daisycutter

or a virgin in Frankston

exactly....it all started when they brought in the 50 metre penalties and applied it to even minor infractions just another case of AFL bully over-reacting. I'm more pizzed off than after the WC game

* A R C K ........ I think the sky just fell in

Lets be proactive about this and not just a follower Lets be the first club to develop the NO-FORCE-TACKLE

Get Fev to "water" down the walls of AFL sHouse ?

Its obvious that you can now no longer tackle with force All tackles must now have a TFF (Tackle Force Factor) of 72% or less The MRP will be the final arbiter in determining the TFF of any tackle Consequently coaches are expected to now instruct their players not to tackle but to try and knock the ball out of the players hands.

he presumably represents the mrp's decision

Who the [censored] is this Andrew Tinney?? Who'd he play for? Where did he get his footy experience?

Well its official now - Trengove IS A THUG They don't hand out THREE week suspensions to just-naughty players do they? effin joke!

looks like they each kicked one goal, but beyond that no idea

no-one is arguing that dangerfield didn't get hurt. players hit their head on the turf all the time and not just from tackles and in a minority of cases get concussed. its not so much hitting your head on the turf but the exact spot on your head and angle of contact. anyway, whats the bet he fronts up for the Cows next week. if so, does that still constitute high impact?

basically in the clouds (top tier)

bit hard to say who should come in until we see a Scorps report of Sundays game

No joke, he has one arm free. He didn't have both arms pinned. Having one arm free has got to give a better chance of breaking fall than none. It was such a fast tackle that he either didn't have time or was too focussed on trying to get a boot to the ball and using that arm for balance. Its quite feasible that a perfectly legal, very fast tackle, where tacklee has both arms free could still strike head on turf, so the fact that a player hits head on turf because of a tackle does not mean the tackle was illegal It was a very well executed fast tackle and granted it was brutal, but this does not in itself make it illegal. Any time a tackle takes a player to the ground there is a possibility of the head hitting the turf. Are we to ban tackles that take player to the ground? I emphasised the fact that ti was a fast tackle, because it was one single action. It wasn't a case of tie up player, pause, then drive him into the turf.

Also notice he repeats the same tackle on another crow about 3 secs later. Gotta like his 2nd efforts.

Here it is on utube note Dangerfield has one free arm to break fall (which he is unsuccessful with) Also note dumb commentator comment that he had no way of protecting himself

somehow I don't think that would have stopped Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn etc

Reading the Hun this morning I was surprised there was zero commentary on any outrage, surprise or criticism of this decision. Surely someone from the club should have been beating it up with the press This would not happen at Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Hawthorn etc Why are we so [censored] timid in these issues?

yes I understand he was elevated because we are one short on veterans list ...but why did they elevate him at start of season rather than when required? Is it because the rules state that veteran-short elevations must be nominated at start of season? If so this seems a silly rule.

lets hope they get the best medical support you can buy....we don't want another egan situation

well...er...yes...if you insist

gooood call

thats what I thought, so why was Newton elevated, or is that just a different set of rules?

We need to get Darryl Kerrigan's lawyer Dennis Denuto pronto! He'll show them the vibe and prove to them they were dreaming

You'll find that those posters with between 1000 and 2000 posts are generally the more informed and articulate posters B)