Player Watch Willie Rioli

Remove this Banner Ad

Incarnate said:
I have to say that I think Murphy flopped like biatch and deserved his own reprimand for wasting peoples time but any strike to the head in any form should hold some form of mandatory minimum suspension.
Come at me!
Click to expand...
Seen any marking contests lately?

So if protecting the head 'in any form' is the pivot point here then a fundamental aspect of our game - specifically contested overhead marking contests - will be outlawed because the potential of head contact in such a contest is almost inevitable in a high speed game of AFL.

So it isn't about protecting the head at all. But about protecting the head from dangerous and violent contact which has the potential to cause serious injury - especially via concussion.

The Rioli slap on Murphy was downgraded to low impact because it posed no such risk. NONE.

That's the point.
 
My issue with this is that the intial verdict of 2 games was way overs - and I feel it was a deliberate decision knowing they had room to negotiate it down to 1. How could they not have known this all the time? - it’s laughable and corrupt.

Not sure how it works but Port would have had a good shot to argue a downgrading of the deliberate to accidental, or low impact to no impact resulting in it just being a fine.

And while I’m ranting the Collingwood player should be fined/suspended for staging. If every player was that soft all of the time it may as well be soccer and a non contact sport…
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I'm loving how all the salty, precious, Essendon supporters are flocking around every single mention of this incident on social channels.
What bunch of soft cucks.
 
1954 said:
Christian gave the initial 2 week ban in the full knowledge any club would have to challenge it, he would have also known it was highly unlikely it would be over thrown completely and the end result was always going to be a one week suspension.
Click to expand...
We've got em worried 54
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MrChow said:
My issue with this is that the intial verdict of 2 games was way overs - and I feel it was a deliberate decision knowing they had room to negotiate it down to 1. How could they not have known this all the time? - it’s laughable and corrupt.

Not sure how it works but Port would have had a good shot to argue a downgrading of the deliberate to accidental, or low impact to no impact resulting in it just being a fine.

And while I’m ranting the Collingwood player should be fined/suspended for staging. If every player was that soft all of the time it may as well be soccer and a non contact sport…
Click to expand...
I totally agree. This position the mro takes of default max suspension and you have to argue it down is such a s**t stance. I don’t get why we want players missing footy for such minor incidents. 1 game is reasonable, purely for the stupidity of lashing out and connecting with someone’s head, but I wouldn’t have been surprised if it stayed at 2, or was argued down to a fine. That’s how stupid the way the mro operates is. It needs a total overhaul.
 
Festerz said:
Seen any marking contests lately?

So if protecting the head 'in any form' is the pivot point here then a fundamental aspect of our game - specifically contested overhead marking contests - will be outlawed because the potential of head contact in such a contest is almost inevitable in a high speed game of AFL.

So it isn't about protecting the head at all. But about protecting the head from dangerous and violent contact which has the potential to cause serious injury - especially via concussion.

The Rioli slap on Murphy was downgraded to low impact because it posed no such risk. NONE.

That's the point.
Click to expand...
Festerz said:
Seen any marking contests lately?

So if protecting the head 'in any form' is the pivot point here then a fundamental aspect of our game - specifically contested overhead marking contests - will be outlawed because the potential of head contact in such a contest is almost inevitable in a high speed game of AFL.

So it isn't about protecting the head at all. But about protecting the head from dangerous and violent contact which has the potential to cause serious injury - especially via concussion.

The Rioli slap on Murphy was downgraded to low impact because it posed no such risk. NONE.

That's the point.
Click to expand...
Seems like your on top of it then!
 
What is the actual role of AFL counsel at the tribunal? Why does it need to be an adversarial system? Why can't the MRO just assess the incident and if the club decides to appeal they put their case to the tribunal jury who decide whether their argument is compelling enough to change the grading of the incident? What a ridiculous pantomime to have a lawyer representing the AFL.
 
SC_Power said:
Nicky Winmar, Adam Goodes and Hertier Lumumba all disagree with you.
Eddie McGuire will probably call it another proud day for the club. Will it get another chapter in the Racism review book?

I lived in Collingwood as a Port fan. Ive been to Port Collingwood finals in both states. Been to countless games as a neutral at the G.
Yes, I find you as a group are more feral than all others. Including the St Kilda animal cage. Disgraceful mob.
Click to expand...
you have appear then to have never been to Richmond or Carlton game ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tibbs
Coach Welcome to Port Adelaide - Jason Williams - Forwards Development Coach
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
8K
simba_
simba_
RussellEbertHandball
Toast Congratulations Mark Williams - inducted into Australian Football Hall of Fame
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
Loony Juice
Loony Juice

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top