Pearce getting 3 and Maynard getting 0 is nothing short of a disgrace.

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The MRO/Tribunal system is just one of many problems facing the AFL and I'm not sure there's sufficient talent at AFL House to fix all the problems. So, this is where Demonland can help. We could develop a better system and hand it over to the AFL. To get the ball rolling, I'd suggest that the system identify the difference between a football act and a non-football act. The Alex Pearce, Paul Curtis actions should be dealt with as football acts. The Liam Baker one (where he pushed his elbow into the neck of his opponent who is already lying prone on the ground) is a non-football act. Non-football acts should have much stiffer penalties than football acts.

I don't think it's talent, LDVC. I'm afraid it's that there is no system in place to hold the AFL to account for anything. So whatever it is that causes them to decide and do as they do remains unchecked.

AFL protecting their asset.

If Gold Coast is the nepo baby, Sydney is the moron nephew. The one who keeps getting jobs in the family business empire no matter how many times they stuff it up.

2 hours ago, Tim said:

Moore was concussed, iirc.

It was the fact that Moore’s injury was partially self inflicted, due to his dropping to his knees unexpectedly, a second before Kozzie bumped him.

That action could not have been foreseen or reacted to in time, yet that was ignored by the Pies Premiership payer MRO and the mad Pies fan Tribunal chairman in their findings.

12 minutes ago, Redleg said:

It was the fact that Moore’s injury was partially self inflicted, due to his dropping to his knees unexpectedly, a second before Kozzie bumped him.

That action could not have been foreseen or reacted to in time, yet that was ignored by the Pies Premiership payer MRO and the mad Pies fan Tribunal chairman in their findings.

100000000000%

(I think that's, mathematically, the most correct anyone can be/agree with one another).

3 hours ago, biggestred said:

And what happens if, like Viney, he gets delayed onset concussion? It stays as 1 for low impact? joke.

Or a stuffed shoulder like what has been mentioned in the I jury thread and has potential to have him out a lot longer than the concussion

And let's be clear about what are and are not football acts. I.e. If you never or very rarely see anyone else doing that act on a football field you can safely assume that most players have deemed that act to be dangerous, reckless, likely to result in injury - and so, not a football act.

Just as a random example, if a player is running towards you, looking down in the action of kicking the footy, there's an expectation that an opposing player isn't going to leap into the air at velocity in a fashion that is likely to result in them landing on you above the shoulders. Just as an example...

The problem with dealing with football in the context of the law, is that playing football is inherently dangerous.

You can jump for a mark, land badly and do your ACL. You can get tackled legally and break your arm.

We will never be able to eliminate injuries in AFL, including head injuries. It's like saying we want to eliminate all road accident injuries. It's never going to happen, because driving is inherently dangerous.

That's why we punish dangerous driving, people who drink and drive etc, because we can't punish every accidental car smash, but certainly we can punish callous actions that increase the risk of deadly accidents. It's why you can insure yourself in case of a car accident, but that insurance is void if you caused the accident due to being drunk, driving without a license etc etc.

The AFL is much the same. There are actions that we absolutely want to eliminate from the game, which do not contribute positively to the play, and which increase the likelihood of injury. So something like leaving the ground, turning your body, turning your opponent 360 and slamming them into the ground, tunnelling, tripping etc. These are mostly easily identifiable actions which can be punished, and therefore the risk of injury is reduced.
It's why we introduced frees for taking the legs out, even when sometimes it's unavoidable, because it can lead to terrible injuries.

Now of course there will always be grey areas, and incidents that don't fall within those parameters, but you're not achieving anything by punishing a legal tackle which in 99% of cases doesn't lead to injury, in a worse way that punishing someone jumping into an opponent with no hope of getting the ball. Because players will continue to chase down opponents and lay tackles, but players can absolutely learn to stop leaving the ground to try and hit an opponent when they know they've lost the contest. In much the same way as players have learnt to stop tunnelling in marking contests.

You need to punish the avoidable actions, regardless of outcome, rather than the unavoidable actions that result in the occasional injury - so for example, Maynard on Gus totally avoidable, but Moore on Trac probably not so, because he had every right to contest the marking contest and we see players push their knees into an opponent to gain momentum 20 times a game and nobody gets hurt.

Hope Pearce gets off.

4 hours ago, Redbeard said:

Or a stuffed shoulder like what has been mentioned in the I jury thread and has potential to have him out a lot longer than the concussion

You'd much rather have a broken bone than a concussion tbh.

What about the bump to the head Langford copped in the last quarter? Not even a free kick! Hopefully no delayed concussion symptoms for the Bison.

18 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What about the bump to the head Langford copped in the last quarter? Not even a free kick! Hopefully no delayed concussion symptoms for the Bison.

That wasn’t to the head. It was to the side. Seemed totally fair to me.

On 26/05/2025 at 18:15, Oxdee said:

Has his suspension been announced yet? Should get 3 weeks

Exactly.

One week but.

Surprised?

These constant inconstancies not only promote justified cynicism, they must confuse and frustrate coaches and players. Especially those on the receiving end. Possibly turning a few off the game.

They annoy the heck out of me.

18 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

That wasn’t to the head. It was to the side. Seemed totally fair to me.

Seemed like it got him high on the tv but haven't seen another angle

They need a double jeopardy escape clause especially in the case of delayed concussion.

They also need to start considering the victim and what actions they took to exacerbate the outcome. They need to start ruling that running back with the flight, dropping your head to evade a tackle, or sliding / going to ground as well as other riskier actions, need to be factored into equation.

If you are going for the mark and someone comes off the line or runs back with the ball and they put themselves at risk, they need to take some responsibility for what might come there way.