So anyone wanna protest at AFL house with me?

Every single week we are seeing players rubbed out and the game is all over the shop.  Where's the players association?  This has sped past any semblance of common sense. 

14 hours ago, beelzebub said:

In the great recent history when have you seen the club so quick and keen to appeal...and in Roos case appeal again ?

" Trigger happy" was somewhat tongue in cheek  ;)  but by comparison to our previous  (in the main )   dour 'look the other way' approach it seemed apt.

As you still ignored my comment that we are in completely different times now with the head/concussion issue VIP on the AFL agenda and it has resulted in a rasp of tribunal and reports cases as a result 

Also the MRO has started with some cases which can be just throws at the stumps as a result of the head and concussion tackling. If he misses with a few he doesn't stop plucking and missing in this attempt to look responsible and invariably all he looks is confused out of place and must be on his last season with this style and standard of performance. 

9 hours ago, fr_ap said:

I stopped posting in this thread a couple of days ago as the more I tried to explain my contrarian POV, the deeper the hole I dug and the more I was lambasted. Some of this was on me as it was a nuanced point I probably failed to get across, but it was suggested I was out of touch, didn't understand the landscape or footy in general, or was advocating dangerous attacks on the footy that would injure players to the extent i "shouldn't be involved in junior footy". 

I never held the view that players should charge around at top speed head first into contests as some of you characterised. I had the view that in this specific scenario with a ball moving towards Lachie (not stationary when you really can get sideways over the ball effectively), Rozee couldn't get side on and therefore Hunter could have contested with his arms in a way that didn't put either head in danger, rather than turning and leading with the hip. This turned out to be pretty close to the finding. 

I support the same team as you so I'm not pleased Hunter is suspended. It is also not a good feeling to have your logic validated by what we can all agree is typically of the most illogical and backward organisations in the country. I didn't even think we would appeal, so I was wrong on that. Maybe we'll appeal again. 

All that said, the comments directed my way in response to what's ultimately been judged to be an appropriate assessment under the current rules were pretty disappointing.

If nothing else, this shows I wasn't on an island like I was made out to be and that some of you should probably revisit your own interpretations of the incident, the rules, your assessment, or at least have some consideration for a point of view that's not your own. 

I originally posted my view knowing it would be unpopular but interested in having the debate. 

Some people responded in the right way but many of you didn't and I was pretty insulted when it was suggested I had complete disregard for head safety or that of our kids.

I'll keep my views to myself next time. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber. 

Well Fr-ap you have spent half your post smugly self congratulating yourself saying you  were right  as the Tribunal upheld the appeal. Doesnt make you or them right!!! 

What it means is that there was an error somewhere in their expectation of how this "tackle" should have been approached. Fundamentally Lachie could have lowered his body and contested with the result that both players would expect to clash heads and Ed know what that would have resulted in. Both players missing the next week or more and a horrible scene on TV and at the ground. 

Oh and one digestion from the AFL team was for  Lachie to avoid contesting and give Rozee  the free access to the ball. That's  how they came to try and solve the dilemma. 

Please don't try and conconct your lounge room fantasy whereby the two players "would have been safe to use their hands as they reach out further than their heads so that would  have been safe!!" Is preposterous at worst and ridiculous at best. 

Part of football is based on the saying "keep your head over the ball" and has been the coaches catch cry for 180 years so to digress from that principle is against any proper coaching of the game. 

The AFL have failed in their enthusiasm to back the MRO and umpires in upholding this  decision  as Rozee  should have turned his head and body to contest the ball to the  side to avoid any dangerous  head on contact ( or side on ). If done correctively both players can avoid any head contact by their bodies contacting each other's. In this instance Tozee should have been cited for his own lack of safety and careless tackle. 

The result  that he was not injured ( or Lachie) as Lachie braced himself for the contact and his behind took the contact which proved low impact ( not medium) as no head issues resulted. 

Finslly Adrian Anderson and MFC got this issue wrong. It was a simple case of NOT admitting right or wrong of the action BUT that it was palpably incorrect to be Assessed as MEDziUM impact and should have been judged as LOW.  Then a fine is given and you move on. Both players got it wrong IMO and the AFL and players are even more confused about tackling as the AFL want their cake  then want to eat it also.  ie move goalposts to suit themselves ie why didn't you avoid contesting the ball" is the dingle most damming comment from the AFL Legsl team since he thought up the " reasonable player" comment in Rooy's case a fortnight ago. 

