Search results for query: *

Echo chamber in Port Adelaide. I see. Once you go for the 'coward' cheap shot for a player who has shown to be anything but, you reveal yourself as someone who isn't ready for a genuine discussion.

Hence why he'll get a week. Those campaigning for more almost certainly have a set against Rankine. Incidental head on head contact when the actual bump itself is executed fairly. Get real.

Massive overreaction tbh. Should just be a week. The bump is intentional but it was an unintentional head clash that delivered the damage. This is no comparison to any of the precedent that people are throwing out. Kinda shocked at the consensus in this thread to be honest. Feels very much 'eye...

Definitely should be 6. One of the worst “football” decisions I’ve seen in years (obviously not including non-football acts, such as striking). The mind boggles as to how Kozzie Pickett got off so lightly in round 1 last year. Almost identical act, only difference was that Bailey Smith didn’t...

Selwood got away with it for so long partially because he was a top 5 player in the league for portions of his career, but also because he was a little more subtle with his approach. Slightly dropped the knees and rolled the shoulder less overtly, which kept some degree of ambiguity over whether...

The law is being laid down by people who haven’t played the game in 30+ years. It’s bow asking for near perfect execution on anything that involves contact. Intent doesn’t matter anymore. The game has changed enough to make it look unrecognisable

thats absolutely insane I’m not really sure I want to keep watching this sport if that’s a 2 week suspension. Also how the **** was that given 2 weeks, the same as Kozzie Pickett in round 1? Pickett’s was far more reckless, deliberate, however you want to call it. Unbelievable

Bailey had kicked the ball before Pickett had even left the ground. Even more so, the ball had left Smith's hand in his ball drop before Pickett had even started to brace during his bumping action. This should be clear evidence that Pickett knew he was bumping a player without the ball. This...

You tell me. Seemed like a pretty stupid thing to do, and yet he still did it. Jumping off two feet directing his shoulder at the head of Smith well after he disposed of the ball doesn't seem careless, it's clearly intentional.

Not shocked. Seems like a massive FIGJAM

Dees would be petitioning for a royal commission if the roles were reversed. Was actually kind of hilarious the cheers that rang across the ground when Kossie left the field. Shithouse form.

Gone into hiding after the McAdam ruling, after realising how lucky sniper Pickett was

The issue isn't McAdam's ruling, its the ruling on Buddy and Pickett that have us all dumfounded. Pickett certainly should've been referred to the tribunal, Buddy should've gotten 2.

The matrix also includes the odd "making a statement suspension to appeal impartial" which can be applied to high-profile players at occasional discretion.

Looked pretty intentional to most people

It’s not VIC bias, it’s Kossie Pickett bias. Pickett is a much higher profile player who would almost certainly get more matches if his name was Kade Chandler.

Absolutely ridiculous decision to refer this to the tribunal and not Pickett’s. AFL would be stupid not to appeal the Pickett verdict. Reeks of favouritism to the high-profile x-factor player.

Melbourne would be idiots to not take that and run. Very soft by the AFL who should be looking to make a stance on such a dangerous hit.

Some serious mental gymastics from the Dees to rationalise their judgement that this case should be thrown out.

The MCC seemed pretty happy with it

Classic x-Factor player having the media going in to bat because they endear themselves to them. If this was Kade Chandler or Oscar Baker it would be an open/shut 3-4 weeks.

Very similar to Kossie Pickett on Bailey Smith. Could be set for a holiday. 3-4 weeks

Dog act, Melbourne giving him a standing ovation afterwards doesn't hold him in a great light either. Anything less than 3 weeks would be a rort. Just because contact was made with the chest a genuine split second before the head really doesn't mean anything. Comparing this to Cripps' is a...

The Hill decision is holding the ball 100% of the time. Clear as day. As for Clark, it's entirely possible that the ball hit his foot. The umpire is in a much better position than the TV camera angle is, I reckon its plainly obvious that he thought the ball hit Clark's foot. Butler shows clear...

Honestly one of the most dangerous things you can do in the game, more so than any ill-timed bump. Hopefully the AFL gets its act together on this one.

I'm a big believer of suspending based on intent rather than outcome. Now obviously it's impossible to do that consistently, but in a situation like this one where Larkey is irrefutably attempting to hurt or put the Carlton player in a dangerous situation, it has to be punished. I still play...

Brilliant. High IQ response.

I hate to imagine the average IQ in this thread...

Now, instead of blaming an umpire conspiracy, what do those stats tell you?