“If we’re clearing that as a football action, we’re going down the wrong path.”

Paul Roos and Ben Cameron were shocked the Henry Smith/Nick Blakey 'inappropriate contact' incident was cleared.

31 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Apparently Blakey was not offended and didn’t lodge any incident.

His plea to the umpire for a free kick for holding the ball went unrewarded.

(* awaits reaction while munching popcorn finger food)

3 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Not required as they already have a digital image of the digital offence.

He is clearly just trying to help him up

Smith not sanctioned for his Hopoate impersonation.... bizarre

So touching the genital/[censored] area of an opponent is not frowned upon by the AFL

That should increase child participation at grassroots

unbelievable

1 hour ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Apparently Blakey was not offended and didn’t lodge any incident. Ummmm. That raises more questions than answers.

Luckily that wasn't the point

3 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Not required as they already have a digital image of the digital offence.

My sources tell me he is changing his name to Henry Sniff....

What a cop out on the Shiels case

One match suspension for pushing O'Connor into a situation where injury might have been done to O'Connor.

Nothing for endangering Lual !!!!!

44 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

What a cop out on the Shiels case

One match suspension for pushing O'Connor into a situation where injury might have been done to O'Connor.

Nothing for endangering Lual !!!!!

The whole case was dumb and the media rubbish.

If they went back to paying in the back none of this rubbish would happen. Shiel deserves a big penalty or the act but in the end that's not the point here.

It really p...me off.

Just go back to the rules, our forefathers developed them for a reason and this is one of them.

Zero chance that Nick Daicos would be suspended if he did what Shiel did. Zero. Yet again, the AFL proving that they’re a joke.

Somewhat conflicted by the AFLs latest ruling on Rankine.

On the one hand, I totally support the AFL for taking a stand on unacceptable standards of behaviour with respect to discrimination and vilification.

On the other hand, it twists the knife in again that Rankine gets suspended for a finals campaign, yet Maynard got let off and allowed to play in a premiership after carelessly ending Gus's career.

Don't think I'll ever forgive Maynard, the AFL, Eddy or Collingwood supporters for what happed before our eyes at the MCG that night and then in the aftermath.

5 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Somewhat conflicted by the AFLs latest ruling on Rankine.

On the one hand, I totally support the AFL for taking a stand on unacceptable standards of behaviour with respect to discrimination and vilification.

On the other hand, it twists the knife in again that Rankine gets suspended for a finals campaign, yet Maynard got let off and allowed to play in a premiership after carelessly ending Gus's career.

Don't think I'll ever forgive Maynard, the AFL, Eddy or Collingwood supporters for what happed before our eyes at the MCG that night and then in the aftermath.

Agreed. And if it was a Collingwood player in the same boat as Rankine, there'd be no way in hell the penalty would be greater than two weeks. Christian would hire audiologists for the defense himself.

6 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Somewhat conflicted by the AFLs latest ruling on Rankine.

On the one hand, I totally support the AFL for taking a stand on unacceptable standards of behaviour with respect to discrimination and vilification.

On the other hand, it twists the knife in again that Rankine gets suspended for a finals campaign, yet Maynard got let off and allowed to play in a premiership after carelessly ending Gus's career.

Don't think I'll ever forgive Maynard, the AFL, Eddy or Collingwood supporters for what happed before our eyes at the MCG that night and then in the aftermath.

This

5 weeks for a yucky verbal

0 for ending a career

[censored] the awful afl

7 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Somewhat conflicted by the AFLs latest ruling on Rankine.

On the one hand, I totally support the AFL for taking a stand on unacceptable standards of behaviour with respect to discrimination and vilification.

On the other hand, it twists the knife in again that Rankine gets suspended for a finals campaign, yet Maynard got let off and allowed to play in a premiership after carelessly ending Gus's career.

Don't think I'll ever forgive Maynard, the AFL, Eddy or Collingwood supporters for what happed before our eyes at the MCG that night and then in the aftermath.

All Clubs supporters should never forgive that act or the ensued consequences. It is always a blot on our game.

29 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

This

5 weeks for a yucky verbal

0 for ending a career

[censored] the awful afl

Snoop Dog's offending lyrics are still drawing revenue from Spotify. Perhaps he can re-direct these earnings to a worthy cause for the duration of the finals series.

