Nibbler Suspended for 4 Weeks

[Demon Dynasty 17,130]

13 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

With dahlhaus getting off , the AFL are now saying it’s ok to sling tackle.

Absolutely ridiculous and it defies logic.

They're not saying that at all DZ.

Imv what they ARE saying is...

"It may or may not be ok to sling (or apply a dangerous) tackle.  However, the outcome / penalty will depend on who you are and which club you play for and WE will decide the outcome arbitrarily and potentially in a discriminatory manner purely at our discretion".

END

Edited August 26, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[Redleg 41,942]

12 hours ago, Skuit said:

Okay fine. My logic is obviously completely out of whack with everyone else's. Anyone who wants to justify the act of drink-driving compared to hitting someone while drunk based on our legal code is welcome to do so. I can't see it but whatever. 

No one is justifying drunk driving, you are simply not understanding what different offences are and have glibly said that the people who were trying to explain it to you are justifying drunk driving. 
As they say you can lead a horse to water.

[Redleg 41,942]

3 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

They're not saying that at all DZ.

Imv what they ARE saying is...

"It may or may not be ok to sling (or apply a dangerous) tackle.  Depending on who you are and which club you play for WE will decide the outcome arbitrarily and potentially in a discriminatory manner purely at our discretion".

END

That sums it up pretty well.

[Sir Why You Little 37,307]

Dylan Grimes got off staging!!!!!

WTF...

”He flew gracefully through the air...”

[Skuit 10,031]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Hold on @Skuit, that's hardly fair. I'm not justifying the act of drink-driving.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

No one is justifying drunk driving, you are simply not understanding what different offences are and have glibly said that the people who were trying to explain it to you are justifying drunk driving. 
 

I apologise titan and Redleg. My last comment was indeed straight out of the Stuie playbook. 

We're quibbling over what may have been a poor analogy I used to illustrate that outcome over action is an element of our societal punitive system. Anyway, the point has been made. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

Landgon and Dalhaus ended up with the same punishment.

Staggering.

 

[The heart beats true 18,183]

The Grimes and Langdon situation highlight the growing problem with the two layered system of the AFL. Both players won free kicks, and then only later does a separate group of people decide the action was wrong.

So logically that would mean the umpires that issued these free kicks would be demoted because they got the decisions wrong? Nope. That never happens.

So instead we just have weekly show trials that end up being completely irrelevant, except to signal the league’s virtue by punishing those that are seen as more disposable.

The media have a roll to play here. They need to be much more vocal about how confusing it is, and how biased it looks.

[DistrACTION Jackson 10,209]

This is the problem when you introduce lawyers into tribunal decisions.

They take what should be a simple decision and muddy it with issues with wording of rules etc.

Plus they also likely make a pretty penny every time.

The whole system is a joke and no matter how hard they try, the AFL can't get it right.

My view is there should be no tribunal and no appeal process. There is a panel of experts, whether that be past players, legal representatives, medical background who make the decisions each week and that is final.

[Demon Dynasty 17,130]

16 hours ago, nosoupforme said:

Keep the Luke Dahlhaus footage on file for future reference.  It is a farce that the stronger or better clubs can get away with a dangerous tackle.  No different to the ABN incident.  Actions were the same just didn't knock the sense out of him .

Afl said that they were going to get tough on the chicken wing tackle. They did Melbourne copped it because they knew that we weren't going to take it further..  It is only  MFC  they said, they are easy pickings. 

How long are we going to let the AFL  {censored) us around ?

I would say for as long as we remain part of the AFL circus NSfm.

Everyone is on the gravy train.  Some getting more of their snout into the trough than others as we are witnessing with theses anomalous tribunal outcomes.

I'm pretty sure the AFL have, in a round-a-bout way, put the lessor favoured clubs on notice that it won't be considered 'ideal practice' if we were to rock that train (trough!) too much.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[Redleg 41,942]

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

Landgon and Dalhaus ended up with the same punishment.

Staggering.

