Search results for query: *

Abby “How is Luke after the ban is he ok?” Hes ok Abby. He’s a highly paid footy player who’s spending some time on the sidelines. The guy who plays for a standalone VFL team who had his face mashed in is struggling, however.

I don’t have a strong view either way on whether it’s too much or not enough. A month is a lot of footy to miss. I’m just surprised at the AFL. If this is exactly the kind of onfield act they’re trying to get out of the game, and they’re worried about future litigation on concussion and they...

Should’ve been five weeks. The ****** will come back against the dogs and take about 50 intercept marks. Dammit!

They'll never stop enabling him and he'll continue acting like this. The parent/child metaphor is a little thin but it's the most obvious one that springs to mind.

Thought Montagna was dismissive of the impact on footy further down the chain last night on first crack, which was a little irresponsible. King isn’t my favourite pundit but he at least said it should be multiple weeks and it’s a no go area, particularly because of the look and how it trickles...

He’s obviously going to be suspended for at least a week, Cats fans have nothing to be worried about. Any less than three weeks is a joke, suspect he’ll be missing games at the start of next season. It’s not a Toby Greene tax, it’s an idiot tax. Unfortunately it’s easy to conflate the two...

All I can say is the AFL are shit at this conspiracy stuff. We haven’t even won a final since 2016, they’d better up their ****ing game. Obviously the timekeeper at the GABBA didn’t get the memo. Or the umpires in that same game who gave Berry that free kick for Cole sneezing on him. Sort...

A few other posters have said it here and in other threads - this is an unnecessary act that has been established as a fine because the AFL have been weak at punishing it. Greene got fined $7.5k for the fairly egregious Bontempelli "face-touching" and only got suspended when he tried something...

This is one of the many reasons why the system is inadequate. People expect precedent to be used but we can’t incorporate the individual’s history of offending behaviour? Court systems use precedent in ruling, but also offending history in determining sentencing. It’s why I likely would avoid...

It's just a litany of ****-ups: MRO screwed up by not suspending him a week for the previous incident (almost certainly qualifies as unnecessary contact to the head/face) - if he then gets off on appeal so be it, but the original penalty should've been a week AFL counsel screwed up by not...

I think most objective observers would say the hawks got the rub of the green with the umpires, it happens a lot. Doesn't make it right, but it happens in every sport where the home team or best/most popular teams get more decisions in their favour. Will be interesting to see how bf hawks...

He should get a few weeks at least, but will no doubt depend on Petrie's evidence - he could minimise what the punishment is depending on how he saw it.

Other have said it above, but it's the intentional element of throwing the elbow back that's the problem. That's the very definition of reckless - not intentional as you don't know if you'll hit someone, but an objective observer would say there's a decent chance you connect with someone and...