Burton and Broad tackles

[domin8]

Lycett got 4 for knocking Ned the * out didnt he? How is this different? If anything it is worse given the play was basically dead when Broad decided to FINISH HIM

Mate nobody is denying he’ll do weeks but you’re getting a bit emotional. Let’s just hang him from a yard arm shall we

 

[CrowToon]

Mate nobody is denying he’ll do weeks but you’re getting a bit emotional. Let’s just hang him from a yard arm shall we

Cool gaslighting.

Calling for consistency isn't being emotional or hanging someone. If a player got X for a comparable action then that's what the next player should get.

Spent a week being told to take our medicine by the Vic media who were happy to ignore Pickett and now it'll happen again. 1 or 2 weeks and we will just ignore Lycett.

 

[ams4crows]

If they're gonna suspended McAdam for "the potential to cause serious injury" why aren't all sling tackles minimum 3 weeks then regardless of outcome? If they want to get it out of the game the penalty needs to be more significant.

If all sling tackles copped an automatic month ban regardless of result I bet those tackles would be significantly less than what we have now.

 

[CrowToon]

This thread has achieved the intended purpose of pre-empting MRO bias and when Michael read this thread he knew he was snookered.

Now, let's get ahead of the predictable Vic media coverage on it as they try and suggest that a) Burton should've gone too or b) Broad only went because it happened to an Adelaide player and the AFL are looking to appease them.

And yes, this post, nay this thread, has been brought to you by Multix

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Burton gets two, Broad to the tribunal.

 

[FakeTaxi]

Minimum 3 but hopefully 4 for Broad. Arms pinned, play stopped, clearly 2nd motion and a player knocked out as a result.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Mate nobody is denying he’ll do weeks but you’re getting a bit emotional. Let’s just hang him from a yard arm shall we

Gotta make allowances for the poor guy. He’s obviously still traumatised from the 2017 GF.

That, plus the humungous chip of wood permanently araldited across both of his shoulders. Clearly suffering from acute paranoia and persecution complex.

Broad will get 3-4 weeks, and deservedly so, and contrary to the childish and baseless assertions of the poster you responded to.

 

[CrowToon]

Gotta make allowances for the poor guy. He’s obviously still traumatised from the 2017 GF.

That, plus the humungous chip of wood permanently araldited across both of his shoulders. Clearly suffering from acute paranoia and persecution complex.

Broad will get 3-4 weeks, and deservedly so, and contrary to the childish and baseless assertions of the poster you responded to.

Who you calling Jesus?

 

[DazzaTys]

2 for Burton is an absolute joke. Elliot in the process of trying to kick the ball contributes to the action. Maybe a week at the most for a reckless tackle. Pickett leaves the ground and makes deliberate high contact to the head and only gets 2 weeks. Same crap every year.

 

[domin8]

Gotta make allowances for the poor guy. He’s obviously still traumatised from the 2017 GF.

That, plus the humungous chip of wood permanently araldited across both of his shoulders. Clearly suffering from acute paranoia and persecution complex.

Broad will get 3-4 weeks, and deservedly so, and contrary to the childish and baseless assertions of the poster you responded to.

And I have no dramas with that. I believe many believe it’s the expectation

 

[NSWCROW]

*, if Burton got 2 then broad should get 4


Well, he would if it wasn't against us

 

[PrisonBars4life]

2 for Burton is an absolute joke. Elliot in the process of trying to kick the ball contributes to the action. Maybe a week at the most for a reckless tackle. Pickett leaves the ground and makes deliberate high contact to the head and only gets 2 weeks. Same crap every year.

It's an embarrassment. The rules themselves are at times dumb and then you have idiots like Christian who have no idea what they are doing. Then you have morons at the AFL who sign off on whatever makes them look best like the North/Freo call. Don't tell us something that we clearly see is not the case.

The idea of 'potential to create injury' is that the damage should be less important when you can visually see that there has been significant force. There's * all force in Burton's tackle. He pinned the guys arm (like you're taught), brought him to ground (like you're taught) with the only thing he did wrong being a half sling (which used to be legal but the AFL changed the rules because people were getting knocked out by legal tackles). The force into Elliot's head was about what 10% of the Pickett/Mcadam bump? Maybe not even that much. Meanwhile Elliot made an almost identical tackle on Dan Houston (arm pinned, slung over his shoulder) where the only difference was marginally less force so he didn't hit is head. People will accuse me of bias because he is a Port player, but this standard will not hold for the rest of the season, it never does. So we have 4 incidents where no one was hurt but players get suspended on the basis of potential. Buddy's gets a week despite being dirty, unnecessary, and more force than Burton's, Burtons at 2 weeks, Pickets which was dirty, should have been a tackle, and much more force gets 2, Mcadam's was unlucky but he should have tackled, and the force was huge and gets 3.

Based on Burton's, Franklin's should have been about 3, Mcadam 4, and Pickett 6. Meanwhile, like almost every ******* year just wait. If someone's having a near Brownlow year later than rd 12 does this, they'll get zero. If a key player of a finalist does it in rd 22, he'll get zero. The AFL will sign off on it and the 98% of media won't discuss it because they're sycophants.

 

[Bearded Clam]

It's an embarrassment. The rules themselves are at times dumb and then you have idiots like Christian who have no idea what they are doing. Then you have morons at the AFL who sign off on whatever makes them look best like the North/Freo call. Don't tell us something that we clearly see is not the case.

The idea of 'potential to create injury' is that the damage should be less important when you can visually see that there has been significant force. There's * all force in Burton's tackle. He pinned the guys arm (like you're taught), brought him to ground (like you're taught) with the only thing he did wrong being a half sling (which used to be legal but the AFL changed the rules because people were getting knocked out by legal tackles). The force into Elliot's head was about what 10% of the Pickett/Mcadam bump? Maybe not even that much. Meanwhile Elliot made an almost identical tackle on Dan Houston (arm pinned, slung over his shoulder) where the only difference was marginally less force so he didn't hit is head. People will accuse me of bias because he is a Port player, but this standard will not hold for the rest of the season, it never does. So we have 4 incidents where no one was hurt but players get suspended on the basis of potential. