Search results for query: *

Plus I think it is on the Match Review Officer to the 'dimmest' view on an incident, whilst the tribunal takes a more balanced view. Its far better for a club to argue a penalty is too harsh than it is for the AFL too argue a penalty is too lenient. Otherwise the tribunal would have to review...

While I do think that is a little long, I think min two weeks is better, I agree totally that just because the action you took, by chance, didn't result in a confusion, but was reckless or careless, then yeah, take some time off to think how you could do better next time.

Especially when you don't present anything to measure to achieve objectiveness, outside of the centre bounce, which is irrelevant, your whole argument has been subjective.

Looks pretty conclusive to me - ball is clearly hitting the post. I'm sure the operators are trained for this. As for the Goal Umpire - these sorts of calls are notoriously difficult

Another win For Steve Hocking in his efforts to CHEAT Richmond out of another flag

Good God no! - Mother Theresa was a slag taking tricks compared to the shining light of righteousness that emanates from Dimma's arse. Everything else is just scum and disease, just leave the poor richmond supporters to flagellate themselves to repel the sin that other less holy teams cast...

Personally from my reading of it, I dont think it will make much difference the whole careless/intentional. Difference in the guidelines is a week. The whole remorseful and good character thing certainly wont get you a discount, but it will lessen the likelihood of an even longer penalty - its...

I thought Greene should have got off, but his legal defence didn't help. Firstly, was it even reportable? Stevic made clear he wasn't going to lay a report. Of course nowadays umpires dont bother making reports as they know any given incident will be reviewed by video footage. But this was...

hmmm - I thought he was just holding down Collins with his forearm to the upperbody with the elbow near the neck, didn't see Collins act in any way that suggested his neck had been put under undue force. Silly action though so maybe a week.

The rule of law is different from the rules of AFL, he may have been "he was going for the ball", but if it is not unreasonable for him to expect that he get bumped, then the legal onus is on on him to avoid that - he cant hide behind the rules of the AFL. And he is a professional so I dont...

Far too early to say - and it is extremely speculative to say that he is a) has developed a chronic injury and b) wants to take it to court. But if it does go to court, the AFL judgement today effectively apportions a lot of the blame to Clarke - mcKay played by the rules, Clarke is a...

Which is where I was going - players have a duty of care to protect other players, but there is no duty of care to protect themselves. That's not healthy. Players need to go into contests in the correct manner to protect themselves, just like Mackay did, and if they dont, they should bear the...

This case just highlights a glaring issue with the tribunal system. It has been set up and operates n the basis that someone has committed some sort of crime or transgressed the rules holding someone accountable rather than looking at implementing controls to achieve what we all want - a massive...

Will be thrown out as apart from anything else, below the threshold for a reportable offence considering Heeney was fine. Even if he was concussed, Murdoch was clearly going for the ball. At some point the AFL has to make players accountable for putting themselves in danger - as Heeney did...

This isn't about Bachar, how good he is, or about whether the sentence was ultimately fair, its about the Tribunal throwing out the rules and making them up as they go along.

Harvey drew Selwood's blood last year and that was deemed not to be forceful enough for anything. And the concussion test is in Yarran's favour as no concussion was detected

High. intentional, low impact If it hadn't of drawn blood, then it would have been too low an impact to be anything

You could not be more wrong - the legal counsel is brilliant: he has set himself up with a win-win. Maybe the stars will align and he finds some ambiguity in the point of law and lets the defense argument stand, he will then be haled as a legal mastermind. Fail and he still collects a nice fat...

The baseball bat takes things to extremes, but without changing the mechanics of the argument. Your analogy is based upon you willingly being in a fight as opposed to being unwillingly assaulted. If you have chosen to be in a fight fair enough. I dont recall Lewise putting up his dukes, so Fyfe...

The AFL have High Def cameras behind goals at both ends and I think one on the wing as well. The vision is then supplied to the clubs on a fee basis for the purposes of coaching and match preparation. However I very much doubt this vision came from those cameras as they are fixed on showing the...

Both equally bad. If you were outside a pub and somebody hit you in the head with a baseball breaking your jaw do you really think that is any better than somebody attempting to break your arm with a baseball bat, but missing and getting you in the head and breaking your jaw? Fyfe intended to...

That's another thing - water carriers shouldn't be allowed on the ground - happy though for water carriers to be stationed around the boundary line, just not allowed to step within the boundary line. Only people who should be allowed on are players, umpires and those attending injuries.

According to http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-runners-put-on-notice-as-commission-signals-a-change-20131124-2y41u.html there is change coming., I really hope they remove them completely. They are a relic from bygone eras of amateurism. This isn't the under 9's. I firmly believe that...

Obviously an umpire with a sense of humour

Still reckon the best solution is that if the ball hits the post and continues through, it should be called a goal. Would take out alot of line-ball decisions.

Yeah and bring back the slew of professional frees that used to blight the game when players were happy to give away 15 metres to break up momentum.

It should hardly ever been paid, but it still servers a purpose, namely preventing the clock being run down or teams just gaining an extra 30 seconds to assess their options

Rubbish - anytime a guy gets badly injured you want to be certain about every aspect, the league owes it to the players. I agree that there is no case to answer.

Even if there was a mistake it is irrelevant - you can whine all you like about the mechanics of the decision, but the decision was made and that's all that matters. The same as every other infringement - when the the infringement was made. One for bob vic And fourthly and most importantly -...

Whether the umpire did actually get it wrong in terms of players on the bench is irrelevant. The umpire called it as he saw he it, which is how an umpire has to umpire. Do you go over every free kick against you with this level of examination? in case you hadn't noticed it was only a free kick...