- Aug 29, 2006
- 4,303
- 4,617
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
Why do all the hawthorn supporters in here keep conveniently ignoring the face that impact can be graded based on "potential to cause serious injury" ?
Sure if that wasn't the rule, medium impact would be the right choice, but the rule is there for a reason, and there was a huge potential to cause serious injury. It deserved high impact on that basis, if you disagree you're either f*cking stupid, a hawthorn supporter, or both. Seems to me like they're synonymous after reading this thread.
I guess Hawthorn must be looking to play West Coast in the finals, because you are having one hell of a tantrum.
Great argument. Because people don't agree with you, they are f*cking stupid, a hawthorn supporter or both. So would you say that the MRP are f*cking stupid, or 90% of media are f*cking stupid. It appears the only people who don't agree are Port fans, West Coast fans and a few jaded supporters that don't like Hawthorn.
Potential to cause serious injury is completely subjective rule, as you trying to predict what may or may not happen. Therefore there is no right or wrong application for it. There are some pretty open ended guidelines for the rule, however it seems clear that the MRP felt this did not fall in line with those guidelines.
It was either going to be 2 or 3 weeks based on the MRP guidelines. He ended up getting 2 weeks, so may have been a little lucky, but didn't get off scot-free.