 

So let's get all of this sh-t in order and that is what it is, sh-t.

Langdon gets a free for his tackle, most media say it is a fair tackle and he is fined with his appeal dismissed.

Dahlhaus does exactly the same tackle as ANB and gets a week and then has his appeal upheld ending with a fine like Langdon.

ANB is penalised a quarter of the current 17 game season, for the same tackle as Dahlhaus, with the only difference being that ANB's opponent got a concussion.

So I suppose the rule now is, no suspension for a sling tackle, unless the victim is concussed and the penalty is then a quarter of the season.

The exception to the rule will be where the player charged is a star player, from a big club and then the rules won't apply.

The exception to the exception, will be that it can vary without any reasonable explanation, if the AFL wants it to, for any commercial, legal,  whim or other reason that the AFL may decide on at that time, or at any time, past, present or future and that decision may be made by any past, present, future CEO of the AFL including any not yet conceived let alone born.

Lastly, the exception will not deal with the Trengove 4 week penalty for the same offence, nor will it ever be discussed publicly or privately.

[Kick_It_To_Pickett 3,293]

That is a joke that Langdon has his fine upheld. Absolutely farcical. It won’t warrant any media coverage. I am growing to hate the AFL more and more each day. 

[buck_nekkid 6,068]

I keep waiting for the day that we become relevant and this crapola doesn’t happen to us, but happens to others.  Still waiting....

[Demon Dynasty 17,130]

2 hours ago, The heart beats true said:

The Grimes and Langdon situation highlight the growing problem with the two layered system of the AFL. Both players won free kicks, and then only later does a separate group of people decide the action was wrong.

So logically that would mean the umpires that issued these free kicks would be demoted because they got the decisions wrong? Nope. That never happens.

So instead we just have weekly show trials that end up being completely irrelevant, except to signal the league’s virtue by punishing those that are seen as more disposable.

The media have a roll to play here. They need to be much more vocal about how confusing it is, and how biased it looks.

Other than some of the newbies to the game that haven't yet been fully retrained eg;  the recent addition of Lewis to Fox's special comments team, i'm afraid you are clutching at straws here HBT.

The media also have their snouts sniffing and snuffing around the massive AFL swill trough and are doing very nicely skimming the grease off the top of the club's swill.

No way they will rock the trough much and i suspect the aim is to avoid too much discussion (review via replay) of anything that is deemed a little or too controversial.  You can clearly witness that with the dead silence often greeted after a rare criticism of a controversial umpiring decision on the coverage from those who have been well trained and fully "swill" compliant such as Bruce, BT, Derwayne etc.  Even if the replays cleary show something isn't right with a decision or conversely a non-decision, very little is often said to fan any fires of controversy other than the occasional fence sitting "undecided / unlcear" type comments.

The present circus is a very sad state of affairs with Gil's tentacles weaving their way throughout the entire system from the HQ, to the clubs themselves and almost everyone involved in the media, with a few minor exceptions / slip ups that slip through camp AFL's retraining / restraining filter.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Rusty Nails

[Dr. Gonzo 24,443]

3 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

That is a joke that Langdon has his fine upheld. Absolutely farcical. It won’t warrant any media coverage. I am growing to hate the AFL more and more each day. 

I don't even know which incident its relating to. Does anyone have video?

[DEE fence 5,045]

I have often thought the complaints that we don't get a fair go, as the product of one eyed passionate support. With Langdon getting his fine upheld and ANB getting four weeks, I really feel that natural justice has been denied. I am filthy at the conduct of the tribunal and the MRO.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

Good to see a Demon has come out to attack the sling tackle farce and defend his player...

(Kind of)

'Every club is confused': Beveridge wants clarity on 'dangerous' tackles

 

[Ethan Tremblay 31,243]

Sling away, just make sure your opponent doesn’t get knocked out. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Ethan Tremblay

[DeeZone 10,401]

Alex was the sacrificial lamb, no more no less. Clean record but plays for Dee’s and has a low profile.!!!!!

