10 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Some like it, some love it, but I cannot see the sense as it so much (more even than usual) depends on umpires interpretation and diligence, and the penalty can be absurd. 

Hate to say it but looks innocent (that said, ANB would get 3-4)

Any footage of the Hawkins one?

 

1 minute ago, Satan said:

 

No problem there. 
 

He’s Tom Hawkins remember. 

45 minutes ago, DubDee said:

They just discussed the Hawkins incident for a while in Fox. Tom Morris compared it to the Holman one from earlier in the year. 2 weeks reduced to zero at tribunal. J Lewis and Brad J all agreed not much in it. May get suspended but should be overturned at tribunal

Well all clear then. Nothing in it

Meanwhile Norf getting very close to Sydney in the last

 

33 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Some like it, some love it, but I cannot see the sense as it so much (more even than usual) depends on umpires interpretation and diligence, and the penalty can be absurd. 

Hate to say it but looks innocent (that said, ANB would get 3-4)

Any footage of the Hawkins one?

I'm happy to have anyone that loves it explain to me how an umpire can simultaneously watch the kicker for a play on, while watching the man on the mark.

Can't be done, unless we start hiring four eyed, cross eyed umpires.

8 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Well all clear then. Nothing in it

If he gets done by mro , likely to be an appeal , all time consuming for geelong 

The lack of pre finals bye hurts the cats. They are old and have a few injuries. Loving it 

1 hour ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

And what's his first reaction? Throw arms up, fall backwards to try and win a free himself. He's a deadset germ, how the players have voted for him as their rep is beyond me.

If I was a player I’d vote for him as a rep.

He’s never going to miss any opportunity to represent his own self interest (and as a by-product - yours).

Blakely ankle injury looks bad. Could be done for the year
big blow to the swans

Brisbane now just 1.8% behind the Dogs.

If they beat West Coast next week and the Dogs lose to Port, there is every chance the Dogs miss the top 4. That would be ridiculous for a side that has been in the top 2 on the ladder since Round 3.

Having said that, Port hasn't beaten a side in the top 4 all year, and they've barely beaten anyone in the top 8.

Twas nice to see the filth get done by 85 points.

Record against the current top 8:

1. Melbourne: 7-2
2. Bulldogs: 6-3
3. Sydney: 5-3
4. Geelong: 4-4
5. GWS: 4-5
6. Brisbane: 3-4
7. Port: 2-5
8. West Coast: 1-6

GWS, the Dogs and we have had the most games against the top 8, with the Dogs and us to get another one next week (although those figures will change if Essendon replaces West Coast in the top 8).

1 hour ago, Satan said:

 

Both arms pinned. He should get suspended, but that means nothing anymore with Jeelong 

There's nothing at all in the Dangerfield report.

On Hawkins I'm torn. That's pretty close to just a run of the mill run down tackle and if that was a Melbourne player, I reckon we'd be pretty upset with the notion of him being suspended.

But he did pin the arm and he did drive him head first into the ground, in circumstances where he probably could have avoided doing so. And we know the MRO loves the outcome as much as the action, and with Joyce being concussed, you'd think he'll be given two weeks (careless, high, high = two weeks). Which presumably means the Tribunal will be sitting on Tuesday.

10 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

There's nothing at all in the Dangerfield report.

On Hawkins I'm torn. That's pretty close to just a run of the mill run down tackle and if that was a Melbourne player, I reckon we'd be pretty upset with the notion of him being suspended.

But he did pin the arm and he did drive him head first into the ground, in circumstances where he probably could have avoided doing so. And we know the MRO loves the outcome as much as the action, and with Joyce being concussed, you'd think he'll be given two weeks (careless, high, high = two weeks). Which presumably means the Tribunal will be sitting on Tuesday.

He may love the outcome but only if he is told to. 
So predictable that a Geelong star will be freed. 
Dangerfield was, as has a recently used term, a footy action, whereas Hawkins was undue force. Certainly far far worse than Viney. 

