To me that's a classic tunneling action which would see the real impact being to the back or head as opposed to causing a lower body impact that would threaten that part of the body.
I really think you are taking things too far - the impact on Elliott was unfortunate, but it wont be something...
Maybe - but i doubt it. There needs to be some level of allowable contact. I can’t see it ever getting to players being penalised because they caused a player to land on their feet awkwardly.
A few extra sessions doesn't outweigh a fairly large and diversified portfolio of lazy non-chases and questionable attacks on the ball.
And from the outside he seems to be a complete tool.
I think it was line ball on unrealistic. A free might have been an ok decision if he hadn't marked it. Although given there was no 50, the scumps clearly didn't consider it overly late.
There is no way that this can "clearly" be classed as a reportable offence. For a start E6 is restricted to...
To me it was a vanilla marking contest that happens dozens of times in any game. The idea of tunneling is all about "taking a players legs out" which results in "A over T" for want of a better description. This was nothing like that.
Your use of terms like "bring back the biff" makes me think...
On the topic of lessons, just heard a golf pro discuss getting lessons himself and then working through a swing change. Made the various points that it isn't the lesson that improves your golf, it's the work you do afterwards. And with any swing change, if you are doing it right, your swing...
I tried to get you to explain how the contact was prohibited. You have been unable or unwilling to do this. Don’t bring up a meaningless term, don’t bring up other examples, just describe the contact in a way that demonstrates it was prohibited.
And your name calling is also pretty soft.
we have one downhill par 5(11) which if you can hit it circa 220m you can take a nice downwind ride into a slot and only have circa 140 in. Northerly required.