AFLW General AFLW Talk Thread

[Eddie Dingle]

I can't read the article Helen, how many attended and what were they charged?

Hi Karen,

Lots and lots.

 

[Windy Cindy]

Might be unpopular, but I cant see the rush to have a women’s team.

let’s get the men’s team back strong and successful. That should be our number 1 focus.

lots might go and enjoy the womens game but I personally wouldn’t cross the road to watch it.

 

[Papa G]

The reasons for having a women's team are completely not altruistic.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Missing your point old chum. I’m just saying many people on this website said that no one would ever pay to see women’s footy and once they started charging there would be zero attendance.

Yeah that was dumb to say that. It was always going to happen at some point and there was always going to be people who would be prepared to pay. Covid protocols has probably accelerated it by a year or two or three.

I figured by the time all 18 clubs had a team, pay at the gate / buy an access membership would be the norm.

 

[chiwigi]

The reasons for having a women's team are completely not altruistic.

Of course not, why should it be?
The reasons for having the men’s teams aren’t either.

 

[Teen Wolf]

If the murmurings of "Adelaide are too strong" get any louder, the Victorian clubs will happily devour their own to weaken a serious rival.

The addition of Port wouldn't weaken Adelaide. Note how Fremantle went undefeated last year, despite West Coast joining the competition.

Besides, Erin Phillips is likely to retire before the next wave of expansion*, and then nobody will be talking about the Crows being too strong (as was the case in '18 and '20 when Phillips was wrecked by injury).

*The current AFLW CBA covers the 2022 season, so any aim to have a team before 2023 is highly fanciful. That said, the argument against Port joining ASAP is that the SA talent pool isn't ready for a second team... But the reality is the introduction of a second AFLW team will accelerate the development of girl's/women's footy in the state.

 

[raptalia]

How can the AFL tribunal hand out the most severe penalty in the history of AFLW one week then overturn that decision the following week? Something must have gone horribly wrong the first time round or the panel is plain incompetent.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

How can the AFL tribunal hand out the most severe penalty in the history of AFLW one week then overturn that decision the following week? Something must have gone horribly wrong the first time round or the panel is plain incompetent.

Different evidence - crows on appeal said the GWS player was involved in another incident where her neck injury was probably picked up there, and then used photographic evidence of actual incident she got reported for, not presented at the first hearing. Happens regularly in normal court appeals situations.

Anyway we have to wait for a while to understand exactly why, because - The Appeals Board took 40 minutes to deliberate on the appeal and said it would provide written reasons for its finding in due course.

 

[raptalia]

Different evidence - crows on appeal said the GWS player was involved in another incident where her neck injury was probably picked up there, and then used photographic evidence of actual incident she got reported for, not presented at the first hearing. Happens regularly in normal court appeals situations.

Anyway we have to wait for a while to understand exactly why, because - The Appeals Board took 40 minutes to deliberate on the appeal and said it would provide written reasons for its finding in due course.

It doesn't sound like the AFL Tribunal process is all the efficient. Why should it take an appeal for the true facts to emerge? The facts as you present them illustrate what an overly hasty and shambolic process the AFL tribunal is. Obviously the Crows could not present the addition evidence in the time allowed for the original hearing as it was either not available at the time or they had insufficient time to sift through the footage. Can clubs ask for an extension to the hearing date if they require more time to mount a defence ?

Good luck to the girl anyway, it is nice to see someone prove the Tribunal wrong even if it is a Crow player. My point still remains though, they went from the heaviest penalty they have ever handed out to a 'sorry we got it wrong'. That is not a good look from where I sit.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

A lot of clouds feeling victimised today

 

[Duckimus Prime]

It doesn't sound like the AFL Tribunal process is all the efficient. Why should it take an appeal for the true facts to emerge?

The facts as you present them illustrate what an overly hasty and shambolic process the AFL tribunal is. Obviously the Crows could not present the addition evidence in the time allowed for the original hearing as it was either not available at the time or they had insufficient time to sift through the footage. Can clubs ask for an extension to the hearing date if they require more time to mount a defence ?

The Crows appealed a decision made by the Match Review Officer, not the AFL Tribunal. No facts are presented by the Crows to the MRO. He reviews the game and reviews the medical report supplied by GWS and then makes a decision.

