MRP / Trib. 2024 MRP Lotto thread II

Remove this Banner Ad

I can't work out what's the biggest joke Redman getting one week for push to the face or Sicily getting the same penalty for kicking.

Bad to worse.
Laura Kane explained it all on the couch last monday. Off the ball incidents are considered intentional and induce a week suspension. On the ball incidents are deemed careless
 

Log in to remove this ad.

So no fine for miers throwing a players boot away?
Guess that’s allowed now, I’d throw it 50 rows back into the crowd then

Yet Simpkin got fined for throwing away a gps
Simpkin's isn't really comparable in the sense he was the one to remove the GPS to throw it away.
 
Funny Redman got a week. Ess posters are having a sook due to Hewett the week before.


Very similar - but 1 big difference. Hewett was in play - Redman wasn’t. It’s why 1 was graded as intentional and 1 was careless. Hewett a fine and Redman 1 week.

Ess posters are seeing red or on drugs and can’t work out the difference.
 
Funny Redman got a week. Ess posters are having a sook due to Hewett the week before.


Very similar - but 1 big difference. Hewett was in play - Redman wasn’t. It’s why 1 was graded as intentional and 1 was careless. Hewett a fine and Redman 1 week.

Ess posters are seeing red or on drugs and can’t work out the difference.
It let’s be honest if one is worth a week so should the other.

Regardless if it being deemed in play or not Hewitt’s strike is exactly the same.

If you want the action out of the game, then suspend Hewitt as well.

A clip to the chin is a clip to the chin regardless of where the ball is.
 
It let’s be honest if one is worth a week so should the other.

Regardless if it being deemed in play or not Hewitt’s strike is exactly the same.

If you want the action out of the game, then suspend Hewitt as well.

A clip to the chin is a clip to the chin regardless of where the ball is.
The teams and players were told. Punch to the head no where near play will be graded intentional.

They got it correct - it’s why ess didn’t challenge.
 
The teams and players were told. Punch to the head no where near play will be graded intentional.

They got it correct - it’s why ess didn’t challenge.
I’m not arguing with grading. I am
Just making a point both are strikes to the head, so why bother even making silly rules of if it’s in play or not? If you want the action gone, suspend both.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A punch or forearm to the head,in particular to the back of, is fine, if you are using the Carlton patented advanced tackling technique. View attachment 1932222How refreshing
Ahh yes.

The Kick Accuracy Interference Technique.

If that sounds like complete and utter bullshit, it’s only because it is.
 
But funnily enough he got off, how surprising . This competition isn't compromised much lol
Andrew Woods is a Carlton supporter.
He represents the AFL Tribunal.

The amount of times Carlton players have been let off at the Tribunal because they ‘won’ their cases is bullshit.
 
It let’s be honest if one is worth a week so should the other.

Regardless if it being deemed in play or not Hewitt’s strike is exactly the same.

If you want the action out of the game, then suspend Hewitt as well.

A clip to the chin is a clip to the chin regardless of where the ball is.
Accidental contact is going to happen in a contact sport. Pushing and shoving in the contest is part of the game. Sometimes they go high. Off the ball there is zero need to chin anyone….

Edit: unless its Jimmy Webster..
 
Last edited:
Love how the AFL dragged out their favourite engineered outcome clause ‘potential to cause injury’.

There is absolutely no way Sicily’s action had the potential to cause a scratch, let alone an injury.
It deserved a week. Disgraceful decision.
 
It’s more the act he should have got a week. However, in all fairness he was using the Hawthorn patented advanced kicking technique. So I understand why it was dismissed
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top