- May 29, 2013
- 3,859
- 9,320
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Michael Christian has to go .... its worse than chook lotto it's *ing turkey lotto ... and the chief turkey has to go
MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 5 - Charlie Cameron 1 week?
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Elixuh
See you on the 9th green at 9
I’m not sure why Adelaide wouldn’t be challenging the Crouch ban based on what the MRO said on SEN yesterday.
Probably the most direct example we will see as to the blatant inconsistent application of the rules to suit the business.
Crouch is a certified scrub so can be banned without worry. Butters is a start and in the Brownlow conversation.
Probably the most direct example we will see as to the blatant inconsistent application of the rules to suit the business.
Crouch is a certified scrub so can be banned without worry. Butters is a start and in the Brownlow conversation.
WindyHillZephyr
Team Captain
- Sep 20, 2016
- 399
- 420
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Micheal Christian has fallen to blatant fibs to support his agenda. He is like the kid whose face is covered in chocolate. "Did you eat all the chocolates?", "NO!"
, this League has zero integrity. It’s getting to WWE levels of contrived bullshit!
I see 2 issues this week.
I didn’t want Butters gone either, I felt like he approached the contest in a fair football manner, but I just don’t feel as those absolute milliseconds difference on replay should be the difference between suspension and nothing? The MRO placed so much emphasis on that freeze frame of when hands touched the ball. Is that really the focus? As long as you touch the ball you can approach the contest in any manner?
Essentially they’re saying just get a hand to the ball and it’s fine AND put yourself and your opponent at risk. If you take ANY precaution for your own safety you’re gone.
Secondly, protecting the head needs a systematic review to ensure players are protecting themselves. We heard Dunkley say players are happy to let their heads hit the ground to get a free. They are happy to go head first to an in dispute ball. You can’t stick your head and neck out over these types of contests. It’s just dumb.
Rather than just focusing on punishing any head high hit, they need to ensure coaching & training to go slightly turned so you have shoulder/hip ready to take the hit. Both Banfield & the Blues player would have avoided a head high hit this way, and it also stops Butters in particular taking possession of the ball.
End of the day if I’m coaching juniors I want players to approach the contest like Crouch & Butters.
Perhaps instead of all this week by week drama about what a bad tackle & bump is, the AFL needs to release a series of videos to say what’s the right way to do things? If you go low turned & eyes for the footy and incidental contact is made to the head of a player who went with head, that’s on the receiving player. I can’t make sense of dangerous tackles either - Cameron a fine (but a week initially), Greene & Yeo no case to answer, what?
I didn’t want Butters gone either, I felt like he approached the contest in a fair football manner, but I just don’t feel as those absolute milliseconds difference on replay should be the difference between suspension and nothing? The MRO placed so much emphasis on that freeze frame of when hands touched the ball. Is that really the focus? As long as you touch the ball you can approach the contest in any manner?
Essentially they’re saying just get a hand to the ball and it’s fine AND put yourself and your opponent at risk. If you take ANY precaution for your own safety you’re gone.
Secondly, protecting the head needs a systematic review to ensure players are protecting themselves. We heard Dunkley say players are happy to let their heads hit the ground to get a free. They are happy to go head first to an in dispute ball. You can’t stick your head and neck out over these types of contests. It’s just dumb.
Rather than just focusing on punishing any head high hit, they need to ensure coaching & training to go slightly turned so you have shoulder/hip ready to take the hit. Both Banfield & the Blues player would have avoided a head high hit this way, and it also stops Butters in particular taking possession of the ball.
End of the day if I’m coaching juniors I want players to approach the contest like Crouch & Butters.
Perhaps instead of all this week by week drama about what a bad tackle & bump is, the AFL needs to release a series of videos to say what’s the right way to do things? If you go low turned & eyes for the footy and incidental contact is made to the head of a player who went with head, that’s on the receiving player. I can’t make sense of dangerous tackles either - Cameron a fine (but a week initially), Greene & Yeo no case to answer, what?
Unfortunately for Banfield the ball bounced away from him at an inopportune moment and he was left reaching for the ball. I’m neither here nor there on whether Butters should have been suspended but the fact it wasn’t a free kick boggles my mind.
It's been like that for many years, not only in football.
Similar threads
