Player Watch Shane McAdam

[BACCS]

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

View attachment 1637193


What the fxxk does Nick Paine’s comment there even mean?… it doesnt even make sense..

AND WHAT DOES NICK THINK OF PICKETT‘S FXXKN “POSITION”?

The AFL are literally just making up shit & making a mockery of the tribunal... as it's now got nothing to do with incident but the profile of the player.

 

[George Kramer]

The AFLs position is nuts, potential to do harm to the body, the bump is legal you morons. Unless it’s banned then all bumps should be considered the same

 

[1990crow]

So they're just making a new rule now that you can't jump in the torso.

 

[George Kramer]

View attachment 1637193


What the fxxk does Nick Paine’s comment there even mean?… it doesnt even make sense..

AND WHAT DOES NICK THINK OF PICKETT‘S FXXKN “POSITION”?

Flying spear bumps aren’t as bad

 

[Crow till I die]

Crows’ last-ditch appeal fails as forward’s ban stands for brutal bump

Crows’ last-ditch appeal fails as forward’s ban stands for brutal bump

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The AFLs position is nuts, potential to do harm to the body, the bump is legal you morons. Unless it’s banned then all bumps should be considered the same

So they have changed the rules retrospectively?

What a joke of an organisation!

This is a Kangaroo Court where fairness is not a criteria.

I'm at a point where the AFL can go & get funked!

 

[BACCS]

Who is on the Appeals Board tonight?

 

[jenny61_99]

Flying spear bumps aren’t as bad

Apparently

 

[BACCS]

Wehr also wasn’t injured you absolute dumb ****s!!!!

 

[BACCS]

How about focusing on actual injuries like Buddy caused Collins?

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

All these posts about being ok with McAdam getting 1 or 2 weeks confuse me.

He is being charged with being rough in the top level of AFL for legally bumping the guy with the ball - causing no injury, no secondary concussion, nothing.

Not off the ball.

Not blind sided.

No swinging arm.

The player didn’t have their head down and he came flying in hitting him high.

No one was hit in the head.

It’s completely ridiculous that he should even be charged, let alone sent straight to the tribunal.

I think there is one part of the rules that talks about whether contact is reasonable in the circumstances. Regardless of whether there was head contact or not.

Whilst it ilea’s reasonable to hip and shoulder, I personally think it’s questionable that McAdam needed to bump as hard as he did to impact the play.

The AFLs position is nuts, potential to do harm to the body, the bump is legal you morons. Unless it’s banned then all bumps should be considered the same

the AFL are (seriously) arguing that the force of McAdams bump was not reasonable in the circumstances. That is the crux of their argument.

They are arguing around what is reasonable and what is not.

 

[Crow till I die]

So they have changed the rules retrospectively?

What a joke of an organisation!

This is a Kangaroo Court with there fairness is not a criteria.

I'm at a point where the AFL can go & get funked!

If thats their argument, why haven't they then appealed the MRO's 1 week for Buddy and 2 weeks for Pickett as manifestly inadequate ban lengths? - they are hypocrites that look after their Vic mates and their superstar players and no amount of gaslighting by them can change that fact

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

How about focusing on actual injuries like Buddy caused Collins?

If you swap the incidents, both players would still have been given the same number of games

 

[George Kramer]

This Payne bloke is an idiot

 

[CrowToon]

If thats their argument, why haven't they then appealed the MRO's 1 week for Buddy and 2 weeks for Pickett as manifestly inadequate ban lengths? - they are hypocrites that look after their Vic mates and their superstar players and no amount of gaslighting by them can change that fact

Can they appeal their own rubber stamp?

 

[pjcrows]

So now it's not about head injury? It's about potential body injury?

Let's just fold the game.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So now it's not about head injury? It's about potential body injury?

Let's just fold the game.

All players are now suspended after each game they played, because they chose to play they have a potential to be injured.

The AFL are a farce...

 

[George Kramer]

So we are back on? Is that it from the AFL? Their argument was pathetic

 

[Bearded Clam]

The AFLs position is nuts, potential to do harm to the body, the bump is legal you morons. Unless it’s banned then all bumps should be considered the same

This is just fxxkn astounding..

The AFL have gone from arguing that there was contact to the head to, when it was shown there was none by the crows and the GWS doc, to arguing that the bump (which is legal) “could have potentially caused an injury and the crows should stop focusing on the head”… and focus on the body contact!

it is so unbelievably disingenuous and pathetic.

 

[BACCS]

 

[Scorpus]

If the AFL is arguing the charge wasn't about high contact, even though it was graded high contact, then surely that's a textbook procedural error

 

[Crow till I die]

This Payne bloke is an idiot

I love this reply by Duggan

Crows (Duggan): There is an expectation amongst both players and fans that there will be consistency in terms of the penalties that are metered out by both the Tribunal, the Appeals Board and the MRO.

 

[BACCS]

We are going so hard at their inconsistent rulings, love it

 

[Dirty Bird]

When I read that, I raged and shut the live feed

You're hitting him for high contact, high impact.

So now you're like, but what about the chance for injury to the body?

IF THAT'S THE ARGUMENT, PING HIM FOR CONTACT TO THE BODY

It was there and then I knew they had already made up their mind (Or is that the AFL's lawyer arguing with the appeals board?)