sue

I'd tend to agree to start with a (large) fine if there is any significant evidence of provocation. In Clarry's case I don't believe there was any provocation (other than the offender's hurt pride in knowing that Clarry is a better player). I doubt there'd be too much difficulty arguing about how long things carry over compared to just getting up a repeat offence schedule in the first place.

My apologies for not having read earlier posts. IMO arguing by analogy often leads to irrelevant arguments as to how closely the 2 cases are related, rather than discussing the original point. Best not to carry on with the analogy. You'd be far less likely to be suspended/sacked from many everyday jobs for a bit of wrestling than for a punch (though yes, in some you'd be sacked for either). Then there is the 'equivalent to AFL infringements' in the analogy with the everyday workplace - stealing staples compared to stealing a stapler? Curses, they've got me doing it now.

You're the one who raised the comparison with an everyday work place, so either I'm glad you now think it is silly or you have confused me completely. I'm surprised you can't see the difference between a 'love tap' and wrestling. But yes, if the wrestling is over the top (eg causes significant pain), it should be penalised too. But if it is not over the top, it would be worthy of a fine, not suspension IMO. Repeated minor acts and fines should lead to a suspension if there is a further infraction. Just as too many suspensions for 'love taps' might be grounds for the sack.

That is a silly comparison. OK, you are saying a workplace which allows some sorts of physical contact as part of the employment (playing the game according to its rules) should do little to discourage physical contact which has nothing to do with the game. Bus a fine (of the size the AFL employs) means nothing to these players. I'd agree, a fine would be OK if the fine was say 10% of the players annual contract and there were measures taken to prevent others paying the fine for them. But since the latter is impossible in practice, a suspension is the only way to send the message to players to stop giving the AFL a bad image and influencing kids to think gratuitous violence is OK. (if anyone thinks it is a good image, then take up supporting boxing.) Current precedents create a problem, but the AFL has to grasp the nettle and make it a rule that a 'love tap' means 1 week off or more depending on severity (and penalties for blatant staging). And if you do it too severely and too often, then yes, you are sacked from the AFL.

The AFL and the sycophantic media will say nothing in it, just a love tap, victim over-reacted etc etc. One day they might realise it is not the best look for the sport or a good role model for young kids. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Facepalm means 'how could anyone say something so stupid' Eye roll is gentler, like 'there they go again saying something embarassing or silly'.

Wouldn't it make more sense to give him another week in VFL (assuming there is a game in the ****ty draw) and bring him in against Carlton if he is ready.

True. If a player assaults someone on the field in an action which has nothing to do with the game, why can't they be arested by the cops? Same goes if they assaulted a non-player. Talk about setting an example to kids.

Ha - no myth. The first time I played in a serious basketball team I crashed the pack and was sent off. Never played again.

I haven't looked closely at the Greene incident, but I disagree with the must 'watch the ball' line. That was conceived I think to penalise a player lining up another player never having any intention to get the ball, only to clobber the opponent. But it is possible to initially go for the ball, realise that you won't get there, check where the oppo is and then take some measure to protect yourself and the oppponent. It's that last bit that need to be focussed on.

The AFL will weigh up the pros and cons of these 5 day breaks (3 games in 11 days!!). The AFL will balance the public's loss of interest in one-sided matches and the commercial loss that that causes against whatever commerical advantage the short breaks bring (Thurs night/Gather/whatever). And then make a decision whether to continue it. What they won't do is consider making a fair competition.

Could he do this to prove to the world that he is not biased in favour of his old club and is therefore the perfect commentator. No, can't be that stupid.

Looks like it is self-perpetuating. If they let you off in the past, then that is an argument for letting you off in future. It's blindingly obvious that the MRO is corrupt. But what can you expect when we have an entertainment corporate business rather than a sporting body.

There's no hope with the AFL and intent. For years we had deliberate out of bounds (ie intent) which although difficult to know a players real intent, was usually interpreted by the umpires reasonably, taking into account pressue and the possibility of skills errors. But now we have insufficient intent frees given when a player under pressure in a pack kicks it off the side of their boot and it goes out 50m away after bouncing at right angles.