3 hours deliberation

and still 3 for Higgins

imagine DL if it was Kozzi

This is a joke. There is no duty of care for one own safety…. Unless you are Gus Brayshaw then you are not allowed to take a step onto your supporting foot post kick when Maynard is attempting a smother from 4m away. 

1 minute ago, Gawndy the Great said:

This is a joke. There is no duty of care for one own safety…. Unless you are Gus Brayshaw then you are not allowed to take a step onto your supporting foot post kick when Maynard is attempting a smother from 4m away. 

Don’t get me started down this spiral of rage

I hate the AFL with every fiber of my being. It’s just lucky I love Melbourne more than I hate the AFL. 

I’d like to know Adrian Anderson’s success rate at the tribunal.

 

 

1 minute ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I’d like to know Adrian Anderson’s success rate at the tribunal.

 

 

The Higgins tackle is why I think the AFL will need to consider allowing throwing in our game. To ask players to let go of the tackle is unrealistic. And Aliir was not going to drop the ball and get a free against. Neither party was really at fault and the suspension will do nothing to help prevent the incident occurring again. 

Obviously not a good enough bloke & didn't have the right references.  

higgins should have just punched him in the guts

How can you suspend this kid? Saints defence should have just walked in and put this picture up on the whiteboard. "Defence rests, what a good character he is. Look at his cute ears and chocolatey face!"

Hamish Brayshaw’s open letter to the AFL spices things up

sets out the incompetence inconsistency in a passionate rebuke 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-02/hamish-brayshaw-writes-open-letter-to-afl/103794000?utm_source=abc_news_web&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_web

Edited May 2, 20241 yr by dino rover
Grammar

12 minutes ago, dino rover said:

Hamish Brayshaw’s open letter to the AFL spices things up

sets out the incompetence inconsistency in a passionate rebuke 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-02/hamish-brayshaw-writes-open-letter-to-afl/103794000?utm_source=abc_news_web&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_web

This paragraph especially

Protect the head at all costs, obviously unless a head knock is as a result of a football act, but then it depends on how hard you get hit in that football act and if the player had any other alternatives, but also the player needs to take into account the potential to cause harm, but of course it shouldn't depend on the outcome of the opponent, unless of course it does result in a concussion, but even then it depends on the intent, but of course a player is entitled to attack the ball with good technique, but it doesn't matter if the opposition runs in head first like how every kid playing the game growing up gets taught not to do, but then of course it depends on the state of the game and the time of the year, it depends on whether or not we need to make an example out of someone, but then don't forget if they have had a clean record in the past and do charity work, but then obviously that can only matter once and never again because from now on that doesn't count, and it depends on the player, and the team they're on, but really it all boils down to protecting the head because we're seeing more players retire from concussion than ever before, but we will still let a guy play next week after punching someone in the face in the goal square because it wasn't hard enough to hurt them.

From his letter to the AFL:  "The tribunal and match review panel are single-handedly destroying the game. You are making it impossible to play in good spirit, you're making it impossible to adjudicate and you're not far off making it impossible to support".

To  write that, I would think he has the blessing of his parents, Gus and probably mfc since the Brayshaw family is very close to the club.

It is about time someone in the industry called this out.  No way the servile AFL media has the courage to do that.  Go Hamish 👏 💪 👏 !!!

Edited May 2, 20241 yr by Lucifers Hero

A great letter and sums up what all of us feel.  Good to see a player having the guts to say it.

The only thing I disagree with is his remark about football acts and Maynard.  But then, neither he nor (anonymous) I want to be sued for libel for saying something difficult to prove in court.

Edited May 2, 20241 yr by sue

3 hours ago, sue said:

A great letter and sums up what all of us feel.  Good to see a player having the guts to say it.

The only thing I disagree with is his remark about football acts and Maynard.  But then, neither he nor (anonymous) I want to be sued for libel for saying something difficult to prove in court.

Don't sue sue.

Hamish's article was published on the ABC website around midday.  The WA radio interview was this morning.

As yet bit a word on either mainstream on-line media sites:  AFL nor Fox.

Fully expecting the Broom and Carpet treatment.  Or at best lip service and some weasle word statement from the AFL.

10 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Hamish's article was published on the ABC website around midday.  The WA radio interview was this morning.

As yet bit a word on either mainstream on-line media sites:  AFL nor Fox.

Fully expecting the Broom and Carpet treatment.  Or at best lip service and some weasle word statement from the AFL.

It's got a run on The Age though: AFL 2024: Hamish Brayshaw launches impassioned attack on AFL judiciary (theage.com.au)

25 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Hamish's article was published on the ABC website around midday.  The WA radio interview was this morning.

As yet bit a word on either mainstream on-line media sites:  AFL nor Fox.

Fully expecting the Broom and Carpet treatment.  Or at best lip service and some weasle word statement from the AFL.

It's also on the Age online site 

2 hours ago, Demon_spurs said:

It's also on the Age online site 

9 not 7

2 hours ago, Demon_spurs said:

It's also on the Age online site 

Video of him reading it on ch 7 news

Is a ruckman kneeing a 7 foot opponent in the back of the head in a ruck contest  "high contact"?   No surprise that the umpire didn't award a free on the night, but is this reportable?

3 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Is a ruckman kneeing a 7 foot opponent in the back of the head in a ruck contest  "high contact"?   No surprise that the umpire didn't award a free on the night, but is this reportable?

no, it's not - because stanley won the tap

it's unfortunate that gawn got the knee to the back of the noggin, but the simple fact of the matter is as stanley won the tap it was play on and if he'd missed the ball it'd be a free to gawn

it's crazy how difficult the game of footy is to umpire

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Is a ruckman kneeing a 7 foot opponent in the back of the head in a ruck contest  "high contact"?   No surprise that the umpire didn't award a free on the night, but is this reportable?

I’m sure there was a free paid a few weeks ago in Sydney in a ruck contest for a similar incident. The ump said rough conduct.

5 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Is a ruckman kneeing a 7 foot opponent in the back of the head in a ruck contest  "high contact"?   No surprise that the umpire didn't award a free on the night, but is this reportable?

Should be!  I'd argue a knee to the head is more dangerous than a bump.

Should also apply in marking contests.

A knee to the wrong part of the head or neck could be catastrophic.