[spirit of norm smith 16,615]

On 8/26/2020 at 11:12 AM, Rusty Nails said:

They're not saying that at all DZ.

Imv what they ARE saying is...

"It may or may not be ok to sling (or apply a dangerous) tackle.  However, the outcome / penalty will depend on who you are and which club you play for and WE will decide the outcome arbitrarily and potentially in a discriminatory manner purely at our discretion".

END

Correct. It’s about 2 things 

1- the impact to the player being slung in the sling !!  If they get concussed, you get 4 weeks. 
If they are only dazed and confused but play on, you get No penalty. 
 

2- the colour of your jumper. It’s a big bias that continues year after year 

[Stein9193 129]

On 8/25/2020 at 11:43 PM, sue said:

Another question for our legal experts looking at the weight the outcome should have in these cases.  Consider the pedestrian hit by the drunk driver.  If for example, the pedestrian ran against a red light which may have led to him being hit by any driver, sober or not, does that help the driver.  Does the fact that in ANB's case the 'pedestrian' kept trying to kick the ball rather than protect himself carry any weight?

I don't think the MRO is smart enough for that, they're there to stamp slings.

[Demon Dynasty 17,130]

Might have been handy this week on Hill?

[deanox 10,045]

On 8/26/2020 at 12:06 PM, Action Jackson said:

This is the problem when you introduce lawyers into tribunal decisions.

They take what should be a simple decision and muddy it with issues with wording of rules etc.

Plus they also likely make a pretty penny every time.

The whole system is a joke and no matter how hard they try, the AFL can't get it right.

My view is there should be no tribunal and no appeal process. There is a panel of experts, whether that be past players, legal representatives, medical background who make the decisions each week and that is final.

I don't mind having lawyers. The problem is that there is a lawyer in the prosecution, a player advocate who can't bring up precedent or external evidence (just the vibe), and a tribunal panel of players from an era that means they probably have brain damage. 

Make the same three lawyers the tribunal every week, and allow precedents to be used in prosecution and defence. If the judgement they reach is not what the AFL wants, ask the tribunal to advise what changes to the rules they would need to get that result in the future, make the change and move on. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by deanox

[Gunna’s 2,104]

11 minutes ago, deanox said:

I don't mind having lawyers. The problem is that there is a lawyer in the prosecution, a player advocate who can't bring up precedent or external evidence (just the vibe), and a tribunal panel of players from an era that means they probably have brain damage. 

Make the same three lawyers the tribunal every week, and allow precedents to be used in prosecution and defence. If the judgement they reach is not what the AFL wants, ask the tribunal to advise what changes to the rules they would need to get that result in the future, make the change and move on. 

Too much common sense.......

 

the only problem.....‘stars’ will get rubbed out

[58er 6,812]

18 hours ago, DeeZone said:

Alex was the sacrificial lamb, no more no less. Clean record but plays for Dee’s and has a low profile.!!!!!

Absolutely DZ  He was the lamb the AFL dined our on and set up their pretend strict   Approach ( for a lowlight low Club situation) as Burgoyne was too good for yo be made an example of and Hawks both Clarkson and Kennett would have monopolised the airwaves fir the week with vitriol.
Agsin the damage done was crucial.

Last night at Metricon a similar tackle resulted no head damage so no thoughts of a sling really and of course Tigers  and Eagles not in the equation fir this result.

But it's about technique and last Round Powell Pepper slung McEvoy dangerously IMO but no outcry it even free kick.

To ChangE the method of tackling penslities are need even if no concussion or player damage because e tackler dies not always control this aspect and I becomes a lottery the AFL can loophole out if in its own biased and arrogant way.

[3183 Dee 2,915]

The sooner we are financially independent, the better. It will put the club in a better position to come out with these arguments. At least Damien Barrett has highlighted the ANB issue in his Sliding Doors this week:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/491118/if-you-can-remember-the-old-days-when-the-mcg-used-to-host-games-then