26 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

Me too Lagavulin 16yo

im watching stranger things but

Haha

Monday night whiskey might become a thing?

straight Jameson for me. I’ve run out of the good stuff!

3 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

Sadly Durdin bumped a Cats player. Lucky to only get a week under the Hocking system.

 

How did Durdin get a week??? Wtf is going on!!?!?

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by DubDee

12 minutes ago, DubDee said:

How did Durdin get a week??? Wtf is going on!!?!?

He doesn’t have a Brownlow medal and not in consideration to win one this season. 

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by Ethan Tremblay

12 minutes ago, DubDee said:

How did Durdin get a week??? Wtf is going on!!?!?

Geez Norf must be spewing right now

The spirit of our game is dispirited tonight.

How can a player doing no more than shepherding a team mate and who does not leave the ground or raise an arm be offered a week while a player who deliberately raised both arms, leaves the ground and makes contact with the head of an opposition player get off. Degree of damage should not be part of the consideration on guilt, only on penalty if considered deliberate.

It is a great miscarriage of justice and a sad indictment of the depth to which the administration and adjudication of our great game has sunk. 

And the Rampe non-decision discussion is also troubling. The original intent of the 50m penalty was to prevent time wasting. How can time be wasted after the siren? Can you imagine the outcry and embarrassment if the result had been changed due to a innocuous action like this?

Games should be won, free kicks should be earned and 50m penalties should be awarded from a contest, not some silly little strict liability nonsense like this.

The shaking the post prohibition is meant to prevent players from deliberately and vigorously shaking the post to disturb the player shooting for goal (remember this goes back to the time of shorter, timber posts). In this case, the only umpire intervention should have been to reset the game. Pedantic, pathetic and puerile decisions should be avoided for the good of the game.

Gil, go. MC, go with him. You are both dragging our game down. Footy is our game, not yours.

 

 

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by tiers

12 minutes ago, DubDee said:

How did Durdin get a week??? Wtf is going on!!?!?

I was thinking exactly the very same words,  'DubD'.

When Rohan ran straight into Durdin.  They met together, yes Durdin new where Rohan was but he was going in to block.  They collided.  Durdin was not running at Rohan...  but a line that put him in front of Rohan.

Rohan surely has to be more aware, than that.?

 

And Christian drops his dacks for Gill,  so Gaz gets off again.

I knew a guy who was connected, had a top lawyer through family in the Serbian Mafia.

He reckoned he had been let off for a 'first offense' driving about six times.

I wonder if Ablett's perfect record might be a little similar.

Judd's record was remarkably clean, two time brownlow and all that, considering he was actually a pretty dirty player all things considered.

Systematically going through each AFL Club, week by week, taking out, in head high tackles, with arms, fingers and elbows a young player, walking away unscathed.......remarkable

2 hours ago, DV8 said:

I was thinking exactly the very same words,  'DubD'.

When Rohan ran straight into Durdin.  They met together, yes Durdin new where Rohan was but he was going in to block.  They collided.  Durdin was not running at Rohan...  but a line that put him in front of Rohan.

Rohan surely has to be more aware, than that.?

 

And Christian drops his dacks for Gill,  so Gaz gets off again.

That’s ridiculous... Rohan is intent on stopping the player with the ball; that is what he is rightly focused on. It is the person trying to spoil that has to be aware... in this case it was a fair attempt at a bump and unfortunately their heads clashed. It should not have been a chargeable offence, I agree...  but I will never agree that Rohan was somehow at fault for not being aware enough.

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by hardtack

2 hours ago, tiers said:

It is a great miscarriage of justice and a sad indictment of the depth to which the administration and adjudication of our great game has sunk. 

All thanks to Gill,  and his muppets.

 

 

How do these Ex-Private school Elitist leaders...  get so far up themselves.   To think they can just pull all these crapp decisions in front of our eyes,  knowing we all will just cop it.?

12 minutes ago, hardtack said:

That’s ridiculous... Rohan is intent on stopping the player with the ball; that is what he is rightly focused on. It is the person trying to spoil that has to be aware... in this case it was a fair attempt at a bump and unfortunately their heads clashed. It should not have been a chargeable offence, I agree...  but I will never agree that Rohan was somehow at fault for not being aware enough.

He was aware,  'ht'.    He ran to be in front of Rohan, coming from the side.  They met side on, and Rohan had no awareness at all .  Fixated on the North player with the ball.  Durdin made no effort to get him high.  No intent at all

What,  is Durdin supposed to sit back and let Rohan do as he wants.     I don't think so.

Accidents, are going to happen frequently in this game.

..............................

Durdin possibly could have set himself to receive from the ball carrier...  But I don't think he did anything wrong at all.

 

Rohan has to be more aware, generally than that.  On a footy field.

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by DV8

9 minutes ago, DV8 said:

He was aware,  'ht'.    He ran to be in front of Rohan, coming from the side.  They met side on, and Rohan had no awareness at all .  Fixated on the North player with the ball.  Durdin made no effort to get him high.  No intent at all

What,  is Durdin supposed to sit back and let Rohan do as he wants.     I don't think so.

Accidents, are going to happen frequently in this game.

..............................

Durdin possibly could have set himself to receive from the ball carrier...  But I don't think he did anything wrong at all.

 

Rohan has to be more aware, generally than that.  On a footy field.

