1 & 2 week suspensions in finals SHOULD be served the follwing year. Agree?

[kneecapper]

Great thread. I also think players shouldn't be allowed to get injured during the finals (if they do they get suspended) and the Grand Final should be postponed if it's raining and if an umpire makes a mistake during a final they lose an item of clothing per error. Everything needs to be perfect.

 

[WSmith]

i dont think anyone can understand you

Yes, that would make sense. I am often a level of intellect above my peers.
Can be a dark lonely world though, sitting here in my perspicacious, ingenious thoughts all the while on top of a creative mountain.

 

[MattyB_76]

I disagree.
You say this idea would ADD to the confusion when infact it cuts the confusion. The flimsy decisions to suspend for a week can be put onto the next year and not ruin and confuse the most important couple of weeks!!
You literally just helped my argument if you can understand that. Cheers.

I never mentioned confusion. Try again.

 

[Harry Flintlock]

I prefer finals having extra weighting e.g. finals are worth two games rather than one. So if a player is suspended for two weeks in round 23 or week 1 of the finals, he would only miss one final. Perhaps you can discourage dog acts by excluding them from this system.

 

[Slax]

Not a chance in hell, give a free licence to whack someone.

Finals should also carry an increased weighting, as the impact the offence can have on the opposition team is far heavier in a final than H&A match.

QF or SF, extra 25%
PF - 50%
GF - 100%

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

Where's the disincentive then? Missing out on finals or the grand final would be a huge disincentive to not get suspended.

 

[pazza]

Stuff it. if you miss a final or a grand final it's your own dumb fault - see Mal Brown, Phil Carman, Peter Keenan and Peter Schwab.

If you are reported during the finals, you should receive double the penalty as well.

 

[frenchfri12]

Yes, that would make sense. I am often a level of intellect above my peers.
Can be a dark lonely world though, sitting here in my perspicacious, ingenious thoughts all the while on top of a creative mountain.

Yep, that's why you can't spell "thread" and keep using lowercase letters.

Maybe if there was an option, and if you decided to play in the final rather than be suspended, the penalty next year was 6 times the length of the original suspension then it might work. Amazed your notva collinwood supporter, still crying over the 02 and 03 PF suspensions.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[frenchfri12]

There's another reason we shouldn't get this stupid idea in, collinwood would have another premiership.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Badesumofu]

body contact, medium impace, reckeless, 1 week delegated to next year.

Reckless doesn't exist anymore. Careless, medium, body doesn't get you suspended. But I think in a way that is the point you are trying to make - you don't miss games in the current system for minor offenses. Look at Varcoe on Rioli, he made some effort to reduce the contact and so they graded it low - fine only. Unless you get someone high with at least medium impact or deliberately whack someone, you don't get suspended. So the premise of this thread is just wrong, in my opinion.

 

[MF]

Given that the MRP seem to go out of their way to be extra lenient in finals anyway something like this isn't the worst idea.

I would make it something along the lines of giving the player the opportunity to accept triple the penalty next season. So to avoid missing 1 final you'd have to miss 3 home and away games next year.

Not sure how it would work for retiring players but I guess there's nothing to stop retiring players belting the s**t out of everyone in a grand final either.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Masto]

Given that the MRP seem to go out of their way to be extra lenient in finals anyway...

Pretty much this - so its not really needed IMO. Barry Hall playing in the 2005 GF is the biggest crock of s**t I have ever seen. If the AFL want you to get off then you will get off.

 

[MagpieJo]

OMG if someone did that hed get 6 weeks not one or two.
Do you not understand the thread?

Do you not understand what a premiership win is?

Easy to find someone to take that offer

 

[MagpieJo]

Pretty much this - so its not really needed IMO. Barry Hall playing in the 2005 GF is the biggest crock of s**t I have ever seen. If the AFL want you to get off then you will get off.

Yay, glad it's not just me, that s**t me to tears!

Gifted them the flag

 

[MagpieJo]

Yep, that's why you can't spell "thread" and keep using lowercase letters.

Maybe if there was an option, and if you decided to play in the final rather than be suspended, the penalty next year was 6 times the length of the original suspension then it might work. Amazed your notva collinwood supporter, still crying over the 02 and 03 PF suspensions.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Now that you mention it....

 

[HTPunter]

No. No sympathy from me.

 

[ZingerB]

The simple fact is that even though they shouldn't, the MRP almost certainly would be more lenient for the GF and finals in general. They are almost always looking for a reason to let someone off. If you get rubbed out for something, you deserve it. The last time I can remember it happening was in either 2002-3 when Jason Cloke clotheslined someone (Tyson Edwards from memory). Eddie tried to make a similar argument then and got roundly shouted down. If you don't want to get rubbed out don't do stupid things.

 

[Brian Schmutt]

If you want players not to be rubbed out for finals games, introduce an UMPIRE VOTED best and fairest award for finals, like the Brownlow. When they have an incentive to catch the eye of the umpires they'll be on their best behaviour.

Call it the Clark Keating Cup or something.. the name doesn't matter. Only that it is voted on BY UMPIRES

 

[Mister B]

Pretty much this - so its not really needed IMO. Barry Hall playing in the 2005 GF is the biggest crock of s**t I have ever seen. If the AFL want you to get off then you will get off.

This is the thing that makes me laugh about the Hall situation. Hall got off based on the legal definitions of in play / behind play. It was a loophole that existed in the wording that the lawyers used (as any other clubs lawyers would have done if they were in the position). To say the AFL got Hall off would mean A) that they knew many years in advance that exact scenario was going to happen and worded the terms in that manner or B) They went to the Swans lawyers and told them they could challenge on a technicality with the terminology used. Quit the conspiracy theories and accept that Hall in this case was one lucky bastard.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Ok.
So jobe gets done on a bump 5 mins to go in a prelim. He gets a week, that fair?

a) that would require Essendon to be playing in a prelim;
b) what is it with people wanting to absolve players from their actions? and
c) dumbest idea I've heard in quite a while.

 

[Jak!x]

Players don't get to serve their injuries the next year, the best teams have depth.