pretty disingenuous to pretend there are no clear and important differences between Sloane being knocked off balance by a regulation tackle around the hips and falling badly, and either driving your shoulder into someone else's face or their head into the ground.
As I posted earlier ... the fines should still apply to all games, but the penalty for accumulating fines should only be served in regular season games. So you get fined for a third strike, you miss round 1 next year, 2 fines miss two games next year etc...
The change that is needed for finals is something like this:
View attachment 420830
Just add a column for finals, get rid of the early plea stuff for post-season games because everyone will take that in a finals series ... and make anything that would be 2 matches or worse in the regular season go straight to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal can then hear all the excuses and the physics debates etc... and make a decision based on what the outcome produces and what the player would miss as a result.
The change that is needed for finals is something like this:
View attachment 420830
Just add a column for finals, get rid of the early plea stuff for post-season games because everyone will take that in a finals series ... and make anything that would be 2 matches or worse in the regular season go straight to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal can then hear all the excuses and the physics debates etc... and make a decision based on what the outcome produces and what the player would miss as a result.
Are you deliberately missing the point?
The "rule", such as it is, is that if you elect to bump a player and they get concussed, you have a case to answer. It almost always results in a suspension, occasionally a fine.
Neither occurred in this case. Why do you think that is? It's because the next match is "worth more" in the eyes of the AFL. So they orchestrated a result which is different from the one they have arrived it time and time again.
If it was Sloane in the identical situation, with two fines and a concussed opponent, and he got suspended, of course I'd be upset. But it would be consistent with the decisions that have been made over the last few years. The Cotchin decision was not.
The "rule", such as it is, is that if you elect to bump a player and they get concussed, you have a case to answer. It almost always results in a suspension, occasionally a fine.
Neither occurred in this case. Why do you think that is? It's because the next match is "worth more" in the eyes of the AFL. So they orchestrated a result which is different from the one they have arrived it time and time again.
If it was Sloane in the identical situation, with two fines and a concussed opponent, and he got suspended, of course I'd be upset. But it would be consistent with the decisions that have been made over the last few years. The Cotchin decision was not.
Maybe all the laughing at Port over the last few weeks has taking its toll on Subi, - quite understandable as its been ******* hilarious.

