MRP 2019 MRP Lotto - Christian loves Cunnington, hates Durds

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TennisPlayerAndy

Klay Thompson's Jumpshot
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Posts
39,049
Likes
52,203
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Liverpool, Raiders, GSW
Where is giantroo when you need him?

Durdin didn’t even bump his head in the replay, it was a accidental head clash

This was purely a accident. ******* joke
The rules have been changed again to say that there is no such thing as an accidental head clash.
 

Royal Flush

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
6,462
Likes
4,606
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Do you really think Ablett should be suspended for that?? It was a free kick, nothing more. Sammy got straight up, he wasn’t hurt.

F’en hell, in one breath we complain the game is going soft, and then we want a player suspended for a slight tap to the jaw.

This thread is so hypocritical it’s hilarious.
It was late, head high contact.
It was enough to get him sited last week same contact.
I don't understand the rules interpretations as it changes continually.
Looks like a cheap shot.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,926
Likes
73,458
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
This is 100% spot on. Go back to the original ruling that, if you have an alternative course of action, you wear the consequences of the bump. It's not hard.
This perversion of the intrinsic elements of the game can be put down to the fact that the game is now overseen by lawyers, accountants, marketers and pseudo politicians.

They just don't get it.

I reckon you could plot a timeline with money in AFL on the x axis and interference by weight of socio/political/corporate troglodytes on the y axis and achieve a significant linearity.
 
Last edited:

Rooboys Rool

All Australian
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Posts
866
Likes
2,273
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest the AFL didn’t actually think through the current rules completely, with the AFL only considering the application of the rule to bumping vs tackling (and not considering how it would be applied to shepherding).

I’d like to see us test that.
I’d also like to see us test the new rule that states a head clash will always be considered a foreseeable consequence of a bump.

Just because the AFL says it was foreseeable doesn’t mean it was actually foreseeable.

Lawyers would have a field day with that one in an actual court of law.
 
Last edited:

shintemaster

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
14,160
Likes
22,063
Location
Ponderama
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Sure, but the rule clearly states accident head clashes will be penanlised.
This will be interesting the first time two players brace for contact against each other and both are hit in the head. Technically they should both be penalised.

Go to the tape mate, was a fair bump inside the field.
Agree. The duty of care here lies with the AFL to build and operate in appropriate stadia.
 

shintemaster

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
14,160
Likes
22,063
Location
Ponderama
AFL Club
North Melbourne
My guess is the MRP would use common sense, something that is clearly lacking in this thread.
You've lost me. If an accidental head clash leaves you strictly liable when choosing to bump and you both bump then you are both liable. It is not about common sense. Why should there be a different rule when you're both stupid enough to hit each other high?
 

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
40,926
Likes
73,458
Location
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
You've lost me. If an accidental head clash leaves you strictly liable when choosing to bump and you both bump then you are both liable. It is not about common sense. Why should there be a different rule when you're both stupid enough to hit each other high?
The flaw in your logic is that you're making comments based upon the notion that your respondent has a rational understanding of the game.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

B4Bear

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
4,812
Likes
7,385
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I am offically done with the AFL. If Fyfe and Ablett are deemed to be not guilty for deliberate thug acts, and Durdin is guilty of playing for a small club then the AFL can go away.

I will watch North games with interest, but my passion for the game is gone.

Oh, and if the club accept this decision and do not appeal, and through the courts if required, they can go away too.

edited by BF should say G.A.G.F
 

kangatime

Premium Gold
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Posts
8,952
Likes
11,612
Location
kangaplace
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You've lost me. If an accidental head clash leaves you strictly liable when choosing to bump and you both bump then you are both liable. It is not about common sense. Why should there be a different rule when you're both stupid enough to hit each other high?
You're initial post said brace for contact, 99.9%of the time it is one person electing to bump. It's very, very uncommon for 2 people to bump. BUT, if the situation arose where both people elected to bump, (while having an alternative option), with equal force and both players were concussed I'm sure the AFL would use common sense.

Back to Durds, look at this footage:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/video/afl/afl/roo-floors-cat-with-bump!730372

It's obvious Durds could have used his arms to hinder Rohan.

The flaw in your logic is that you're making comments based upon the notion that your respondent has a rational understanding of the game.
That's pretty funny. You are the most irrational person on this board. Just look at your last thread.

And you're still yet to explain what a "Football Board" is, and whether or not Hawthorns board fits this definition of yours.
 

shintemaster

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
14,160
Likes
22,063
Location
Ponderama
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You're initial post said brace for contact, 99.9%of the time it is one person electing to bump. It's very, very uncommon for 2 people to bump. BUT, if the situation arose where both people elected to bump, (while having an alternative option), with equal force and both players were concussed I'm sure the AFL would use common sense.
You're clearly attempting to be rational and even handed but it is pretty hard to take it seriously when you're stating AFL & common sense in the same sentence.

Given your earlier analogy to car incidents for example if two drivers were having a drag race and both crashed hurting each other I don't see the authorities letting them both off because they've been injured equally. Part of the penalty in any of these issues - particularly with head high bumps - is surely the deterrent factor of the penalty. You don't achieve that with players getting off if they hurt themselves as well.
 

shintemaster

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Posts
14,160
Likes
22,063
Location
Ponderama
AFL Club
North Melbourne
That one week was clearly a message that this was as light a penalty as MC could make it under the current rules. FWIW I reckon they know this is a stuff up and they've done the best they could to mitigate the impact on Durdin. It is still a stupid interpretation IMO.
 

kangatime

Premium Gold
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Posts
8,952
Likes
11,612
Location
kangaplace
AFL Club
North Melbourne
You're clearly attempting to be rational and even handed but it is pretty hard to take it seriously when you're stating AFL & common sense in the same sentence.

Given your earlier analogy to car incidents for example if two drivers were having a drag race and both crashed hurting each other I don't see the authorities letting them both off because they've been injured equally. Part of the penalty in any of these issues - particularly with head high bumps - is surely the deterrent factor of the penalty. You don't achieve that with players getting off if they hurt themselves as well.
As I've said, I dont agree with the rule, but unlike Snake_Baker I can be rational. There's always going to be what if's but in this case it is clear that Durds has broken the rules as they stand.

People are forgetting what a shepherd is. Snake_Baker is our resident thesaurus, I'm sure he understands the rational behind shepherding, ie to guide or direct in a particular direction.
 

kangatime

Premium Gold
Joined
Mar 29, 2009
Posts
8,952
Likes
11,612
Location
kangaplace
AFL Club
North Melbourne
...............just don't upset the AFL.

The sooner we kick these careerists to the curb, the better.
You obviously have an irrational understanding of the tribunal system. There was no possible way to get the one week downgraded. Any attempt to do so would have been a waste of time and money. But please keep on shouting at the clouds, it amuses me.
 

B4Bear

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
4,812
Likes
7,385
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Can’t believe they didn’t challenge. There’s nothing to lose. What am I missing?
It doesn't gel with the corporate risk aversion approach that the club has embraced.

******* cowards of the highest order. What this says, is that the club will throw anyone under the bus in order to not upset their AFL overlords.
 

Thewlis Dish

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
25,571
Likes
19,481
Location
Five Star Laundry
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
FGR
We are celebrating 150 years of north Melbourne and we show no fight at the MRO. no killer instinct or demand for answers. Just let the whole afl system get away with stuff up after stuff up

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Well unless we want to throw away legal fees I'm not sure what the point of challenging would be.
 
Top Bottom