POSTGAME: MS01 vs Adelaide

[Deemania since 56 6,562]

On 2/26/2020 at 4:36 PM, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

AARON VANDENBERG (Melbourne)

The injury-plagued Demon has only managed seven appearances in the past three years due to a persistent foot injury, but he looks to have finally turned the corner. The 27-year-old returned at Casey Fields against Adelaide on Saturday, collecting 19 disposals and laying five tackles. He hasn’t played an AFL game since Melbourne’s preliminary final loss to West Coast in 2018, but could return against the Eagles on the same ground in Round 1.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/coupler.foxsports.com.au/api/v1/article/amp/afl/round-1-bolters-after-impressive-weekend-performances-in-the-marsh-community-series-and-practice-matches/news-story/88f9e54ada0a83af35fa829caeb3ab32

 

 

Pretty decent first game back after missimg around a year.

Puts opponents on the ground, takes them out of the game; scares the sheet out of them when chasing, simultaneously promising the threat of going down to the ground rather heavily with this big bloke on your tail; gives strong indications that he ain't the bloke to mess with so stay out of this steam roller's way. Yep, like the bloke - he does it all so modestly and kicks a few rippers, as well. 

[dworship 3,342]

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Hasn't the AFL changed the system so priors don't count when determining penalty?

Yes, but you cannot eliminate cognitive bias. It's why the umpires from the West should never number more than one, when umpiring in the West (preferably none at all).

Likewise Christian should have never been appointed to the position he holds. The AFL needs to write a series of rules and guidelines (which they kind of have) and have a former Magistrate or similar that has no interest in football do the reviewing. The idea that the person doing the review needs to be a former AFL person is rubbish as they are not trained in slow thinking deliberative analysis. Christian will continually try and justify his bias with idiotic statements like the "inconvenienced" one as long as he remains in the position.

To try and give some perspective/ understanding of what I'm saying, take the following as an example; I'm involved in a car accident where a driver has driven through a stop sign and struck my vehicle but my vehicle is still drive-able, so I haven't been inconvenienced on my journey.

The Christian approach would say the perpetrator of the accident hasn't really done anything wrong (because the other driver wasn't inconvenienced) but the damage needs to be payed for. If my vehicle is a Jaguar  and I'm dressed in overalls and wearing a reflective vest the penalty will be set much lower than if I was wearing a suit and tie.

The above approach really neglects the fact a law was broken, and by extension ignores the reason it was written (to discourage harm).

Gee that was long-winded and made my head hurt, I better go have a lie down.

Really hope I didn't come across as self-righteous.