Search results for query: *

I think he gets off the charge as there is too much grey area. But I personally think that Maynard saw an opportunity to inflict some physicality on Brayshaw and it went a bit pear shaped.

It has actually become quite laughable that the same individual only two weeks prior had deemed a football act committed by Toby Bedford was worthy of a suspension. An act where it wasn’t even clear if head contact was made or even if any force. If this alone doesn’t tell you that he doesn’t...

The MRO should be a panel of 3 people. This gimp has been making calls on incidents to suit his biases for years. The ambiguity in the system encourages him to keep doing it as well.

I was a bit disappointed at the game. I was expecting all four out on a show and propose to Curnow they were that in love and they didn’t. Maybe they asked for his phone number after the game and what his favourite restaurant was. Well if Charlie says No, maybe Chuck Cripps might go on a date...

That is actually incorrect. The MRO is actually obligated to apply the same process that it did to all the similar incidents that it actually found worthy of fines and suspensions. Unless they make a change they can’t just decide that the Hawkins decision is correct and all the others are...

It’s probably got off topic. My initial response was to the post that claims the ball was knocked out in the tackle, which was factually incorrect.

What was perfect about it? The AFL has made it pretty clear that tackling with a force that slams an opponents head into the ground is not a perfect tackle at all. What makes matters worse in this case is that the St Kilda player in this instance doesn’t even have the ball when the tackle is...

The fact that the possibility to cause harm is used as reason is an absolute joke. All indiscretions have the possibility to cause harm. Christen uses this garbage to try and validate his position rather than use it to make a decision. Let’s face it, in most cases he has already decided his...

It means we have a clown running a part of our game that can’t even apply the same logic to his decisions from week to week and even day to day. If you can tell me what logic he has applied to the Cordy and Hawkins decisions then you are some kind of savant. He has actually contradicted...

That’s not how it works. It’s not his job to pick and chose what he thinks will get overturned or not? His job is to grade all incidents within the guidelines and use consistency to apply those guidelines. If the guidelines are wrong, then change them? All you have done is prove my point...

The fact that several players were fined for dangerous tackles on the weekend clearly shows that the dangerous tackle exists. The real issue is Christian has the power to apply arbitrary thinking to his decision. He picks and chooses based on what outcome he wants to reach. Selwood is the...

The logical solution is to take this process out of the hands of an idiot, because it’s pretty clear that we have an imbecile running the MRO.

That is the point that all these Geelong supporters cant grasp. We have players getting suspended / fined for actions that are no worse than the Hawkins one. The fact that the same bloke who makes all of the decisions can grade the Hawkins tackle as lower than any of the others he chose to...

You claimed that the ball was knocked out in the tackle. Are you now retracting that statement and owning the fact that you totally made it up to suit to your narrative? Have a look at the guys that received fines on the weekend and only as recent as last week to the Redman decision. How the...

Exhibit A that this person does not watch football or can’t see through the Geelong blinkers. How can the ball be knocked out in the tackle, when he had already disposed of it?

100% The only thing that could have been considered a fine or suspension in that incident is the staging by the Bont. Christian has lost the plot, it wasn’t even a free kick and you could see the Bont jump straight to his feet as soon as he knew he had sucked in the ump. As for Selwood it was...

He did get a fine which is garbage Im a North supporter and I would have no issue with him getting rubbed out for that. As a football fan I would rather see guys get suspended for that, than what Plowman did. It’s the same with Taylor Walker. That’s the shit I want to see taken out of the...

The problem at that speed it’s a natural reaction to protect yourself when you realise contact is going to be made. If Plowman leaves himself open he probably winds up worse than O’Meara and if he pulls out of the contest like the AFL wants, then he is on the back page of the paper questioning...

Games fooked! Too many idiots running the game. The Holman decision is just ridiculous and the Plowman decision is the game looking for a patsy to sprout to little Johnny’s Mum that our game is safe and we want to roll the netball bibs out with our next rule changes. According to dimwits like...

I never said it was, read my original post. My point was, why even put yourself in that situation?

You can’t block off the ball. It’s simple. A block off the contest is a free kick. Im not sure what part of you can’t understand what is a clear rule? Just because the umpires are too stupid not to pay it, doesn’t mean you can intentionally block a player from the contest. You can shepherd...

Obviously a lot more than you do. You do know that you can’t shepherd or block off the contest? In fact you can’t block regardless of it being in the contest. Someone that obviously has no clue to the rules of the game, asking someone else if they know the game? LOL!

Well he is more stupid than first thought, because not only did he cop a whack, but also should have given the free kick away. Must be a nuffie? ;)

LOL! Staggers me that someone would put up that argument for the stupidity shown by Walsh. You do know a block off that far off the all is a free kick? Double stupidity for maybe giving a free kick away that far off the contest.

Most likely they realised that it was stupid of him to put himself in that situation. There was absolutely no reason for him to charge at Hartigan, who was doing nothing at the time.

I’m not a big advocate for elbows and thinks he deserves a few weeks. But the question also has to be asked why Walsh is charging at him? Walsh puts himself in that situation by charging in unnecessarily. The fact that even Carlton players around the incident don’t really react shows that...

He is acting like the jilted girlfriend now. The fact that him and Hocking didn’t even cite Duncan and Selwood for what were comparable if not worse actions, clearly shows this bloke has a vendetta and will not be happy until he gets something to stick. I would love someone from the club to...

Is there any coincidence with Steven Hocking being a Cats man that the Duncan and Selwood incidents that were worse, were not even cited. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think any were suspensions, but I you are citing this one then you need to be citing those as well. Duncan collides with Hall...

More like Christen was on the piss. He must have been 12 cans deep when making that decision? Bloke needs to go and take up his rightful role as the McDonalds mascot.

He was never going to get a broken jaw from that, the force wasn’t that of a strike. I’m all for suspending or fining blokes for strikes, but that wasn’t even a striking motion.