4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes.  But the Tribunal has gone to a new level of stupidity.  Its 'rational' beggars belief: 

In the tribunal's reasons for clearing Grimes, three points were emphasised:

• "...the vision it is noticeable that the player’s trajectory towards the ball had been altered by the propping and contact made by the Essendon player Stringer to the player's back.  It can be seen in the vision that the player's left foot digs into the turf and a tuff of grass appears indicating the player's attempt to stay on course to contest the fall of the football. 
• "At this stage the player's timing and balance has been affected by the actions of the Essendon player Stringer at a stage just prior to contesting the football whether it be to either jump to mark or spoil the football.
• "The player raises his right hand/arm in what appears to be an attempt to spoil or distract the Essendon player number 43 even though the player was under the ball at this stage and moving forward quickly and off balance as a result of the 'nudge' afforded to him by Essendon player Stringer."

tribunal-clears-grimes-and-vlastuin-of-staging

Talk about myopic excuse making to justify the outcome they wanted.  He took several steps after the 'contact'.  Play had continued Tippa had kicked the ball and he is still diving.   He raised his arm to get a free! 

It is an embarrassment that supposedly intelligent people can think let alone write such piffle! 

Yes I Heard Dwyane quote all that rubbish earlier today, outrageous!!

All staging is fair go now

The AFL is pathetic

2 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Yes I Heard Dwyane quote all that rubbish earlier today, outrageous!!

All staging is fair go now

The AFL is pathetic

you wait til a demon does it

4 WEEKS! THROW THE BOOK AT THE PLAYER BRINGING SHAME UPON OUR GREAT GAME!!!

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

 

All staging is fair go now

 

 

yep, as is clenched fist punches, throat punching, off the ball interference and dangerous tackles 

just hope for luck in not causing concussion (unless a big time player/club)

The tribunal system is now a complete mess. Lynch should have copped his whack well before they sent him to the tribunal. And, for mine, they sent him there on a strike that was always going to undermine the overall case. As for Grimes, that's a case of statistics and damn lies. Proving you can justify anything and the overturning of the staging fine does just that. It's pretty much saying 'what you see with your own eyes is not what you actually saw'. But, of course, they'll now want to show that they mean business and it won't be with a powerful club or a club that the AFL pays the bills for .i.e. the Suns. We'll be in the gun as will be Norf, Carlton, Freo and Saints. Yes, I'm paranoid.

Edited August 26, 20204 yr by Return to Glory

33 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

you wait til a demon does it

4 WEEKS! THROW THE BOOK AT THE PLAYER BRINGING SHAME UPON OUR GREAT GAME!!!

Of course!

Cunnington punches Bernie till he throws up, media said Bernie staged.  Oliver gets decked by Scofield, right in front of the umpire, after the end of the qtr and media say Oliver 'dived'.  Scofield report was thrown out by Tribunal.

I have little doubt the media noise around indiscretions directly affects the outcome.  They were baying for ANB blood a month ago.  Notice no commentator has dared compare the Nibbler tackle with Dahllhaus.  Hypocrites, all of them!!

Edited August 26, 20204 yr by Lucifer's Hero

8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Of course!

Cunnington punches Bernie till he throws up, media said Bernie staged.  Oliver gets decked by Scofield, right in front of the umpire, after the end of the qtr and media say Oliver 'dived'.  Scofield report was thrown out by Tribunal.

I have little doubt the media noise around indiscretions directly affects the outcome.  They were baying for ANB blood a month ago.  Notice no commentator has dared compare the Nibbler tackle with Dahllhaus.  Hypocrites, all of them!!

don't be so polite, luci.   not hypocrisy....corruption   the afl keep a tight noose on the media via accreditation and other means

17 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

... Notice no commentator has dared compare the Nibbler tackle with Dahllhaus.  Hypocrites, all of them!!

That is staggering. And very disturbing.  Surely there is at least one person in the media not living in fear of the AFL cutting them off?

1 minute ago, sue said:

That is staggering. And very disturbing.  Surely there is at least one person in the media not living in fear of the AFL cutting them off?

The person I'm most disappointed with is Gerard Whateley.  Most others are 'click-baiters' but he generally seems measured in his commentary. 

He led the charge with the 'throw the book at ANB' rhetoric.  This week he comes out and says "punishments on some recent dangerous tackles are impractical and don’t pass the “flinch” test as the footy world grapples with the harsher assessments...Whateley said the initial suspension handed to Powell-Pepper was “inappropriate”, adding the definition of a ‘dangerous tackle’ had been taken too far...“It seemed like, all of a sudden, any player that tackles another to ground was guilty of a dangerous – and that’s skipping steps,”. dangerous-tackles-gone-too-far

No mention of ANB and his stance on him.  Whateley has become AFL'd!

