Just now, daisycutter said:

repeat after me, clint. "the mrp does not look at precedents, each case is evaluated on the best interests of the afl"

I know, but even more interestingly Oliver was given a $1,000 fine for his sling tackle (yes, Basil it was a sling tackle you peanut) in a NAB Challenge game this year as it was graded as "low impact". Good luck trying to argue that breaking a players jaw is low impact.

Just now, Petraccattack said:

Gold Coast didnt get anywhere near the leg up GWS did. The Giants were handed a future premiership team, and to this day they are still getting top picks.

And now we are seeing the fruits of that AFL house planted - GWS could have zero development coaches and still win multiple flags.

GWS certainly got more, but not as much more as you are suggesting. The main difference is GWS gets 7 years of salary cap and list size concessions, compared to GC's 4.

The main difference is GWS did most of it right but GC has done a lot of it wrong. 

At any rate, the AFL was correct to err on the side of making GC and/or GWS strong very early. The alternative was to not give them enough and have them fail to get off the ground at all.

11 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Gold Coast didnt get anywhere near the leg up GWS did. The Giants were handed a future premiership team, and to this day they are still getting top picks due to the talent they are trading out. Its a vicious cycle that will set them up to dominate the next decade.

 GWS could have zero development coaches and still win multiple flags.

Give what Nasher and Macca posted a read, that about covers everything I was going to reply to you

Edited September 11, 20168 yr by Satyriconhome

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

How's Gold Coast going?

Starting up two new clubs in non-AFL areas was always going to require both getting advantages. Similar advantages were given to both GWS and GC and only one of those clubs has made it work. Credit to GWS for that (everything from their choices of experienced players through to their drafting and their coaching).

The AFL knew it needed to make GWS (and GC) strong as quickly as possible or they wouldn't work as clubs. GWS making finals boosts AFL in Sydney and Western Sydney (you only have to be in Sydney, which I am as I type, to see that) and that is good for the long-term health of the game. I have no problem with their rapid rise.

The key now is how well, if at all, the winding back of the concessions works. GC is back to a level playing field already and we know they don't look much different to any other weak AFL side.

2019 is the first year where GWS' list is the same size as everyone else's and its salary cap is the same. That means it has to start winding back, if it hasn't already. Hopefully, then, as the Dogs, Melbourne, St Kilda and Collingwood start to improve, GWS will come back to the pack. 

But ultimately, I would rather a GWS powerhouse for the next 2-3 years than another Hawthorn, Sydney or Geelong premiership.

So you prefer a manufactured pre digested football club to have success rather than a traditional club that built success from astuteness and hard work? 

23 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

GWS certainly got more, but not as much more as you are suggesting. The main difference is GWS gets 7 years of salary cap and list size concessions, compared to GC's 4.

 

Those two sentences contradict each other a bit, Titan.

The extra 3 years of list and salary cap concessions is massive.

29 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Those two sentences contradict each other a bit, Titan.

The extra 3 years of list and salary cap concessions is massive.

Thats what i thought. 3 years is a huge amount of time...

14 minutes ago, america de cali said:

So you prefer a manufactured pre digested football club to have success rather than a traditional club that built success from astuteness and hard work? 

If the success is limited, yes. It's good for football.

No sport is benefited by having the same club, or clubs, winning every year.

I'd rather GWS win one, or even two or three, flags than see Hawthorn win another one.

Of course, unless it was Melbourne, I'd prefer to see a different team win it every year, but if the choice is between GWS or Hawthorn, or Geelong, or Sydney, I pick GWS.

9 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Those two sentences contradict each other a bit, Titan.

The extra 3 years of list and salary cap concessions is massive.

I agree, but you made it sound like GWS got given everything and GC got given nothing.

Both had the same set of first round picks and both had the ability to "steal" established players. I just think GWS did a lot better than GC and it's not as much do to with GWS' extra three years of list concessions (which help, obviously).

So Tippett's hairline jaw fracture is confirmed.   The MRP is abut the only sporting thing that you can't bet on.

Sydney's medical report will do no favours to GWS after yesterday.

Of course, it's one rule for some teams, another rule for others. Mumford will get off.

7 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

How's Gold Coast going?

