Dr. Gonzo

Pfft he's clearly never played the game 🙄

The next time a player takes out another player in a GF the AFL will introduce the send off rule. They're just lucky it hasn't happened for quite some time (2004 the last one?) Instead of getting on the front foot though, they will wait til it happens before reacting.

We shouldn't have to call it out, everyone can see what he does and it's not just against us. How the AFL/umpires let him get away with it, that's the real issue.

Get some of Wayne Carey's crushed up anti-inflammatories into you, I hear they work wonders 😉

Maybe, but once you remove MCC/AFL members there are, what 55k tickets left for sale to members? 50/50 split means 27.5k MFC members, surely we would fill that allocation? If we don't, fine release them to CFC members the next day but at least give us the opportunity to purchase them before the 4 hour window expires. If there are 30k MFC members and 90k CFC members after tickets doesn't give them a right to our allocation just because there is more of them. Especially when reallocations are happening within 30-45 minutes if tickets going on sale when many members were still in the queue and hadn't had a chance to purchase tickets yet.

Not in the match report on the AFL app either

Can you imagine the outcry if Viney had done this to Nick Daicos?? He would be looking at 6 weeks.

So he was willing to quit rather than apply a suspension? He knew how this would look so what was the compromise, the referral to the tribunal? This is just amateur hour, the fact the AFL let one buffoon control the decisions for so long is farcical, especially when he has a clear club allegiance. Now, all in football will but you mitigate that by not having a sole arbiter.

Psychic octopus is sooo 2010s. Replace him with an AI bot.

That would be idiotic considering their "queue" can't determine who is waiting to purchase tickets let alone is completely random and not actually a queue. Sure once sales close reallocate if needed but give members the chance to buy in that window first FCS. Let's say there 50k Melbourne and 50k Carlton supporters trying to access tickets all at once but due to a quirk in the system 15k Carlton supporters get through in the first 15 minutes but only 5k Melbourne supporters do - that doesn't mean there is less demand just less capacity to access the tickets due to their ****ty system.

Of course the diehards are as passionate and rusted on, but we have fewer of the passionate and rusted on. It's not really a controversial statement by @Wodjathefirst

Premium AFL members seats!! The system is cooked.

I'm M16 row T was up in Q16 row U last week so much happier. Found it far easier today, was in on multiple devices before tickets were even released at midday.

Is it just me or do we seem to have about half the allocation of the Blues?!

He should've been replaced years ago. What are his qualifications besides being an ex-player/commentator and current boofhead?

I agree to an extent Macca, the one difference being that in the Daicos example it was a marking contest and so the ball was in dispute. This is often true for bumps gone wrong but the AFL has been clear for years that if you elect to bump you wear the consequences. Marking contests are different because both players are contesting the ball. In this instance the ball was not in dispute, Brayshaw had clear possession and Maynard owed a duty of care - he can attempt to smother desperately, tackle, bump etc but once he elects to do so he must do it in a manner that is not reckless or careless as he has a duty of care to his opponent who was unable to protect himself. Recklessly jumping in the air to smother is fine, unless you happen to bowl over and concuss your opponent. Then you're in trouble.

They have an agenda, once they figure out the desired outcome they work backwards. The media is great at obfuscating.

If it gets to that I don't think we should bother masking it.

Me too and it will be a [censored] disgrace

Since when has intent had anything to do with consequences? It wasn't my intention to knock you out so bad luck? That is why there are terms such as "reckless", "careless" and "duty of care" that are considered well before "intent". Players get suspended for tackles gone wrong even though it wasn't their intent to knock someone out or for their head to hit the ground. Give me a spell.

Does Peter Jess know? Or is he sensationalising to gain PR for his class action? Not saying the class action is wrong but commenting on Brayshaw's situation seems to be politicising his situation.

Chin up, it's NFL-eve 😉

She is a star

Yet if Fritsch converts two pretty straightforward set shots we win despite our lack of KPF. Of course it would be easier with a gun KPF but it's not impossible without one.

And more direct ie use the bloody corridor