Turns out the Dangerfield decision isn't the most contentious of the night.

Bowers from Freo just got off a horrendous tackle on Eden Zanker. Open season on the Demons??

6 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Turns out the Dangerfield decision isn't the most contentious of the night.

Bowers from Freo just got off a horrendous tackle on Eden Zanker. Open season on the Demons??

Only just had a look at that one...horrendous is right.

Lucky not to do serious damage. Should have got multiple weeks for that one.

20 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Turns out the Dangerfield decision isn't the most contentious of the night.

Bowers from Freo just got off a horrendous tackle on Eden Zanker. Open season on the Demons??

That’s crap. Really dangerous tackle, could've done some serious damage. They need to make a decision on action vs outcome, she could have been paralysed. 
But Bowers is favourite for the league B&F, bit like the Fyfe one 6(?) years ago when he was favourite, so go figure. 

Edited March 23, 20214 yr by Deemented Are Go!

19 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Turns out the Dangerfield decision isn't the most contentious of the night.

Bowers from Freo just got off a horrendous tackle on Eden Zanker. Open season on the Demons??

Bowers is the new Danger.

She’s favourite for the AFLW best and fairest = protected species.

14 minutes ago, rjay said:

Only just had a look at that one...horrendous is right.

Lucky not to do serious damage. Should have got multiple weeks for that one.

Might be the worst tackle I've ever seen really. The initial tug of the back of the jumper is what they call a horse collar in the NFL. It takes your legs out from under you. Then she finishes it off by flipping her on her neck.

52 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Might be the worst tackle I've ever seen really. The initial tug of the back of the jumper is what they call a horse collar in the NFL. It takes your legs out from under you. Then she finishes it off by flipping her on her neck.

And did Zanker get hurt. No. There is the reason. They go on outcomes. 

2 minutes ago, Docs Demons said:

And did Zanker get hurt. No. There is the reason. They go on outcomes. 

It might be the reason but it was only luck that saved Zanker.

In this case the action should have been taken into account.

You can't have tackles like that in the game.

Personally I would have told her not to bother coming back this season.

Set the standard now before it's too late.

15 minutes ago, Docs Demons said:

And did Zanker get hurt. No. There is the reason. They go on outcomes. 

She got up holding her neck/shoulder and the medical report confirms ongoing physio. So, it some ways yes but the tribunal deemed that low impact.

We all know it's outcome based but when that occurs it means the system is broken. The potential for serious injury here has been completely ignored even though it was considered for Zac Williams in the preseason. And Zac Williams bump was far less likely to actually cause a serious injury. 

12 minutes ago, rjay said:

It might be the reason but it was only luck that saved Zanker.

In this case the action should have been taken into account.

You can't have tackles like that in the game.

Personally I would have told her not to bother coming back this season.

Set the standard now before it's too late.

That's the problem rjay. Both Men's and Women's tribunals go on outcomes. I agree it should be the action but we are peeing upwind here.

Stevo's on the case

 

On 3/22/2021 at 12:21 PM, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

It iritates me listening to Chris Scott trying to jawbone the tribunal... Dangerfield "did everything he could to protect Kelly"

Complete rubbish! He didn't slow at all dropped the shoulder angling his body towards Kelly and bumped him late - and was clear the hit would be late so could have slowed or pulled out

Exactly 

5 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Fair result. There’s a chance Kelly will miss 2 games given they’ve got a 13 day window for rounds 2-3. Wouldn’t be fair in my view that the perpetrator sits out the same length of time.

It’s not, if it was Vanders doing the bumping it would be 4-6 weeks. 

The histrionics put out this week by Dangerdiver and his crew has been disconcerting.

 

I hate Dangerfield. Did he wear his stupid white suit, sans socks, to the Tribunal hearing?

6 hours ago, bingers said:

I hate Dangerfield. Did he wear his stupid white suit, sans socks, to the Tribunal hearing?

No, but he did go surfing afterwards

The AFLW Tribunal has shown it is a pushover on appeal for favoured players.   In the first round Ebony Marinoff, the Crows gun midfielder (and touted for the AFLW best player award) had her 3 game suspension overturned - no case to answer.

The Tribunal must apply the 'potential to do damage' rule.  No way Bowers should get off.  AFL must appeal as they did in the Houli case. 

If it was a lesser name player they would have tougher treatment than Marinoff and Bowers.

22 hours ago, Redleg said:

The guy had gotten rid of the ball and was looking downfield.

Danger came in from the side. He could have grabbed him, pushed him or done nothing as he didn't have the ball and wasn't expecting blind side contact.

Danger chose to bump. The one thing he shouldn't have done.

He broke the guys nose and knocked him out.

Graded as severe, as that is the only one available with those injuries.

Yes, the head bump was probably accidental, however that is exactly what they are trying to stop.

Danger knows that better than any other player,  as President of the Player's association.

They have been told countless times, bump and you are responsible for any head knock, deliberate or accidental.

No excuse whatsoever under the rules.

All hell will break out if he doesn't get the right whack, minimum 3 weeks.

ANB got 4 weeks in a 17 game season for swinging a player to the ground with one arm held. That player got concussed mildly.

This is a far worse injury, from an act that the AFL is telling players to avoid if possible.

Watch 60 minutes last sunday on CTE deaths and suicides.

 

ANB (and MFC) got well and truly done over on that one especially  by comparison with last night’s decision 

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No, but he did go surfing afterwards

This must be photoshopped.

I live down the coast and have seen him surfing a lot.

He's very, very average. Hates large waves too.

49 minutes ago, Demon17 said:

This must be photoshopped.

I live down the coast and have seen him surfing a lot.

He's very, very average. Hates large waves too.

Unfortunately NO.

 

regarde moi, je veux etre une marque ?

what a figjam ?

 

22 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

regarde moi, je veux etre une marque ?

what a figjam ?

Destined to follow in the footsteps of the other FIGJAM - has a Brownlow, changed clubs for a much coveted Premiership medal but will retire without one.  Icing on the cake would be if Adelaide win a flag before he retires.   Unlikely but would like to see it.

29 minutes ago, Demonland said:

He is a serious 'Merchant Banker' this guy...maybe the most punchable head in AFL, not that I'm condoning violence here.

Edited March 24, 20214 yr by rjay