Search results for query: *

Expected 3, 4 on the strong side, but not unreasonable. Kudas to Stewart for taking responsibility at every stage.

I don't see how this is enforceable - simple as that.

Charged at the footy, got his hands on it. If he'd run past the footy or been genuinely late to the contest, then it would be a different story - but his eyes were for the footy, and he was 'in' the contest enough to get his hands on the ball.

Contesting a ball in dispute is not breaking the duty of care. By your argument, Clarke should've seen Mackay coming and pulled out of the contest.

People are really suggesting that Mackay should be suspended because he ran too fast to try and get to the footy?

Funny that almost all of the players/coaches they've spoken with have said Mackay should be fine - obvious they're pushing an agenda.

Nah, I understand the terminology is loose, deliberately - but it isn't just a catch all phrase that will cover anything. They have to prove it is unreasonable conduct - they won't be able to, because it isn't.

Can't be suspended under this. Didn't break any rule, and there is no possible way his 'conduct is unreasonable in he circumstances' - he did nothing wrong; I can't see how they can possibly argue that his conduct was unreasonable in any way.

That’s flat out ridiculous.

Christ, that's even worse than the Blicavs one!

Geelong last week got back into the game because of 4 goals in a row; all of which involved dubious umpiring decisions - at best. Think they realised it though, as frees were something like 10-1 Adelaide-Geeling in the last. EDIT - my point is, as we all know, numbers of frees isn't always...

Saw Blicav - most blatant HTB you can get; not even a discussion. Didn't see Selwood/Guthrie thing; anyone got screen cap?

2017 GF was a joke as well - but not quite as bad as that one.

Bingo - should get 2, will get 1. ******* unbelievable that he would do that, in this match - massive brain fart.

On the Couch nailed it. New rules are s**t.

"R7: Bulldogs 123 def Adelaide 108, free kicks 28-12" Was that where a single umpire paid 17 frees to WB, and 1 to us?

Teams have been cheating like this for years - Dogs did it in their premiership year. The AFL let it happen to ‘keep the game moving.’ If dickhead Gil wants to ‘fix the game’ paying holding the ball and throws would be the biggest improvement.

They pinged Laird for it earlier. 13 of the last 14 frees went to Port, but odd. How far did Motlop run?

Same as Danger did to Brad Crouch? Same as dozens of players do every game across the league, every round, after a contest? Niggle and roughness is allowed - eye gouging is not.

Not by the eyes.

That has zero relevance though. Players are allowed to niggle - if they go too far, they give away a free or get reported. There is no defense for eye gouging. Looks more clumsy than deliberate to me - should get something for it. I actually really like Selwood; I just wish he'd cut some of...

I hate Port, but they were stitched up there.

Why am I not surprised. Any judicial panel which forbids the use of precedent only does so, so they can control the outcome - and don't have to be accountable to their own decisions. It's corruption - and this is yet another example. Complete bullshit.

Because he's a bleeder - not because of damage or concussion.

High impact, for a cut cheek that he came straight back on for? Seriously.

Low impact, at worst. Quite fortunate that Ebert was in the media a lot this week, talking about how easily he gets opened up and bleeds. Should only be a fine.

It's a goal - the interpretation as you define it would be impossible to enforce.

2012 was worse. It's hard not to think the AFL endeavors to produce outcomes via umpiring; we all know it's a difficult game to umpire, but it's frequent the blatant and simple things that are the issue - and that's a concern. Amazing how often the umpiring favors the team on the side of the...

3 down to 2.

Pretty hard to run without lifting your knees, isn't it?