I heard Tom Morris [whom I don’t trust] say we have a healthy balance sheet. 
If we were to repay the $500k would we continue to be bent over by the afl after that?

Was always going to be four after the junior burger got away with it earlier this year and they more or less declared the next penalty was going to be heavy

 At least it was ‘only’ ANB 

Agree with every post on this topic. The AFL is remarkably unfair as a competition, considering the effort they go to to make things equal. The ANB v Burgoyne (insignificance player v significant player) sling tackle comparison is a terrific example of the ongoing inequality that stains the AFL. 

The AFL reeks of hypocrisy and double standards. One rule for one group, one rule for the other. Gee whizz, don't the AFL look tough now !!

That tackle was a bad look and no good for the Adelaide lad. It needed to be penalised but I simply wonder why Burgoyne's sling tackles got the 'all clear ' from the AFL and the MRP. 

We all know Burgoyne's a legend an an ornament to the game. What that really means is,  he can do whatever he likes and the seriousness of his actions will be downplayed to such an extent that he will be totally absolved of any blame or he'll get whacked with a wet lettuce leaf as punishment. 

The AFL is a disgusting and corrupt organisation. Nothing more, nothing less.

Gee, conspiracy theories are alive and well on Demonland. The blue and rose-coloured glasses are very thick. The rationalisations are strong.

If that was an opposition player you'd all be baying for 6 weeks.

The precedent with Burgoyne is irrelevant. The AFL wants to clamp down on tackles that cause severe concussion. Neal-Bullen was overly aggressive (as he often is) and the tackle was very dangerous.

Besides, Neal-Bullen played an extremely poor game. His possession count was low, kicking efficiency woeful, and he gave away too many free kicks. As a Melbourne supporter I don't have that much time for him, and the enforced holiday just avoids him getting dropped anyway.

22 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Gee, conspiracy theories are alive and well on Demonland. The blue and rose-coloured glasses are very thick. The rationalisations are strong.

If that was an opposition player you'd all be baying for 6 weeks.

The precedent with Burgoyne is irrelevant. The AFL wants to clamp down on tackles that cause severe concussion. Neal-Bullen was overly aggressive (as he often is) and the tackle was very dangerous.

Besides, Neal-Bullen played an extremely poor game. His possession count was low, kicking efficiency woeful, and he gave away too many free kicks. As a Melbourne supporter I don't have that much time for him, and the enforced holiday just avoids him getting dropped anyway.

I agree with your last point, about him being an awful player, but it doesn’t detract from the clear evidence that there are rules for some players/clubs and the same does NOT apply to others. You simply can’t deny that. It is reasonable to compare it Burgoyne on Danger, as it was the exact same action. He was fined. So because of the concussion it goes to 4 weeks? Really? That’s excessive. It’s 2-3 at most. 
 

 

44 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Gee, conspiracy theories are alive and well on Demonland. The blue and rose-coloured glasses are very thick. The rationalisations are strong.

If that was an opposition player you'd all be baying for 6 weeks.

The precedent with Burgoyne is irrelevant. The AFL wants to clamp down on tackles that cause severe concussion. Neal-Bullen was overly aggressive (as he often is) and the tackle was very dangerous.

Besides, Neal-Bullen played an extremely poor game. His possession count was low, kicking efficiency woeful, and he gave away too many free kicks. As a Melbourne supporter I don't have that much time for him, and the enforced holiday just avoids him getting dropped anyway.

Yea hate our players being over aggressive. I’d be as aware of the hypocrisy of it was any other sub-star player in the league. As noted by pretty much everyone, it would be absolutely SHOCKING if a star player was given this

 

edit, sarcasm. I bloody love our players being aggressive and remember all too well when that was all we wished for

Edited August 7, 20204 yr by AmDamDemon

Feel bad for ANB. The centrifugal forces got him.

 Could destroy his AFL career.

The tribunal destroyed Tom Buggs game by making him an example with harsh decisions. He was never the same again after he wacked that player.

I wonder why the umpire didn't give a 50 meter penalty for the aggression after the high tackle, if it appeared excessive. 

