Search results for query: *

Presumably it's more like the AFL's football operations department. Is there some independent body that has nothing to do with the AFL making the judgement? The tribunal is also appointed by the AFL, no? If there's meant to be some sober, impartial process, you can't have the CEO saying "nah...

Set aside whether you think 3 weeks is too much or not enough. You really should not have the AFL CEO weighing in on a decision that's pending appeal.

In other news, BigFooty posters struggle to spell "the" correctly.

Like Cotchin?

This is just whataboutism.

If Greene plays, it will create a massive grey area about whether you can touch umpires. He simply has to be suspended. The people trying to manufacture a rationale for him to play are engaged in wishful thinking. There can be no discount because it's a final and no discount because he's a...

How many weeks for Jack the Bull Viney?

How many do you reckon it's worth? Fair to say this one will divide opinion regardless of the outcome.

Goodnight.

Oh right. When asked to make your case, you reply with "do your own research". That's a new one. I've looked at Lake/Petrie again. I'm not sure that's perfectly analogous. I'll be surprised if Viney gets 4 weeks, to say the least. But hey, I've been surprised by these outcomes before.

You're being silly. If anything, this demonstrates the pointlessness of your question about what you or I would prefer. That's not the basis for anything. That's what's being discussed. If you have no view on that, and instead want to ask a series of inane questions that make no point, I'll...

Explain to me the material similarity and why this is so much worse than a headlock and therefore worthy of a serious suspension. And please do it in terms that would establish a precedent that could be applied consistently. You guys are so adamant that it's worth a big whack. Please explain.

It's a ridiculous question. I'd prefer not to be tackled around the neck or have a guy put a knee in my back while contesting a mark but that doesn't make it worthy of a suspension. What I would prefer makes no point whatsoever. How does any of this make the case that it's worthy of suspension...

Is it any worse than putting someone in a headlock while wrestling?

I'd prefer neither. Does this make it worth a week?

Borderline 1 week.

How is that 4 weeks?

Am I missing something here? I don't expect he'll get rubbed out for that.

It's time? Really? What has time got to do with it?

It's not directly analogous to the Dangerfield bump.

What is the controversy around this suspension? Of course it's a week.

Obviously worth a week. If a guy did it in a PF, he should miss the GF. That should be the standard.

Rightly so. If you don't think a player should miss a GF for something, it shouldn't be worth a ban in H&A either.

Insufficient force, surely.

A genuine bloke, you say? He's OK by me in that case.

For all the people bleating about Maynard being robbed of a free kick, just look at his left arm wrapped round Rioli's head. Or do we just ignore that?

Where is Maynard's left hand?

Some people are complaining about Ryan's hit on Maynard? Why? That is a textbook bump, well and truly below the shoulders with the ball in the vicinity. What is the issue supposedly? Also, Rioli should have got a free kick for high contact.

FFS, he's also one of the hardest contested ball winners of the past decade. It's not like he's skipping around on the outside getting a free kick whenever someone goes near him. He's getting free kicks because he's spent a decade being scragged off the ball and having his head taken off...

It's a slap on the wrist. A ban was warranted if the AFL wants to be definitive on this matter. Don't reach and out and touch umpires or you miss a week. No need for further discussion. They set the precedent with Hawkins and then flipped it a week later. It's indefensible.