11 minutes ago, monoccular said:

He may love the outcome but only if he is told to. 
So predictable that a Geelong star will be freed. 
Dangerfield was, as has a recently used term, a footy action, whereas Hawkins was undue force. Certainly far far worse than Viney. 

… not to mention that it’s not a good look for football!!!!

2 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Against all precedents and justices, he'll get off - the recipient player shouldn't have been there to receive an injurious, late impact - Match Review guys will strongly declare it was his own fault. Case dismissed. 

If that was the case Toby Greene should have got off last week as the "precedent" was set by Fritta getting off his elbow fend.
But Greene did fend Dangerfield so the "Thou shall not touch Dangerfield." precedent overrides it.
 

3 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Hey DJ . . . I love you  . . . . . but . . . . . .

Jones is in another football universe compared to Murphy. For a number one draft pick, Murphy has been 'good ordinary' at best.

Different playing styles but good ordinary suits them both.

Yeah, yeah Jones has been a warrior who was the grunt in our midfield when we had no-one else.
He did his best but was never a star.
His claim to fame is that he never left.
And why would he.
Would have been one of the better paid fish in a crappy little pond.

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

He may love the outcome but only if he is told to. 
So predictable that a Geelong star will be freed. 
Dangerfield was, as has a recently used term, a footy action, whereas Hawkins was undue force. Certainly far far worse than Viney. 

I will blow a gasket if he gets off. Usually wouldn’t care but am still spewing at Vineys suspension and how MFC always gets screwed. Would love for Hawkins to get 2 weeks but we know it’ll be a fine and Christiansen’s resignation. 

Hawkins incident looks similar to the Holman one early in the season. Not quite the same degree of momentum involved though. 50/50 whether he gets rubbed out

18 minutes ago, BDA said:

Hawkins incident looks similar to the Holman one early in the season. Not quite the same degree of momentum involved though. 50/50 whether he gets rubbed out

Hawkins deserves to get a week.  It’s clearly dangerous. 
Though Dangerfield and Selwood don’t get suspended for this head high bumps so it’s a lottery at the CHRISTIAN COMEDY MRP !!?!?

13 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Hawkins deserves to get a week.  It’s clearly dangerous. 
Though Dangerfield and Selwood don’t get suspended for this head high bumps so it’s a lottery at the CHRISTIAN COMEDY MRP !!?!?

The MRO is not a lottery, which is an exercise in random numbers. The MRO has very predictable numbers and were it sold as a lottery would quickly go broke. 

15 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

That depends on Covid Im afraid.

Fair to say everything is up for grabs.

 

Agreed.  But the Adelaide Oval is do-able crowd wise and the least-worst option for travel.

But with a Chief Health Officer who has no understanding of AFL, or ball games in general, I suspect we'll be locked out anyway.

15 hours ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

The 'Stand Rule' is the biggest [censored]-up in AFL laws history. Needs to be killed off after this season.

protected area rules need to be looked at too. too many inconsequential minor incidents given 50m. I also can't see why the protected zone doesn't apply to the attacking team. doesn't make sense for them to roam free as a bird anywhere in the zone.  when it's a set shot close to goal the umps don't allow attacking side players in the zone but elsewhere on field they do.

on the stand rule, i'd say 50% of defenders are not on the real mark position.  umps rarely actually set the mark except when it's a set goal shot. and finally the umps lately see to have gone really hot on play-on calls, even when the players feet have not moved off the mark

all in all, setting the mark, determining play-on and the protected area cause a lot of confusion

18 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

protected area rules need to be looked at too. too many inconsequential minor incidents given 50m. I also can't see why the protected zone doesn't apply to the attacking team. doesn't make sense for them to roam free as a bird anywhere in the zone.  when it's a set shot close to goal the umps don't allow attacking side players in the zone but elsewhere on field they do.

on the stand rule, i'd say 50% of defenders are not on the real mark position.  umps rarely actually set the mark except when it's a set goal shot. and finally the umps lately see to have gone really hot on play-on calls, even when the players feet have not moved off the mark

all in all, setting the mark, determining play-on and the protected area cause a lot of confusion

The Like button is not enough.  I couldn't agree more.