daisycutter

aw shucks, you got me all choked up, choke

i wouldn't be too fussed if they got a pp, after all essendrugs will be gifted a #1 pick and first pick in every round and rookie draft but.....a pp doesn't have to be the #1 pick. it could be anywhere, so the afl (if inclined) have a lot of options i think the afl though will come up with some other type of help rather than a pp

give'em steak knives and tell them they are lucky to get anything after their player treatment

yes, but remember he is still just 19. he has plenty of time to perfect his tackling skills. he already doesn't lack in aggression when he needs to, so i wouldn't at all be worried about his current level of tackling ability. his development to date has been impressive and shows no signs of tailing off. he's a gem.

the club has decided to fast track oscar's development by getting games into him because we have a desperate need for tall key position players, and, they obviously see potential in him in a perfect situation he'd probably have spent another year developing at casey so of course you'd expect basic errors/deficiencies in someone so young playing in a key position, but already you can see the strategy starting to pay dividends. a good preseason and plenty of weights and we can hopefully see the fruits of accelerated development in 2017

https://youtu.be/X269B9gLwz0?t=4

and i still say you can't charge a player with a front on bump (aka shirtfront) ignoring the ball, whether you make head contact or not. it's at least a free kick and potentially a chargeable offence incidentally here is the actual mrp statement (not some media interpretation)

how can a front on charge (going past the ball) be judged perfect? it's not 1980

think we can all agree the umpiring was particularly bad and hawforn got the better of the decisions/non-decisions i hope those umps get a real roasting by umpire review panel (but i'm not counting on it)

well your clip definitely looks head high. you can see his head snap back in the last part of replay so you see in this clip not high and i see head high anyway, whether head high or not it is still rough play by the current rules (post byron that is) re freeze frames from previous posters:...................................................the other freeze frame shot with bent legs is shown after the hit and is only what you would expect as he is going down, plus not being a side on shot is misleading. If one is going to show freeze frames then you need to show the whole sequence of freeze frames and preferably from all angles

well the mrp said it was illegal (rough play) but i suppose you could argue the mrp is not a good source of consistent rule interpretation - lol nevertheless i agree that it was an illegal charge but because he hit him in the head forcibly should have got 1 week if they are serious about concussion and head injuries

it is quite different isn't it and both from the afl on your link check out "15.4.4 Charge or Charging" on page 48 as part of " 15.4 FREE KICK – PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED PHYSICAL CONTACT"

rules of shepherding (which is what bumps come under as they are not a tackle) I gave the web site link i.e. http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-game-rules/ p.s. think we can thank an ex-demon (and port) player for the shirt front becoming illegal p.p.s. even the nrl has banned the shirtfront only they call it a charge

http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-game-rules/ no mention of a shirtfront needing to hit the head, nut

i think so yes, but the issue is still how long it would take the grievance tribunal to meet and make a decision, especially with essendrug's army of lawyers potentially using their bag of dirty tricks and delaying tactics. i'd be fairly confident that an essendon player would be successful at the gt given what has been said previously, but it still has to get to that stage and even then possibly further court action which could add enough delays to miss the trade period entirely. we don't want another mccarthy situation

because it is illegal to bump the front of the body. read the rules

it's not just lifting the arm. a shirt front is illegal and at a minimum a free kick every time. also you only have to watch the replay to see it was intentional as against incidental

trouble is gus's kick was just too accurate. the receiver couldn't move because the kick was exactly to the spot he was standing, so had to take it flat footed and exposed and that was the problem. he should have kicked it short so the player had to come to the ball and it would have been ok

riolo $1000 fine for rough play (as i predicted) mitchell got off as deemed open hand in pushing motion - yeah right sicily got 1 week for hit on bernie mrp just love hawthorn. incidentally no free kicks given in all 3 incidents

make that one good quarter

it wasn't fair. Shirtfronts are now illegal. full stop. It was a free kick to clarrie at least. Under the convoluted tribunal laws he may just get a fine, but only because clarrie is one tough nut. Still, the afl will not remove this type of dangerous tackle if they continually let players off at the tribunal just because the receiver was lucky and didn't get sufficiently injured

of course they can, and if unsuccessful (highly unlikely) at the grievance tribunal they could always go to a real court essendrug and the afl would certainly prefer that no-one goes to the gt (for obvious reasons of bad publicity) and no doubt try all tactics, but, if it got to the gt the afl would not interfere so, if hibbert makes the decision to leave, and, nominates mfc as his choice........and dodoro plays hardball and won't back down to reasonable deals (read favourable to us), then it could quite easily end up at the gt, but i think essendrug would backdown at the last minute. the only way i can see it going to the gt early in the piece (before trade week) is if essendrug seriously [censored] off hibberd (and/or hurley?) at this time big question is if we start trade week without going to gt (i.e. no dfa) and then essendrug play dirty, just how long would it take to ask for a gt and get it resolved. I doubt it could be done in a day, so the brinksmanship during trade week could get really ramped up the sensible thing would be for essendrug and mfc to come to an agreement before trade week, but this is probably illegal under afl trade rules quite an interesting situation really and i hope mfc plays hard and stands their ground

watching the replay, when he got the ball back for the second time (just before the dribble) he clearly didn't want it back, didn't ask for it and looked spent

can we give the gnf bashing a rest. it's now getting so repetitive it's as boring as batshyte. some pretty thinskins and fat egos getting in the way. it's a forum ffs

billy stretch is the unlucky one. only 19 but ineligible because he played too many games last year