- Feb 26, 2013
- 673
- 1,205
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
“Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle…..”- Monty PythonDepends which allows you’re talking about
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
“Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle…..”- Monty PythonDepends which allows you’re talking about
Let's just wait and see how it unfolds. 4 weeks maximimum mainly for optics I think.
You've gone from 1 to 4 in the space of 24 hours. Impressive.Let's just wait and see how it unfolds. 4 weeks maximimum mainly for optics I think.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
No given sanction. It is entirely up to the AFL to request and the Tribunal to decide.
Going Severe for Impact means they have gone the maximum possible impact given the potential to cause serious injury.
He really is lucky because he would have got easily 4 more weeks on whatever they give him if he had connected.
I forgot about Balta and their victim-blaming coach Yze.Always knew this flog was a dirty player. Some extremely average people from that Richmond flag era (Lynch and Dimma particularly) yet Richmond fans are still complaining about Tom Stewart for an isolated incident years ago.
Tom is guilty of striking OBVIOUSLY. However, to call this severe impact is disingenuous.
What Tom Stewart did to Prestia was severe. It is impossible equate the two. In one case Prestia was completely ironed out and immediately could not play that week or the next. In this case, Butts got straight back up and played on. You just can't do that with a severe impact. There was no concussion, no broken bones, nothing. How is that graded as severe?
Maybe this 3 level impact grading is just not adequate to delineate the force of strikes. Lynch literally could argue that if he wanted to hit him with severe impact he would have but didn't and if he did so he would have stayed down for the count.
Dion Prestia also bashed a bloke over the summer but thats been conveniently swept under the rugI forgot about Balta and their victim-blaming coach Yze.
Lynch, Dimma, Balta, Yze ... any other Richmond grubs I'm missing? I'm willing to give Chopsticks Martin the benefit of the doubt, depends on who you believe I guess.
Bloke ditched the captaincy at his first club when they were struggling to go to the premiers. Awesome bloke
Oh yes, the old chestnut "potential to cause injury". They bring that out only when they want to. Every single incident that occurs has the "potential to cause injury". It really is the most ridiculous rule. Either use it ALL the time or NEVER use it.They can upgrade an impact on “potential to cause injury”. This isn’t the first time this has been used. It’s been done for rough tackles, Nash this year pretty sure that was upgraded.
Makes you wonder how he'd be remembered.Bloke ditched the captaincy at his first club when they were struggling to go to the premiers. Awesome bloke
Were you there and have proof of what you are saying or are you just lining yourself up for being sued for defamation?Dion Prestia also bashed a bloke over the summer but thats been conveniently swept under the rug
Vickery.I forgot about Balta and their victim-blaming coach Yze.
Lynch, Dimma, Balta, Yze ... any other Richmond grubs I'm missing? I'm willing to give Chopsticks Martin the benefit of the doubt, depends on who you believe I guess.
Oh yes, the old chestnut "potential to cause injury". They bring that out only when they want to. Every single incident that occurs has the "potential to cause injury". It really is the most ridiculous rule. Either use it ALL the time or NEVER use it.
Another inconsistency and it's those inconsistencies that makes this a poorly run competition from an umpiring and tribunal perspective.



Not sure how it's severe, potential to cause injury is vague and based on vibes (and usually exaggerated). They're making it go from low or medium to severe. Example they give in the guidelines is just "negligible force may be upgrade to a higher level"2025 AFL League Centre Clearances Per Game Leaders
2025 AFL League Centre Clearances Per Game Leaders.www.footywire.com
View attachment 2356063
I'm willing to give Chopsticks Martin the benefit of the doubt, depends on who you believe I guess.
Do you really think we care about whether he plays or not? Our position is cemented anyway. Sims will come back in for him and we give him more senior game time. That's a win. It's not like we are challenging for a spot in the 8. Seriously, get a grip. Richmond supporters just want to see consistency in umpiring and tribunal decisions.The apoplectic Tiggie fans in here are really doing the stereotypes no harm
Part of me hopes that Lynch gets off just so it keeps the Tigers nailed to the bottom of the ladder with his recent performances
View attachment 2356092
As I said, if he really wanted to hurt him, he would have.Small difference in ‘potential to cause injury’ when someone might be making a tackle, and when someone tries to throw a f**ken haymaker at the back of an opponent’s head off the ball![]()
4. 5 would just be if the tribunal decided it should beThos triggers a 5 match ban. It’s probably about right let’s be real
please don’t excuse this. Take your Richmond hat off. It was a disgusting act.As I said, if he really wanted to hurt him, he would have.