14 minutes ago, bush demon said:

Snoop Dog's offending lyrics are still drawing revenue from Spotify. Perhaps he can re-direct these earnings to a worthy cause for the duration of the finals series.

This article highlights the AFL's hypocrisy on hiring Snoop while clamping down on Rankine

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/rankine-snoop-and-the-afl-s-hypocrisy-on-homophobia-20250818-p5mnu0.html

2 minutes ago, sue said:

This article highlights the AFL's hypocrisy on hiring Snoop while clamping down on Rankine

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/rankine-snoop-and-the-afl-s-hypocrisy-on-homophobia-20250818-p5mnu0.html

Well clearly the AFL is against homophobia on the field, but not in society.

My question is how was the offending comment picked up.

There isnt much difference between an expression [censored] and blurting out fuggit .

The first term is certainly reprehensible and totally offensive the latter is now a common expression.

Was the report the result of overhearing by Collingwood players or an enhanced audio pick up?

I have expressed many times it is context and intent that are important, when growing up (while a child) the terms bastard and bugger were considered the highest insult. We were punished for using those words more severely than any other expletive.

We have now seen Bugger ia an advertising slogan and the term bastard can be a term of endearment.

It was only as I matured and discovered we had one of both in our family that the sensitivity to the terms became more relevant

1 minute ago, dpositive said:

My question is how was the offending comment picked up.

...

Ditto for me. I haven't followed this closely so it may be common knowledge, so anyone who knows please post.

I wouldn't normally suggest that anyone verbals anyone, but for a certain player I'll put aside my morals and hope that on Friday night someone verbals Maynard. Be fun to watch the AFL react to that.

Edited August 20Aug 20 by sue

36 minutes ago, dpositive said:

My question is how was the offending comment picked up.

Not 100% sure, but I did find this in a Code Sport article:

The Crows were to present their case to the league as part of their response to the incident.

It is understood the Crows informed the AFL’s integrity department after becoming aware of the incident where Rankine called a Collingwood player a f----t on Saturday night.

Players from both sides were aware of the comment by Sunday, with the Pies not involved in escalating the complaint.

47 minutes ago, dpositive said:

My question is how was the offending comment picked up.

40 minutes ago, sue said:

Ditto for me. I haven't followed this closely so it may be common knowledge, so anyone who knows please post.

Collingwood raised it with Adelaide the day after the game. Adelaide reported it to AFL Integrity unit.

The cynic in me wonders whether a club with a history of anti-social behaviours acted in their own interests to reduce Adelaide's chances of a flag and of beating Coll again in the finals.

I in no way condone Rankine's comments.

Just read the AFL is still considering the penalty and Adelaide will have time to mount an appeal.

I assume an appeal will be to the AFL Tribunal.

If so, there is no hope of a reduced penalty if Gleeson is Chair when keeping any penalty will help Coll final/flag chances.

I wouldn't be surprised if Adelaide were to test a penalty in a court of law. AFL would hate that. It could be why there is a delay in announcing a penalty.

Edited August 20Aug 20 by Lucifers Hero

26 minutes ago, 710 Asbury St said:

Not 100% sure, but I did find this in a Code Sport article:

The Crows were to present their case to the league as part of their response to the incident.

It is understood the Crows informed the AFL’s integrity department after becoming aware of the incident where Rankine called a Collingwood player a f----t on Saturday night.

Players from both sides were aware of the comment by Sunday, with the Pies not involved in escalating the complaint.

Last paragraph would be purely supposition on your part, because Adelaide would know that Collingwood would do anything for leverage.

Just read that Houston told Rankine that he would need the stretcher again (a reference to Houston knocking Rankine unconscious last year).

In no way does that excuse what Rankine said, but what an abhorrent thing to say.

If Houston did jndeed make that comment. I would suggest that any response from Rankine using the word [censored] would relate to being bound and stacked on the stretcher. Ie Youll need the stretcheragain, Response Hope not i felt i was trussed up and treated like a [censored] of wood last time. This comment was caught by his teamates but the Collingwood players were fixated on only a brief exchange and could not comprehend the total sentance.