MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

Remove this Banner Ad

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #3
IMG_0511.jpeg


GSFxviWaUAQcVGv
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Log in to remove this ad.

How much does the umpire get fined for not paying the tunnelling free? Near on the worst decision I've seen because it was so obvious. Also cost the swans a goal in a game they lost by under a goal.
That was a really dangerous act. And every supporter (maybe apart from the bears) would agree.
 
How much does the umpire get fined for not paying the tunnelling free? Near on the worst decision I've seen because it was so obvious. Also cost the swans a goal in a game they lost by under a goal.
Two of my most despised acts are tunnelling and pushing a player into oncoming traffic. Both are solely intended to cause damage to an opponent and shouldn't just be a fine.

There was an incident a few years back where that dog Maynard pushed Cripps into an oncoming pack, and it's a wonder he wasn't killed....then proceeded to bend down to Cripps lying prostate on the ground to supposedly ask if he was okay. And the commentators thought that was great sportsmanship from Maynard. It was a ****ing dog's act!! And of course he wasn't sanctioned.

Larkey copped a week a few years back for tunnelling Lewy Young, and I reckon the Hipwood one was no different.

 
Mick goes BANG!






Audio:-


She is delusional. No way the game is getting better with the ridiculous rules they've introduced and an idiot MRO who clearly favours his old mob and adds a tax to players from clubs he hates...

Fans are confused af with some of the decisions, old Mick is right about that one and he's right about them being worried about getting sued... of course, she tried to deny and dance around that too...
 
Mick goes BANG!






Audio:-

If a guy with Malthouse’s experience in the game says that things are shit, then they’re definitely shit. The AFL needs a ****ing broom through the place and a new commission installed and the rules set in ****ing stone. No more of this interpretation bullshit.
 
If a guy with Malthouse’s experience in the game says that things are shit, then they’re definitely shit. The AFL needs a ****ing broom through the place and a new commission installed and the rules set in ****ing stone. No more of this interpretation bullshit.
it just so happens that st. kilda, richmond, footscray (as they were), west coast and collingwood - all sides he has been involved with as a player or coach - sit out of the eight and we do not - as it would happen
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Two of my most despised acts are tunnelling and pushing a player into oncoming traffic. Both are solely intended to cause damage to an opponent and shouldn't just be a fine.

There was an incident a few years back where that dog Maynard pushed Cripps into an oncoming pack, and it's a wonder he wasn't killed....then proceeded to bend down to Cripps lying prostate on the ground to supposedly ask if he was okay. And the commentators thought that was great sportsmanship from Maynard. It was a ****ing dog's act!! And of course he wasn't sanctioned.

Larkey copped a week a few years back for tunnelling Lewy Young, and I reckon the Hipwood one was no different.



Worst one I have ever seen was from Gary Abllett Jnr.

Don't know if it was even spoken about at the time. But that action is just as mad as May's bump.

So dangerous. Dirty dog of an act.

 
So when does Xerri get sanctioned for collapsing TDK's lung?

He plays for Norf Melbourne. That is plenty of punishment right there.

TDK will return to action a little over 5 years before Xerri’s Norf contract is due to expire.
 
Yep, a very dangerous act, I'm surprised none of the players remonstrated
Ball was still in play because umpire didn't even pay a free (and it cost Swans a goal, which is significant in context of the match). But I get what you're saying. What I'd like to know is, is there anything in rules for suspension for tunnelling, or do we have to wait until the impacted player is injured? Shouldn't such a dangerous act receive a more significant penalty?
 
Ball was still in play because umpire didn't even pay a free (and it cost Swans a goal, which is significant in context of the match). But I get what you're saying. What I'd like to know is, is there anything in rules for suspension for tunnelling, or do we have to wait until the impacted player is injured? Shouldn't such a dangerous act receive a more significant penalty?

The AFL can't harp on about player safety and let this go. Do they want to be proactive or reactive? Do they really want to wait until this act causes some significant damage to someone before they act? They should be on the front foot and sending a memo to the clubs this week to stamp it out of the game or suspensions will be forthcoming

If it is not wiped out at this level, I would hate to see it filter down into lower levels.
 
Players have to 'evolve' according to Laura Kane - because right now they are clearly lacking 'evolvement'.

That is all you need to know about AFL / MRO and all the rest of the crapola that is actually accelerating the inevitable decline of the game.
 
Yep.

On another note, I know that he's disliked but I think at times Christian has an almost impossible job in policing the rules based on the flavour of the month style mandates which come from the powers that be.
The funny thing is, given how many "lawyers" work for the AFL, how often their rules/adjudications get smoked on appeal & their belligerence at being made to look like amateurs.
 
Players have to 'evolve' according to Laura Kane - because right now they are clearly lacking 'evolvement'.

That is all you need to know about AFL / MRO and all the rest of the crapola that is actually accelerating the inevitable decline of the game.

Some players have evolved others are still at the Homo Neanderthalsis stage.

:p

IMG_3545.jpeg
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top