Would like to see them take into account the victims behaviour in incidents. The Adelaide player did not brace for any impact as he was attempting to kick. 

As much as I hate the obvious favoratism towards the big clubs, didn't the AFL change (tighten) the rules re sling tackles after the most recent Burgoyne incident?

Edited August 7, 20204 yr by bingers

BBO called it the land of inconsistency.

So true.

10 hours ago, picket fence said:

I'll say this 

1 The club SHOULD appeal

2 The AFL NOW MUST rub out any player who does the same thing for 4 weeks.

Let's see some consistency then. Bet if its a star it will just be a Fine or at best a week!

Garbage Decision!

Agreed. I hate the sling tackle but precedent now dictates all sling tackles result in a mandatory 4 weeks. No ifs and or buts. 

Lets wait and see. Wont be long.

35 minutes ago, bingers said:

As much as I hate the obvious favoratism towards the big clubs, didn't the AFL change (tighten) the rules re sling tackles after the most recent Burgoyne incident?

Yep they did.  
I am as one eyed as the next person but unfortunately he deserved the weeks.  3 may have been the right number but they need to get those tackles out of the game.   

1 hour ago, bingers said:

As much as I hate the obvious favoratism towards the big clubs, didn't the AFL change (tighten) the rules re sling tackles after the most recent Burgoyne incident?

Yes they did and then a few weeks later he did another sling tackle and got off again.

Its pretty simple really? The Burgoyne tackles did no not cause concussion and were able to play out the game. Anb tackled knocked the kid out.

That's what the AFL are trying to stamp out is the ones that cause concussions. If Burgoyne tackled had caused this then he would have easily received his 3 or so weeks.

 

This is a farce!  4 weeks.  4 effing weeks.  Martin would have been given a fine or not looked at.  Anyone of stature in the competition would have been given a warning at best or a brief mention.  This is wrong, clearly wrong.  Is this coming from the MRO?  The guy that runs that office is a fraud.

It's like netball these days.

I remember playing and this kid made a blind turn and ran straight into me.

I turned him side ways and body slammed him into the turf.

The ball bounced about 10 metres up in the air, the kid about 1 metre.

I was awarded the free kick and the kid was carried off.

I felt a slight feeling of remorse but small players are like cats( they always usually land on their feet).

Plenty of times times players got crunched on my team and it was play on.

Umpires these day have no control, the rules are jelly, and the game drifts away from them, complicated by the idiots at AFL house and the commentary "gods" such as  Dwayne and Dermott.

It's a contact sport and you can't reverse engineer or totally prevent injury .

 

2 hours ago, bingers said:

As much as I hate the obvious favoratism towards the big clubs, didn't the AFL change (tighten) the rules re sling tackles after the most recent Burgoyne incident?

Yes they did. It's what the AFL always do. Instead of enforcing their own rules properly, they (in a fit of something approaching a guilty conscience) tack another rule on top, expecting that to improve things.

 

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Its pretty simple really? The Burgoyne tackles did no not cause concussion and were able to play out the game. Anb tackled knocked the kid out.

That's what the AFL are trying to stamp out is the ones that cause concussions. If Burgoyne tackled had caused this then he would have easily received his 3 or so weeks.

If they wanted to stamp out such tackles, they would penalise any tackle with the potential to cause concussion. Sending a message to all players: do not attempt this kind of tackle.

Instead they do the very AFL thing of only penalising the ones that actually do cause concussion, creating another rules grey area, which will inevitably be greyed further some time in the future, with another rule change.

6 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

nstead they do the very AFL thing of only penalising the ones that actually do cause concussion, creating another rules grey area, which will inevitably be greyed further some time in the future, with another rule change.

The voice of reason. Tx.

It’s farcical. How many other sports change or amend rules during the season? The AFL got its wish of Burgoyne being the last player to avoid suspension for a dangerous tackle. Hocking made an urgent amendment to the rule back in June and he stated they are pulling it back to the action not the outcome. We are not measuring it on whether a player gets straight up or is concussed he said. What a load of manure!

