1 hour ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I've actually decided to stop watching all other games other than the Demons because I'm so frustrated with how the AFL is operated. If I didn't care about the club so much I could easily just stop going entirely.

I'm on the brink of unfollowing the game period. It's become a farce: inconsistent umpires, different rules for different players, different clubs, corrupt fixtures - we always play Geelong at Geelong, for instance, how often does Collingwood play interstate, etc etc.

 

3 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I don't really think there's much point going on about this given you two have both clearly made your mind up based on your dislike of TMac.

 

Nailed it! 👏 

13 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Cannot believe there’s people on here who blame Tmac for an incident which resulted in him being the victim of a reportable (and reported) offence. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though. 

 

5 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

 

Yes he should have received the Free. But he also should have disposed of the ball prior to the tackle which then the tackle doesn’t occur. Then the ump doesn’t make the mistake you are all up in arms about. The first mistake was Tmac’s, if he takes first option then none of this occurs. He is a repeat offender of this and that’s why it’s infuriating.

Sure, if he was tackled correctly, absolutely no problem with HTB.  

But he wasn’t and if there is any thought that the ball player must be prioritised rather than the vulture tackler then correct tackle must be the first KPI.

 

Edited May 22, 20232 yr by monoccular

12 minutes ago, Monbon said:

I'm on the brink of unfollowing the game period. It's become a farce: inconsistent umpires, different rules for different players, different clubs, corrupt fixtures - we always play Geelong at Geelong, for instance, how often does Collingwood play interstate, etc etc.

Yep I agree with all of that. It's quite sad what the AFL have done to certain aspects of the game. 

Glad we are challenging. 
MRO hates us and I’m sick of it. 

15 minutes ago, Monbon said:

I'm on the brink of unfollowing the game period. It's become a farce: inconsistent umpires, different rules for different players, different clubs, corrupt fixtures - we always play Geelong at Geelong, for instance, how often does Collingwood play interstate, etc etc.

 

Just now, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Yep I agree with all of that. It's quite sad what the AFL have done to certain aspects of the game. 

It is just not the (I am one eyed by the way) anti MFC bias that I see, but even in neutral games we see certain teams always get the doubtful decision go their way.  Be it conspiracy or just ineptitude it makes the game hard to watch.  And as mentioned the biased scheduling and travelling schedules are there for the benefit of the “special clubs”.  

Just now, Jaded No More said:

Glad we are challenging. 
MRO hates us and I’m sick of it. 

I'm glad they hate us. If they didn't f'up so often we wouldn't need to appeal.

They can hate all they like as long as we win.

 

1 minute ago, ManDee said:

I'm glad they hate us. If they didn't f'up so often we wouldn't need to appeal.

They can hate all they like as long as we win.

 

But appealing is a waste of time and money and it’s an unnecessary distraction. 
This should never have been a suspension. 

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

But appealing is a waste of time and money and it’s an unnecessary distraction. 
This should never have been a suspension. 

Apparently it costs nothing when you win.

Just now, ManDee said:

Apparently it costs nothing when you win.

Monetarily. But the distraction, and time spent appealing something that shouldn’t be an issue is a cost we have to bear. 

Another Tuesday night with frozen dinners. Beauty!

I'm hoping that the appeal process (regardless of outcome) will shed some light on how a collision between 2 players going for the ball is adjudicated.

 

I won't be holding my breath though.

On 5/21/2023 at 9:33 AM, fr_ap said:

What he should have done is what happens hundreds of times a game when two opposing players both try to pick up the ball at the same time. Arms outstretched at the ball, head down. As arms are longer than necks, the contest is between arms rather than clashing heads. Just go watch any game this weekend, any contested ground ball situation. 

I agree that leaves both heads in vulnerable positions, but that's exactly the point - it's only vulnerable if other players enter that contest in the wrong way, either with a hip, a shoulder, an elbow etc - which is why Hunter has been cited. If you're head down, trying to pick up the footy, you're protected. 