So you’re putting the blame on Rohan? Ooookay.  I’m sure Rohan was aware of Durdin’s presence, but he should not have to back off as a result.   I already agreed that it was an unfortunate accident... I just think it’s ridiculous to lay the blame at Rohan’s feet.

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by hardtack

7 minutes ago, hardtack said:

So you’re putting the blame on Rohan? Ooookay. 

10 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I just think it’s ridiculous to lay the blame at Rohan’s feet.

No,  I'm not...  I'm putting No blame,  on either player.

 

9 minutes ago, hardtack said:

 I’m sure Rohan was aware of Durdin’s presence, but he should not have to back off as a result.

One of the players had no awareness,  so was not as diligent as I would expect,  from an AFL footballer.

 

I think you should check the Vid again...  I am sure Rohans head did not turn to...  or away from Durdin's.

13 minutes ago, hardtack said:

I already agreed that it was an unfortunate accident.

No case to answer, imv...   Simply an accident.   it happens.

No one to blame,  but plenty to learn from.  As we all do.

Edited May 13, 20195 yr by DV8

6 hours ago, hardtack said:

That’s ridiculous... Rohan is intent on stopping the player with the ball; that is what he is rightly focused on. It is the person trying to spoil that has to be aware... in this case it was a fair attempt at a bump and unfortunately their heads clashed. It should not have been a chargeable offence, I agree...  but I will never agree that Rohan was somehow at fault for not being aware enough.

It’s a 360 degree game. Cross the white line then you have to be aware of what’s around you, if your within 5m of the ball. 

Just an unfortunate accident. 

Wonder if this is going to be an ongoing thing with Ablett ,see how many times he can whack someone in the back of the head and get away with it? 

Gil orchestrated this nicely. Didn't like the backlash from Ablett receiving a lighter sentence at the tribunal- so told the MRP not to charge him this time. Bloke makes head contact from a fair bump and gets a week- Make sense. 

7 hours ago, DV8 said:

He was aware,  'ht'.    He ran to be in front of Rohan, coming from the side.  They met side on, and Rohan had no awareness at all .  Fixated on the North player with the ball.  Durdin made no effort to get him high.  No intent at all

What,  is Durdin supposed to sit back and let Rohan do as he wants.     I don't think so.

Accidents, are going to happen frequently in this game.

..............................

Durdin possibly could have set himself to receive from the ball carrier...  But I don't think he did anything wrong at all.

 

Rohan has to be more aware, generally than that.  On a footy field.

I had a squiz on the Norf big footy forum and of course they were [censored] off.

The mentioned another rule change this year I wasn't aware of. Even if it's an accidental head clash, you're liable for suspension. 

That's what has happened.

See this great article from Nathan Burke. 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/afl/2018/12/14/afl-rules-changes-footy/

It almost seems like the best tactic now would be if you're involved in a head clash and you're opponent is dazed and needs help from the ground....

 Feign concussion and wobble off with them because you're gunna get a week at least.

If both players are concussed do both players get suspended? Wtf

Just imagine how this rule could play out at finals time.

Geez they're wrecking the game so quickly at the moment.

 

13 hours ago, Smokey said:

The obvious bias that we see in cases like this will remain a factor whilst humans are running the MRP.

When machine learning (AI) eventually takes over and uses algorithms we will see consistency. Never trust a human to do a computers job. While we’re at it, a 3rd party medical officer at each game to confirm diagnosis would be handy as well. 

Too much inconsistency in this post. Surely you want a robot rather than an independent human doctor to confirm the diagnosis.

8 hours ago, DV8 said:

All thanks to Gill,  and his muppets.

 

 

How do these Ex-Private school Elitist leaders...  get so far up themselves.   To think they can just pull all these crapp decisions in front of our eyes,  knowing we all will just cop it.?

Who? And why is their schooling relevant?

25 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Too much inconsistency in this post. Surely you want a robot rather than an independent human doctor to confirm the diagnosis.

No, I don't, given the technology, legislation and insurance isn't where it needs to be for this application of machine learning yet, but thanks for thinking and speaking for me on a topic you probably do not understand yourself. 

well just to be a pedant, it's not really "machine learning" but "software written by humans" learning and thus has the same weaknesses embedded in it as it is based on human logic (albeit hopefully those of superior intellect)

2 hours ago, Smokey said:

No, I don't, given the technology, legislation and insurance isn't where it needs to be for this application of machine learning yet, but thanks for thinking and speaking for me on a topic you probably do not understand yourself. 

 

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well just to be a pedant, it's not really "machine learning" but "software written by humans" learning and thus has the same weaknesses embedded in it as it is based on human logic (albeit hopefully those of superior intellect)

 

Do you understand the term machine learning as a subset of artificial intelligence? 

I engineer systems of this nature for a living and what you just said makes absolutely zero sense. 

39 minutes ago, Smokey said:

Do you understand the term machine learning as a subset of artificial intelligence? 

I engineer systems of this nature for a living and what you just said makes absolutely zero sense. 

I admit to not knowing the difference between AI and machine learning, and I don't care to. All I really want to say is that if you're located in Canberra and working in AI...please tell me you don't mind people wondering whether you're doing something to improve our system of Government.  

52 minutes ago, Smokey said:

Do you understand the term machine learning as a subset of artificial intelligence? 

I engineer systems of this nature for a living and what you just said makes absolutely zero sense. 

Mr Ex Machina...??