Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not surprised the prosecution is using the "potential to cause injury" clause as it's cornerstone, they have nothing else
Is there anything the AFL loves more than rules being open to interpretation?Not surprised the prosecution is using the "potential to cause injury" clause as it's cornerstone, they have nothing else
This isn't really true. You can be charged with dangerous driving, attempted assault, conspiracy to commit an offence, etc.FFS, our judicial system is based on outcome, the MRP based sanctions on outcomes, now they want to use potential outcomes??
Bollocks
It is very true. You can be charged but the sentencing is determined by the outcome and the victim impact statements.This isn't really true. You can be charged with dangerous driving, attempted assault, conspiracy to commit an offence, etc.
The real inconsistency here is that the AFL have centred their prosecution on outcomes over potential outcomes in the past.
The AFL would say the same thing is being done here. Dangerfield gets 3 weeks because he actually caused a concussion, Cunnington gets 1 week because he engaged in conduct that had the potential to cause a concussion.It is very true. You can be charged but the sentencing is determined by the outcome and the victim impact statements.
I can shoot a gun on my farm and not get charged. I can shoot a gun at a road sign just out of town and get fined. I can shoot your car while you drive by and I’ll go to gaol for a few years, or I can shoot you in the head and go to gaol for the rest of my life.
But it’s bollocks, cause a normal bump has “potential”. Cunnington made sure there was no concussion by easing off. If he potentially wanted to cause damage Laird would be dead.The AFL would say the same thing is being done here. Dangerfield gets 3 weeks because he actually caused a concussion, Cunnington gets 1 week because he engaged in conduct that had the potential to cause a concussion.
That's exactly the point the AFL are trying to make.But it’s bollocks, cause a normal bump has “potential”. Cunnington made sure there was no concussion by easing off. If he potentially wanted to cause damage Laird would be dead.
Close to one of the dumbest potential suspensions I’ve ever seen. On the criteria of this there should have been tens of players cited this week alone. The MRP system is officially broken, the shark has been jumped. We would not be able to field full teams next week if this criteria had been consistently used during this weeks reviews. I dead set thought a free kick was generous.
That's exactly the point the AFL are trying to make.
A decade ago the bump was completely fair game.
In more recent times if you have elected to bump and caused concussion, you faced a suspension.
Now we're seeing bumps that don't even cause concussion - but look like they could - face scrutiny.
It's obvious where this is all going. The AFL are concerned about litigation and are slowly phasing the bump out of the game. Unfortunately Cunnington isn't the first and he won't be the last player to find himself in the situation where something he has done his whole footballing life is all of a sudden prohibited.
That's exactly the point the AFL are trying to make.
A decade ago the bump was completely fair game.
In more recent times if you have elected to bump and caused concussion, you faced a suspension.
Now we're seeing bumps that don't even cause concussion - but look like they could - face scrutiny.
It's obvious where this is all going. The AFL are concerned about litigation and are slowly phasing the bump out of the game. Unfortunately Cunnington isn't the first and he won't be the last player to find himself in the situation where something he has done his whole footballing life is all of a sudden prohibited.
I disagree with the last bit of your comment. It was rather - to very - late, so it's a downfield free kick every time. But it was never a suspension.
You have forgotten the first rule by talking about it...Wonder how long it will be before there is a footy black market, where blokes can play footy and bump and tackle and take hangers? Have to smuggle blokes over the border to get a game Pssssttt, where's the footy at this weekend? Or maybe, the 1st rule of Footy club, is there is no Footy club. Or something.