 

On 5/20/2023 at 9:18 PM, fr_ap said:

Pretty clearly elected to bump in my view..had plenty of time to put his head down and contest. Chose not to, lead with the hip and the player contesting the ball in the right way was collected high as a result. Protecting the player with his head over the footy is literally why these rules exist. Umpire immediately reported so must have thought similiar 

Pretty cut and dry imo, the outrage & bleating is not justified and only shows that most here do not take notice when players on other teams cop their whack for this 

These comments can not be more wrong and unfortunately stupid. Gee I hope you have nothing to do with coaching junior football.

27 minutes ago, monoccular said:

 

It is just not the (I am one eyed by the way) anti MFC bias that I see, but even in neutral games we see certain teams always get the doubtful decision go their way.  Be it conspiracy or just ineptitude it makes the game hard to watch.  And as mentioned the biased scheduling and travelling schedules are there for the benefit of the “special clubs”.  

It's all about money (with a slight mixture of 'old mates' added).  The teams that get special treatment are either big clubs with many supporters or the ones are part of AFL empire building plans.  Money distorts all elements of a sporting competition (e.g. fixture) but you'd think adjudication could be quarantined. Nah, what am I thinking.

Good to see we are challenging. With the exception of the JVR incident, where the MRO and Tribunal decided they would apply a duty of care outside of the rules, I don't have an issue with how the MRO have adjudicated over the past few years as there is a grey area re the players intent, whether they had a reasonable alternative etc. We also don't see which incidents were looked at and why the MRO determines they do not warrant a fine or suspension. Re Hunter's appeal I'd like to see the Tribunal withdraw the suspension on the basis that Hunter was contesting the ball and took reasonable action to avoid high contact and that the manner that Rozee contested the ball resulted in the high contact.

49 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

PARRKIN GOOD!

Lachie was the hittee (not the hitter) and still managed to win the ball. What could be wrong with that?

I'm surprised we've chosen to challenge at the Tribunal.

Not because I think it should be a suspension, but because I'm doubtful that we'll win. 

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Good to hear. I presume they will argue Hunter was moving towards the ball and then stopped and turned as Rozee lurched fwd to hit the ball away. Effectively he cannoned into Hunter. 

 

Plus the impact level was not medium as he went on to star in the game.

 

At least thats how I saw it.

Edited May 22, 20232 yr by jnrmac

7 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm surprised we've chosen to challenge at the Tribunal.

Not because I think it should be a suspension, but because I'm doubtful that we'll win. 

Exactly my thoughts

31 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm surprised we've chosen to challenge at the Tribunal.

Not because I think it should be a suspension, but because I'm doubtful that we'll win. 

I’d feel the same way if Brayshaw and Rankine hadn’t been let off in very similar circumstances.

The benefit of the doubt has gone to the player contesting on their feet in 2 of the 3 most recent circumstances. 

18 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Good to hear. I presume they will argue Hunter was moving towards the ball and then stopped and turned as Rozee lurched fwd to hit the ball away. Effectively he cannoned into Hunter. 

 

Plus the impact level was not medium as he went on to star in the game.

 

At least thats how I saw it.

If you freeze the clip at the beginning of the 3 sec. mark, you can clearly see Hunter trying to stop his momentum. All his weight and body positioning is trying to go away from Rozzie. At the same time there is about a metre between them and Rozzie is not looking at the ball but at Hunter.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Christian views and reports these incidents while watching the footage in real time and listening to the "expert" commentary.  Either that or he's just not that bright.

I assume we're trying to argue the contact classification down from medium to low as opposed to arguing that the incident should not have been a reportable offence in the first place.

The victim couldn't have been too impacted by the incident given he had 31 possession, kicked the winning goal and would've clearly gotten 3 Brownlow votes had Z Butters not played the game of his life.

 

 

Rozee the Posee

Got form, did it again during the same game.  Take it from an old bloke who got a few wacks

They make an art form out of the little pirouette, and flat out, after checking himself and listening for the words, don't worry, he's been reported and you have the ball......

Edited May 22, 20232 yr by Willmoy1947
spelling