- May 29, 2013
- 3,889
- 9,436
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Michael Christian has to go .... its worse than chook lotto it's *ing turkey lotto ... and the chief turkey has to go
MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 8
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
I’m not sure why Adelaide wouldn’t be challenging the Crouch ban based on what the MRO said on SEN yesterday.
Probably the most direct example we will see as to the blatant inconsistent application of the rules to suit the business.
Crouch is a certified scrub so can be banned without worry. Butters is a start and in the Brownlow conversation.
Probably the most direct example we will see as to the blatant inconsistent application of the rules to suit the business.
Crouch is a certified scrub so can be banned without worry. Butters is a start and in the Brownlow conversation.
WindyHillZephyr
Team Captain
- Sep 20, 2016
- 410
- 461
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Micheal Christian has fallen to blatant fibs to support his agenda. He is like the kid whose face is covered in chocolate. "Did you eat all the chocolates?", "NO!"
, this League has zero integrity. It’s getting to WWE levels of contrived bullshit!
I see 2 issues this week.
I didn’t want Butters gone either, I felt like he approached the contest in a fair football manner, but I just don’t feel as those absolute milliseconds difference on replay should be the difference between suspension and nothing? The MRO placed so much emphasis on that freeze frame of when hands touched the ball. Is that really the focus? As long as you touch the ball you can approach the contest in any manner?
Essentially they’re saying just get a hand to the ball and it’s fine AND put yourself and your opponent at risk. If you take ANY precaution for your own safety you’re gone.
Secondly, protecting the head needs a systematic review to ensure players are protecting themselves. We heard Dunkley say players are happy to let their heads hit the ground to get a free. They are happy to go head first to an in dispute ball. You can’t stick your head and neck out over these types of contests. It’s just dumb.
Rather than just focusing on punishing any head high hit, they need to ensure coaching & training to go slightly turned so you have shoulder/hip ready to take the hit. Both Banfield & the Blues player would have avoided a head high hit this way, and it also stops Butters in particular taking possession of the ball.
End of the day if I’m coaching juniors I want players to approach the contest like Crouch & Butters.
Perhaps instead of all this week by week drama about what a bad tackle & bump is, the AFL needs to release a series of videos to say what’s the right way to do things? If you go low turned & eyes for the footy and incidental contact is made to the head of a player who went with head, that’s on the receiving player. I can’t make sense of dangerous tackles either - Cameron a fine (but a week initially), Greene & Yeo no case to answer, what?
I didn’t want Butters gone either, I felt like he approached the contest in a fair football manner, but I just don’t feel as those absolute milliseconds difference on replay should be the difference between suspension and nothing? The MRO placed so much emphasis on that freeze frame of when hands touched the ball. Is that really the focus? As long as you touch the ball you can approach the contest in any manner?
Essentially they’re saying just get a hand to the ball and it’s fine AND put yourself and your opponent at risk. If you take ANY precaution for your own safety you’re gone.
Secondly, protecting the head needs a systematic review to ensure players are protecting themselves. We heard Dunkley say players are happy to let their heads hit the ground to get a free. They are happy to go head first to an in dispute ball. You can’t stick your head and neck out over these types of contests. It’s just dumb.
Rather than just focusing on punishing any head high hit, they need to ensure coaching & training to go slightly turned so you have shoulder/hip ready to take the hit. Both Banfield & the Blues player would have avoided a head high hit this way, and it also stops Butters in particular taking possession of the ball.
End of the day if I’m coaching juniors I want players to approach the contest like Crouch & Butters.
Perhaps instead of all this week by week drama about what a bad tackle & bump is, the AFL needs to release a series of videos to say what’s the right way to do things? If you go low turned & eyes for the footy and incidental contact is made to the head of a player who went with head, that’s on the receiving player. I can’t make sense of dangerous tackles either - Cameron a fine (but a week initially), Greene & Yeo no case to answer, what?
Unfortunately for Banfield the ball bounced away from him at an inopportune moment and he was left reaching for the ball. I’m neither here nor there on whether Butters should have been suspended but the fact it wasn’t a free kick boggles my mind.
It's been like that for many years, not only in football.
Chol getting a week and Hogan getting off is laughable.
Needs to appeal that.
Ridiculous. It was a push.
Needs to appeal that.
Ridiculous. It was a push.
SSSSSS
Brownlow Medallist
- Apr 18, 2011
- 19,947
- 43,375
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Six decades of domination
We aren't appealing apparently.
There's no way that was suspension worthy. Push to the chest and Gulden milked it.
Grundy punches Meek in the gut right in front of the umpires like an idiot (gave away a 50) and doesn't get cited.
Maybe "potential to injure" got a run this week?
Agree. Awful decision to suspend him for that.
Can’t believe they aren’t appealing. Mitchell on 360 last night eluded to the fact they would appeal.
Strange.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Just be thankful Chol isn’t there for a week.
Seems we're appealing Ollie Henry's fine. Good.
It's pretty clear that Williams chose to bump Henry 20m off the ball, got tangled up, and then flopped around like the Italian soccer team.
Can't be rewarding and encouraging that sort of thing.
It's pretty clear that Williams chose to bump Henry 20m off the ball, got tangled up, and then flopped around like the Italian soccer team.
Can't be rewarding and encouraging that sort of thing.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #292
Thursday
Friday
Incident explained:
The incident involving Collingwood’s Brayden Maynard and Carlton’s Matthew Owies from the third quarter of Friday’s match between Carlton and Collingwood was assessed. Maynard applied the tackle from behind on Owies who both leans forward in the tackle and raises his right arm, leading to Maynard falling with and on top of Owies. It was the view of the MRO that Maynard did not sling, drive or rotate Owies into the ground with excessive force, and accordingly the MRO did not consider that Maynard’s actions were unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Saturday
Sunday
Friday
Incident explained:
The incident involving Collingwood’s Brayden Maynard and Carlton’s Matthew Owies from the third quarter of Friday’s match between Carlton and Collingwood was assessed. Maynard applied the tackle from behind on Owies who both leans forward in the tackle and raises his right arm, leading to Maynard falling with and on top of Owies. It was the view of the MRO that Maynard did not sling, drive or rotate Owies into the ground with excessive force, and accordingly the MRO did not consider that Maynard’s actions were unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Saturday
Sunday
Similar threads