Its like the ANB suspension has been wiped form the record books.  Bizzaro stuff.

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

he vision that the player's left foot digs into the turf and a tuff of grass appears indicating the player's attempt to stay on course to contest the fall of the football

That tuft of grass deserves all the credit. The tuft of grass that saved the day! Richmond should put it on the payroll.

(What a crock of nonsense. I didn't know the AFL were hiring political speechwriters now.)

 

I find it interesting that almost universally the AFL media community agreed that Burgoyne was lucky to get away with a fine, why aren’t the same reporters holding them to account on Failhouse given the obvious similarities with ANB and the potential to cause injury being high. 

@Lucifer's Hero I agree that typically Whateley has actually been a decent voice of reason but if he’s ticking this off then I don’t know anymore. 

Seems everyone was happy to put Nibbler up as an example but no one wants to do the follow through. 

Finally a commentator compared the ANB and Dahlhaus tackles.  Last night on 360, Lewis said they were identical actions but the outcome was different ie one had concussion.  And if the AFL want to stop sling tackles they need to penalise the action not the outcome.

Whateley then said the tackles were different - the Tribunal had adjudicated that because Crouch's head didn't hit the ground (sure looked like it did to me) it was a body tackle and not 'high contact' and downgraded the charge.  They conveniently ignored the principle of 'potential to do damage'.  Just like they introduced it to suspend May last year for his 'potential to cause damage' bump on (I think) Berry then conveniently ignored the same principle thereafter.

Back to ANB I think it was the 'optics' of a player out cold and the Crows' medical report that condemned him.  The media wanting a scalp closed the deal.

There won't be consistency in decision making by the MRO or Tribunal until the principle of potential to do damage, rather than the outcome, becomes the key consideration, whether its a sling tackle a bump or any other action. If they haven't already been doing so, it should be something the Players Association should be pushing for for the long-term health management of their members.

Good to know you can sling tackle a players head into the ground and that is fine per the AFL (unless you wear blue and red). Great news for our kids starting out playing the game

Also great to hear to you dive and stage for freekicks and there are no repercussions

Excellent work AFL!

19 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

What a farce

I didn't know they are comedians!

33 minutes ago, dieter said:

I didn't know they are comedians!

Classic sad clowns really

deleted

posted to wrong thread by mistake

 

 

Edited August 27, 20204 yr by daisycutter

36 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

deleted

posted to wrong thread by mistake

 

 

No matter. On Demonland I often think I'm reading posts that seem to be on the wrong thread. Others seem to be from a different generation or even an alternative universe.

To be honest, ANB's tackle was a bit worse but for him to get 4 weeks and Dalhaus get off with a fine is ridiculous. 2 weeks and 1 week respectively would have been ok with me

11 minutes ago, Hellish Inferno said:

To be honest, ANB's tackle was a bit worse but for him to get 4 weeks and Dalhaus get off with a fine is ridiculous. 2 weeks and 1 week respectively would have been ok with me

That's right, it's just the ridiculous gap between the 2 punishments that has us confused. 

46 minutes ago, Hellish Inferno said:

To be honest, ANB's tackle was a bit worse but for him to get 4 weeks and Dalhaus get off with a fine is ridiculous. 2 weeks and 1 week respectively would have been ok with me

I think every clear minded Dees fan would agree with that, ANB’s “force” on the tackle is higher. I couldn’t understand why the MRO handed it onto the tribunal. I would’ve accepted three weeks for Nibbler IF a tackle like Dahlhaus got one week. 

The ONLY reason why the tackles are different, aside from a little more force from ANB, was that the Adelaide player braced himself for the contact with the ground with for Dahlhaus’s tackle, whereas with Nibbler the player didn’t, he was more focused on trying to get rid of the ball. 

Also I have said this before but I’m pretty sure Nibbler’s “victim” has battled concussion issues this year, so the Adelaide medical report really suck the boots into him which weighted his suspension unfairly. 

On 8/26/2020 at 3:03 PM, sue said:

That is staggering. And very disturbing.  Surely there is at least one person in the media not living in fear of the AFL cutting them off?

No there are not any. 

11 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

Whateley then said the tackles were different - the Tribunal had adjudicated that because Crouch's head didn't hit the ground (sure looked like it did to me) it was a body tackle and not 'high contact' and downgraded the charge. 

 

Whateley has a vested interest in creating a difference for his [censored] cats. 

I can’t believe no one in the media (Lewis aside) can see the hypocrisy.