Chris

Depth player's don't get games at any club, that is why they are depth, they are there to cover injuries. We have had lots of injuries, which have been to our best. No depth player anywhere will replace the best, that is why they are depth. Unfair to include Weed, he is a young developing player, they take time. If he still isn't getting games in 2 years then fair enough.

If they are like Mitch Hannah then they aren't depth, they are best 22.

Tried, just very tired. That is about all that needs to be said. Oh, and injured, very injured.

Etihad is probably narrower that the G due to the preexisting infrastructure around (the road and train), although both of those could have been worked around.

Geography would play a big part. Given the age of many of the grounds it would have been determined by how much flat ground there was (or near enough to flat to be easily shaped).

Higgins round house hit him in the throat! That would put most people on their backside.

Nicholls was the ump and I am not sure he has given us a free since!

People are correct, it is impossible to defend the implausible, that is unless you are dealing with the AFL, they after all are masters of creating implausible rulings to solve non issues.

Exactly. People are looking at the fall not the elbow. That is why Schofield is the angle in this. If you actually look at the hit it was there, it smacked his jaw shut and shock his head. It wasn't big but it was there. The AFL would clearly prefer to tell people elbowing is fine, as long as it isn't too hard!

How about this for a conspiracy theory. The AFL got Houli the small penalty in full knowledge they would appeal, while at the same time making people say that you cant give Schofield the same penalty as Houli. This does a few things. 1 - Eventually gets Houli the penalty he deserves 2 - Gets Schofield off, which was determined the right call by the old players media boys club 3 - Puts Houli on teh front page instead of Clarrie and Clarrie gets forgotten about (along with the bloke who elbowed him int he head behind play). Win win win!

Agreed. Kennedy is the toughest defender, Kent is the most offensive and best kick, and JK hasn't been playing the role and looked out of place a few weeks back in the AFL. I think Kent might get the call up with a clear message of prove yourself defensively or don't expect another contract.

They did that in the mid 90's and won a flag from it!

I got the Hall one wrong, that was Jones, who was on the EFC panel with Henwood.

They are appealing the Houli case, but not the Schofield case. Elbows up boys!

From The Age "As Woods pointed out to the tribunal, the AFL tribunal guidelines state that "intentional strikes with a raised forearm or elbow will usually not be classified as low impact even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of the risk of serious injury involved." Interesting snippet. The the Tribunal not actually refer to the tribunal guidelines last night?

All of that may well be true but is completely irrelevant. What is the only relevant part is that Schofield intentionally elbowed a player in the head behind play and received no punishment. Elbows up boys!

Itbwasnt negligent as it was behind play. Anything behind play is automatically intentional, not to mention that he intended to do it.

Any chance you could read me story? Just pick one that isn't too complicated for you.

Me. It is a post of mine that you quoted!

"Any deliberate contact with an elbow should be a suspension, no matter how light". Really not sure how that can be said any clearer but hey if that is too inarticulate for you then I really must be crazy! I must apologise for the typos though, my phone has a mind of its own where it changes correctly spelled words to completely different ones!

So comprehension isn't your strong point. What I said is you het elbow people but you have to hope it isn't too hard (as in you do damage or hit hard enough to be suspended) and you said he didn't hit hard enough to be suspended but if he hit harder he would have been. See the similarity? The only difference is I say any use of an elbow should be instant 1 week, no matter how light. The harder you hit the more weeks you get. Actually the same as your stance except I start at 1 week and you start at none. As it stands now it is none, so elbows up but don't go too hard.

Beginning to wonder with Heywood. Sat on th panel that let off Hall for the GF, the EFC drug cheats, and now this decision. Not just a reduction to fine but a 'nope nothing to see here'.

You say exactly what I did. Elbow to your hearts content and hope it isn't to hard. That is what they have said and what you agree with. As for the DMV people being up in arms, that is probably because we are looking at what he Did, not how Carrie reacted. When I was playing a few things were not acceptable now matter how light. These included elbowing, kicking, biting, spitting and so on. That has now changed.

There was enough to slam his jaw shut and shake his head (watch the close up replay). That would hurt the joint between your jaw and skull, it doesn't take much to do that.

Not with an elbow. If you throw an elbow at a player and connect you should be gone. The force of the contact determines the length of suspension. What they have said tonight is elbow everyone and hope you don't hit too hard! It is a joke up there with the AFL drugs case findings.