No Matter if you comment or post a rely Fr-ap I am finished with this matter but expect to see a different ruling or variation at any time in the future from the Umpires and AFL as they grapple to correct their head and concussion issues and the AFL laws interpretations. 

The rules say the Tribunal can view other incidents and if those incidents are not similar, the panel can be advised to ignore them.

I don’t know the full facts, but on what was disclosed, we asked for similar incidents to be viewed and Gleeson refused, apparently out of hand, quoting rule 5.5.

I have disclosed that rule above and it appears he has misquoted or wrongfully interpreted that rule. Why am I not surprised?

To see those videos in the Tribunal, would have put out in the media and the public, the inconsistency of the MRO and the Tribunal.

It would also have made it extremely difficult to uphold the suspension of Hunter.

If Gleeson has nothing to hide, why would he not allow vision of similar incidents and simply explain why they are treated differently?

To me this smacks of a dictatorship type of behaviour, where you don’t want the public seeing, or knowing what is going on.

Suspensions affect the competition and this to me is another blow, to what is left of the disappearing integrity of the AFL competition.

 

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The rules say the Tribunal can view other incidents and if those incidents are not similar, the panel can be advised to ignore them.

I don’t know the full facts, but on what was disclosed, we asked for similar incidents to be viewed and Gleeson refused, apparently out of hand, quoting rule 5.5.

I have disclosed that rule above and it appears he has misquoted or wrongfully interpreted that rule. Why am I not surprised?

To see those videos in the Tribunal, would have put out in the media and the public, the inconsistency of the MRO and the Tribunal.

It would also have made it extremely difficult to uphold the suspension of Hunter.

If Gleeson has nothing to hide, why would he not allow vision of similar incidents and simply explain why they are treated differently?

To me this smacks of a dictatorship type of behaviour, where you don’t want the public seeing, or knowing what is going on.

Suspensions affect the competition and this to me is another blow, to what is left of the disappearing integrity of the AFL competition.

 

Seems a good base for another appeal to the Tribunal Appeals court based on a technicality. Very clear cut and good chance here! 

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

The rules say the Tribunal can view other incidents and if those incidents are not similar, the panel can be advised to ignore them.

I don’t know the full facts, but on what was disclosed, we asked for similar incidents to be viewed and Gleeson refused, apparently out of hand, quoting rule 5.5.

I have disclosed that rule above and it appears he has misquoted or wrongfully interpreted that rule. Why am I not surprised?

To see those videos in the Tribunal, would have put out in the media and the public, the inconsistency of the MRO and the Tribunal.

It would also have made it extremely difficult to uphold the suspension of Hunter.

If Gleeson has nothing to hide, why would he not allow vision of similar incidents and simply explain why they are treated differently?

To me this smacks of a dictatorship type of behaviour, where you don’t want the public seeing, or knowing what is going on.

Suspensions affect the competition and this to me is another blow, to what is left of the disappearing integrity of the AFL competition.

 

The rules are very clear imo. Essentially, if you get hit in the head and lie down afterwards for more than 10 secs it’ll be a suspension. Forget about causes and actions. 

This will be true … for a short time. Until later in the season when it’s ignored. Or  until a big player from a big team gets reported for same. or if it’s a finals game. 

cmon redleg what is there to not understand? 

Edited May 23, 20231 yr by Wells 11

11 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

When the AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods put it to him that he could have simply stepped to the left or the right to avoid contact, Hunter swiftly dismissed it.

"No, because you're asking me to concede the ball to Port Adelaide," Hunter said.

"I can't see any situation where I would just let him tap the ball and let them carry the ball down the field."

What a peanut you are Andrew Woods? Lachie should have replied, have you played a game of contact sport before Andrew?

 

This is what the AFL Wants, I am just about done with the game might aswell watch netball, I have gone from watching most games to just dees games, the game is a joke currently 

The Game has become a hybrid Euroball, Netball, Touch footy variant. Whatever the Nuffies at the AFL think, any way you look at it its not Australian Rules Football anymore. Norm Smith just turned in his grave, again!

I'm losing the time and energy for this. Just take the week and move on.

It's a total joke, we all all know it's a total joke. It's the way it is for now. 

