Redleg

Precisely.

68% disposal says it all. Needed to put LJ off his game and we haven’t

The problem is they are never seen again. Maybe it’s just the Piranhas in the moat, who knows?

You could be right and he will be a long way off a 6 year contract, at $800k plus per year.

He did look in a lot of pain and I thought he said to the phsysio/doctor who was walking with him, he was no good. He could miss next week and it looks like Hewitt, Newman, Kennedy and Hollands could all miss.

He is also dropping a lot of marks. It’s probably just a form slump, but it does highlight the dangers of long contracts at big money, if you get them wrong, it can stuff up your list.

I think Dan has just smashed the glass.

We have a chance to possibly put all our eggs in one basket and get a seriously good player, OR, have a strong draft hand, to get some very good young players in and maybe solve a few of our problems. I am in favour of the latter.

Cats playing an Irish kid off 3 VFL games. He must be very good.

While most would agree we haven’t played our best football lately and our lineup is not settled, especially forward, if the umpire had not paid that 7 metre pass to Lord, or Grundy had punched the ball through the points, in the first few minutes, or any one of 4-5 frees which ended in goals had not been paid, we would be second on the ladder, with the best percentage in the AFL. We can still trust this team.

No

There you have it. I have a real level of disquiet about the Tribunal Chairman and to a slightly lesser degree the MRO. With the MRO there is little transparent explanation, as to why some incidents and not similar or worse outcome others are treated so differently. With the Tribunal Chairman, the former AFL prosecutor at the Tribunal, he seems determined from my viewing, to confirm penalties rather than truly evaluate the incident. He tries to bring in the Law, to cover deficiencies in fact. Tribunal hearings imo, should be about the common sense issues of what happened and were they intentional acts or accidental, could or should they have been avoided and an overarching principle of how we want the game played. The Chairman has decided cases, by suggesting alternative actions, that are totally unreasonable in a contact sport and in some cases just plainly impossible to perform in a contact sport or pressure situation. Some of his decisions imo are just plainly laughable. He has confused the reasonable man in the Law definition, with a footballer in a pressure situation, where there is no sensible comparison. I think we would be better served with someone else as our Tribunal Chairman, with a background in the game and yes possibly a Law degree, but not used to stifle the actual way the game is played, so as to make it nearly impossible for the players to play and the fans to watch.

Apologies everyone, should have said 6 penalties in last 3 rounds. I forgot the Hunter fine for leaving the bench and standing near the boundary line, when a Hawks player ran past.

Clearly not Messrs Christian and Gleeson.

You can question head office, as long as it isn’t done publicly.

My daughter has been waiting over 4 weeks to get log in details so she can use her membership. Today she was given an excuse as to why it will take even longer. What a joke, after paying $600 to be a member and then charged $10 for every seat which she is forced to buy and they can’t even send her details to her. Couldn’t run a chook raffle this mob.

Then let’s say he deserved a week. I could live with that. How do we then explain worse incidents and even injuries being caused, being let off?

It is hard not to be paranoid and have a victim mentality when there is such blatant unexplained inconsistency in MRO decisions. We have had 5 penalties in last 3 rounds. Any other club near that? I hope we are taking this up with head office.

Sorry, didn’t see you posted same thing. Great minds.

And who issues their media passes/id’s?

The rules say the Tribunal can view other incidents and if those incidents are not similar, the panel can be advised to ignore them. I don’t know the full facts, but on what was disclosed, we asked for similar incidents to be viewed and Gleeson refused, apparently out of hand, quoting rule 5.5. I have disclosed that rule above and it appears he has misquoted or wrongfully interpreted that rule. Why am I not surprised? To see those videos in the Tribunal, would have put out in the media and the public, the inconsistency of the MRO and the Tribunal. It would also have made it extremely difficult to uphold the suspension of Hunter. If Gleeson has nothing to hide, why would he not allow vision of similar incidents and simply explain why they are treated differently? To me this smacks of a dictatorship type of behaviour, where you don’t want the public seeing, or knowing what is going on. Suspensions affect the competition and this to me is another blow, to what is left of the disappearing integrity of the AFL competition.

Don’t stop posting. Forums are for different views and hopefully in future your views will be treated respectfully by all.

Thanks WJ. I have the legal explanation as to why the above is not illegal. It’s because Duncan is from a powerful club and Hunter is from the MFC.

The MFC is getting more action than I ever had.

You and me both. if I didn’t love the MFC I mean Narm FC I could just about walk away from footy.