How do we expect players to adjust when rules are made up on the fly? The game is so complicated already. Danger went into bat for Burgoyne back then, saying it was hard for Burgoyne to know where the ball was because players are taught to play on instinct.

ANB’s tackle looked bad, hope the Crows kid is doing ok, but in my mind it wasn’t intentional at all. Sheesh...ANB post game even stated he thought he was getting a free for holding the ball it all happened so fast. 

Not holding my breath on players being suspended for the action from now on.

You want another example of the "STAR" avoiding a penalty in the AFL?

Clarko attacked the umpiring a few weeks ago and what did the AFL do, they changed the interpretation of the rules.

Then a couple of weeks later he actually accused the umpires of cheating, saying his opponents had an extra man.

What did the AFL do, they told all Coaches to not criticize the umpiring.

Where was the fine for Clarko?

Can you imagine a lesser Coach saying that, he would be fined immediately. He didn't even get a please explain letter.

Big clubs and stars in the AFL have always been favoured and that unfortunately is a corruption of the fairness of the competition.

No ifs or buts, the AFL is all about money and they see anything interfering with that as an impediment to be removed.

No reasonable person with any knowledge of the AFL, could argue that Selwood, Ablett, Martin, Pendlebury, Kennedy, Fyfe, Heppell, Mitchell etc would have got 4 weeks, or even have been sent to the Tribunal in the first place.

PS. I think all DL's would agree we fall into the lesser club category. Can anyone find a 4 week penalty for a sling tackle,  given to anyone other than Melbourne players Trengove and ANB? In ANB's case with the shortened season it is like a 6 week penalty. That is nearly as much as the Gaff/Brayshaw broken jaw, by punch, penalty.

PPS. Can anyone find a player penalized like Beamer Moloney was in 2005, for a few games, when he actually never made contact with the opposing star player Jimmy Bartel's head. Bartel thought he might and fell over avoiding him. Eddie would have exploded and ranted on air for days. 

"

Melbourne Football Club will not appeal the two-match suspension given to in-form midfielder Brent Moloney.

Moloney received the penalty for rough conduct after he appeared to make contact with a former teammate Jimmy Bartel during last Friday night's match against Geelong.

Bartel hit his head on the ground as he stumbled. The Geelong midfielder was carried from the ground on a stretcher, suffering concussion.

Demons coach Neale Daniher voiced his disappointment with the tribunal's decision before his club's training session at the MCG this morning.

"They (the tribunal) termed it medium-contact (to Bartel) ... the evidence we put showed there was no contact to the head at all. It was just a slight brush to the shoulder," Daniher said.

"It's on public record that we thought that James (Bartel) sustained his injury when he hit his head on the ground, so from that point of view we were disappointed that the tribunal didn't see it our way."

Advertisement

 

Edited August 8, 20204 yr by Redleg

Well the precedence has been set. Any player who does the same thing has to get the same result. I would have thought maybe 2 weeks. His good record should have been taken into account. 

I doubt he will play this week but if Will Hamill does play the 4 weeks would look stupid. 

 

On 8/7/2020 at 8:42 AM, titan_uranus said:

It was Hamill’s decision to spin with the tackle and get a kick off and his slight build that saw him go flying. 

Spot on - done it myself with the same result. 

It was not intentional, but it was a really bad outcome for the kid.  Whipped into the ground at force, unable to protect his head.  Concussed and out for the game.  If it was my kid playing the game I would seek a strong penalty for that.  4 weeks sets a benchmark.  The outcome definitely impacted the decision.  Notice that Pickett whips players to the turf - he needs to be careful that the ‘dangerous tackle’ free kicks dont escalate if he bangs the head.  It’s great to be tough, but not so great to be agricultural in how you do it.

10 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Well the precedence has been set. ...

 

Hah.  No such thing in the AFL, they just change to rules.

11 hours ago, McQueen said:

Doesn’t it?

Give me you reasoning...

While I understand your point, based on your logic, Cozzie should have received 2 free kicks and not been fined $1500!

Then again those decisions were made by Umpires not "Agenda's"