Its not the MRO's job to also go combing through the game to see if there are any alternate reasons for injury other than the incident he is looking at. Its up to the clubs to do that themselves, and if they find something that they think contradicts the MRO's decision then they appeal and go to a Tribunal hearing where evidence is presented.

Good luck to the girl anyway, it is nice to see someone prove the Tribunal wrong even if it is a Crow player. My point still remains though, they went from the heaviest penalty they have ever handed out to a 'sorry we got it wrong'. That is not a good look from where I sit.

Nobody has proven the Tribunal wrong here, in fact just about everyone would seem to agree that the Tribunal got the decision correct when it cleared Marinoff to play.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The Crows appealed a decision made by the Match Review Officer, not the AFL Tribunal. No facts are presented by the Crows to the MRO. He reviews the game and reviews the medical report supplied by GWS and then makes a decision.

Its not the MRO's job to also go combing through the game to see if there are any alternate reasons for injury other than the incident he is looking at. Its up to the clubs to do that themselves, and if they find something that they think contradicts the MRO's decision then they appeal and go to a Tribunal hearing where evidence is presented.


Nobody has proven the Tribunal wrong here, in fact just about everyone would seem to agree that the Tribunal got the decision correct when it cleared Marinoff to play.

Thats what I thought before I posted above but the MRO sent it straight to tribunal and it was the 3 panel members, all ex footballers who made the 3 week suspension ruling.

In both the men's and women's game, if the MRO grades the impact as severe, whether he gives a careless or intentional conduct rating, it goes straight to the tribunal and the MRO doesnt apply any set weeks as a result.

Because the player was stretchered off,, and it was revealed she broke a vertabre, he has to give a severe impact ruling under the current guidelines, and it is the tribunal that have to make the call if the severe impact was unavoidable.

 

[G3TWOTYAD3S3RV]

So dumb not to have our womens team, we’ll be the last to join no doubt


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[raptalia]

Thats what I thought before I posted above but the MRO sent it straight to tribunal and it was the 3 panel members, all ex footballers who made the 3 week suspension ruling.

In both the men's and women's game, if the MRO grades the impact as severe, whether he gives a careless or intentional conduct rating, it goes straight to the tribunal and the MRO doesnt apply any set weeks as a result.

Because the player was stretchered off,, and it was revealed she broke a vertabre, he has to give a severe impact ruling under the current guidelines, and it is the tribunal that have to make the call if the severe impact was unavoidable.

Thanks for that.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

No problem with scoring in this game. Unless you're Geelong.

Oh look there's Patrick Dangerfield in the stand. We better show him.

Looked like he was talking to Shane Bourne but that wasn't mentioned. Nobody knows who he is since Hey hey It's Saturday finished.

 

[Grave Danger]

No problem with scoring in this game. Unless you're Geelong.

Kangas will have a % of infinity if Cats don't score. The premiership table will need to have an asymptote.

 

[edgie]

Lol is North Melbourne really the North Melbourne Tasmanian Kangaroos in AFLW?

 

[Garibaldi Red]

Kangas will have a % of infinity if Cats don't score. The premiership table will need to have an asymptote.

AFL. “Just make it zero”

 

[Grave Danger]

AFL. “Just make it zero”

Just a shmick under 800% as it turned out.

 

[Steve Dore]

'I've played football all my life': Ex-Gaelic star rejects suggestion AFLW inexperience contributed to broken neck

Injured AFLW player Bríd Stack hits out at the AFL appeals board after Ebony Marinoff was cleared for the tackle that left the former Gaelic football star with a broken neck.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Frank Hansen II]

So dumb not to have our womens team, we’ll be the last to join no doubt


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

And Erin will probably be out of the game by then.

 

[VineValerian]

Kangas will have a % of infinity if Cats don't score. The premiership table will need to have an asymptote.

I will see your "asymptote" and raise you a "non-intersecting tangent at infinity".

 

[Grave Danger]

 

[chiwigi]

AFL. “Just make it zero”

 

[Rising Power]

No problem with scoring in this game. Unless you're Geelong.

Oh look there's Patrick Dangerfield in the stand. We better show him.

Looked like he was talking to Shane Bourne but that wasn't mentioned. Nobody knows who he is since Hey hey It's Saturday finished.

Thank God he was there