Starting up two new clubs in non-AFL areas was always going to require both getting advantages. Similar advantages were given to both GWS and GC and only one of those clubs has made it work. Credit to GWS for that (everything from their choices of experienced players through to their drafting and their coaching).

The AFL knew it needed to make GWS (and GC) strong as quickly as possible or they wouldn't work as clubs. GWS making finals boosts AFL in Sydney and Western Sydney (you only have to be in Sydney, which I am as I type, to see that) and that is good for the long-term health of the game. I have no problem with their rapid rise.

The key now is how well, if at all, the winding back of the concessions works. GC is back to a level playing field already and we know they don't look much different to any other weak AFL side.

2019 is the first year where GWS' list is the same size as everyone else's and its salary cap is the same. That means it has to start winding back, if it hasn't already. Hopefully, then, as the Dogs, Melbourne, St Kilda and Collingwood start to improve, GWS will come back to the pack. 

But ultimately, I would rather a GWS powerhouse for the next 2-3 years than another Hawthorn, Sydney or Geelong premiership.

Injuries cruelled them, drunks and booze have done the rest.

4 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Injuries cruelled them, drunks and booze have done the rest.

Sacking a coach who had them on an upwards trajectory didn't help either. They've had no luck with injuries but Eade is clearly the wrong man for the job.

33 minutes ago, sue said:

So Tippett's hairline jaw fracture is confirmed.   The MRP is abut the only sporting thing that you can't bet on.

Yes, because the bookies would be bankrupted by all the mug punters betting on the "impossible, can't happen, million to one" scenarios that come true.

5 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Yes, because the bookies would be bankrupted by all the mug punters betting on the "impossible, can't happen, million to one" scenarios that come true.

precisely

If Mummy gets done for that I'll be pizzed.

PLAY ON !

 

Edited September 11, 20168 yr by Fork 'em

I have seen little finals footy and haven't read this thread so apologies if this has been discussed already but I saw some of the Swans GWS match and was flabbergasted at the umpiring decisions that handed GWS 2 goals when the match was on the line. The Heeney decision and then the Cameron tackle on Rampe I think were both diabolical decisions. At a time when the match was an arm wrestle the umps farked the game. The umps simply turned the match. 

I have since read that 'it wouldn't have changed the result' etc but I think that is tosh. Yes GWS looked to be the stronger, harder side but you could see it was a dagger to Swan hearts. Even the commentators at the time were aghast at the decisions. 

And watch the chorus of people who believe the AFLs busted love child have been gifted a flag or two when Stevie J gets hit with a feather or wet tram ticket as Old Dee would say....

On 11/09/2016 at 2:37 PM, Clint Bizkit said:

Compare the two tackles below, what are the chances that Mumford gets suspended?

 

 

By the way, Tippett has a suspected cracked jaw as a result of this tackle.

 

No suspension because apparently there was no head contact to the ground.

3 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

No suspension because apparently there was no head contact to the ground.

You are kidding. Seriously...

Wow!! (still overseas so thanks for the info.) staggering although after Barry Hall....

i've just booked into my optometrist. something seriously wrong with my eyesight

His head hit the grass, not the ground.

1 minute ago, america de cali said:

His head hit the grass, not the ground.

The grass that is growing in the air?

3 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The grass that is growing in the air?

That's what the MRP saw.  They grow hard  grass up there.

Edited September 12, 20168 yr by america de cali

Just now, america de cali said:

That's what the MRP saw.  

Genuinely not sure if you are extracting the urine or not.

Now lads, it is just possible that an injury can result from a tackle which is not in itself dangerous. 

However, when there is an injury to the jaw, you'd have to look long and hard to find a reason why it was not dangerous.  Fortunately for our  glorious sport, the AFL and its pet tribunal are prepared to look long and hard whenever necessary for the good of the business. I mean sport..

4 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Genuinely not sure if you are extracting the urine or not.

I am. We are talking about the MRP panel. 

Edited September 12, 20168 yr by america de cali

Mummy even has been boasting how he will iron out players.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/afl/teams/gws/gws-ruckman-shane-mumford-happy-to-clean-up-former-teammates/news-story/34400f8e5597e7a0dcfaa7765d6f2915