3 minutes ago, picket fence said:

The Game has become a hybrid Euroball, Netball, Touch footy variant. Whatever the Nuffies at the AFL think, any way you look at it its not Australian Rules Football anymore. Norm Smith just turned in his grave, again!

Well hopefully when he rolled he exorcised his curse. 

We should change our name from the Demons to the Guinea pigs as we seem to be the AFL Guinea pigs for obscurity. A 50 metre penalty against Richmond for a bloke in the “protected zone” behind the man on the mark. Happens most weeks never paid. Roo charged for striking when clearly going for a spoil. Free kick against TMac which later has lead to a match review panel charge on Jonas.Now Hunter stopping and picking up a groundball yet other similar incidents go unpunished. A jumper punch to the guts which was meant to be stamped out get stamped out and is not a football act just a fine but contesting a ball one week. The MRP and tribunal are like the AFL fixture….. they are Fixed!!!

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

The rules say the Tribunal can view other incidents and if those incidents are not similar, the panel can be advised to ignore them.

I don’t know the full facts, but on what was disclosed, we asked for similar incidents to be viewed and Gleeson refused, apparently out of hand, quoting rule 5.5.

I have disclosed that rule above and it appears he has misquoted or wrongfully interpreted that rule. Why am I not surprised?

To see those videos in the Tribunal, would have put out in the media and the public, the inconsistency of the MRO and the Tribunal.

It would also have made it extremely difficult to uphold the suspension of Hunter.

If Gleeson has nothing to hide, why would he not allow vision of similar incidents and simply explain why they are treated differently?

To me this smacks of a dictatorship type of behaviour, where you don’t want the public seeing, or knowing what is going on.

Suspensions affect the competition and this to me is another blow, to what is left of the disappearing integrity of the AFL competition.

 

Gleeson has simply re-affirmed he is a dictator.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I recall that it was Lachie who won the ball was starting to leave the contest.

To suggest that he was not contesting the ball is wrong. If the ball is free between two players, both should be entitled to contest for possession. If the ball is on the ground, then both should be entitled to adopt whichever method suits - either scramble along the ground to reach the ball or to stand and bend over at the right time.

That the two players adopted these two alternative methods does not make it a reportable offence if one player is inconvenienced by the body of the other.

What have I missed?

AFL is cooked, the whole system is cooked.

 I don't think we will appeal this one.

10 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

AFL is cooked, the whole system is cooked.

 I don't think we will appeal this one.

I think we should tho because again the AFL is making stuff up to suit their own narrative and punishing Melbourne players. Far worse actions than this last week, including ones that resulted in injury, didn’t get charged. 

4 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I think we should tho because again the AFL is making stuff up to suit their own narrative and punishing Melbourne players. Far worse actions than this last week, including ones that resulted in injury, didn’t get charged. 

Are any journos pushing this point?

7 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I think we should tho because again the AFL is making stuff up to suit their own narrative and punishing Melbourne players. Far worse actions than this last week, including ones that resulted in injury, didn’t get charged. 

Absolutely we should appeal Jaded, I'm just guessing we won't.

7 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I think we should tho because again the AFL is making stuff up to suit their own narrative and punishing Melbourne players. Far worse actions than this last week, including ones that resulted in injury, didn’t get charged. 

Totally. 

I also think Hunter played a pretty decent game last week. Definitely better than Langdon and we need to get into a groove and start finding form.

To just give up another player this weekend because the AFL wants to make another example of one of our players with their screwed up logic is unacceptable.

It's expensive for us both on and off the field.

We can't let them walk over us even just for a week's suspension. 

Scumbags

29 minutes ago, sue said:

Are any journos pushing this point?

You mean AFL fed and accredited hacks ?

Goodwin just confirmed we won't appeal.

1 minute ago, Lord Travis said:

Goodwin just confirmed we won't appeal.

Once again the AFL gets away with screwing our club with their total BS. 
I really hate what the AFL has done to our game. 

There is of course the Geelong connection with the Coaches getting information in advance of everyone else, and playing the free in advance style. Now i need to include TWSNBN with the brother connection. 

37 minutes ago, sue said:

Are any journos pushing this point?

And who issues their media passes/id’s?

 

 

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

You mean AFL fed and accredited hacks ?

Sorry, didn’t see you posted same thing.

Great minds.