.
  7. I accept delayed concussion is real as well, and you have to accept the doctors findings. The issue is though why was the player not assessed during the game if he was at risk from concussion (as he clearly was as he ended up with it!). There is a manditory 20 minute concussion test period for any player who is suspected of having concussion. Rowe hit the ground fairly hard, hard enough to give him delayed concussion, he lay there for a while, why was he not tested? I can only think of three possible reasons why he wasn't, he was faking it and the club knew it, he was really hurt but the club thought he was faking, or the club didn't want to lose him for the rest of the game, or even the 20 minutes of the test. Same story for Cripps. No matter which one it is the CFC does not look good and should be asked some questions.
  8. The other issue is if he was hit hard enough to end up with concussion then why was he not assessed at the game!
  9. The Doc didn't even have to be sus. It could come down to a question of where is the line between low and medium impact? If you are annoyed that your team lost and two of your blokes get whacked you aren't going to be in a great mood. That mood may well have swayed it from one to the other, it may also have clouded their judgement. None of that is intentional, nor unforgivable, but it does show a problem with the system. The Fact neither player was immediately tested for concussion is interesting and questions should be asked.
  10. Very very good question. As I have said before, Carlton really need to be asked some serious questions about their concussion management. Neither of these players left the field for a concussion test, yet one apparently had delayed on set concussion after the game (how do they really know he didn't have it during the game, they didn't check!), and now that same concussed player is playing this week. Medical reports need to be independent, too much is at stake for the offending team for it not to be. The medical reports should also have less weight at the ARP than they do as well.
  11. Imagine the clubs doctors medical reports if they were guaranteed to not have that player next time they play!
  12. The idea of suspensions as long as the injury comes up a bit but has some major failings. If you look at Lewis on the weekend, he threw a punch behind play, supposedly fractured the other players jaw, and was rightfully suspended, hitting someone behind play should be frowned upon and suspensions should be fairly hefty (Cripps may not miss a week so would Lewis serve any time?). Compare that to a player who clearly tries to bump, slips off the shoulder and collects the players head smashing their cheekbone. That would be a reportable offense, they probably should get time, but it was also unintentional and in play. The injured player may miss 10 weeks getting their face put back together. In this example you have someone taking a swipe behind play serving far less of a penalty that someone who simply made an accident in play. That wouldn't be to fair. What also happens if the person doesn't return from the injury, such as retiring from concussion?
  13. Look at other results and you will see. Thompson intentionally elbowed a player in the face while he was lying down. He hit far harder than either of our players and with an elbow yet due to a different doctors report only got 1 week. The inconsistency is the issue as there is no way Thompson should be getting any less than our two players. There are heaps of other examples of this inconsistency. That is where the system is broken.
  14. Precedent and dementia aren't really two things that go together too well.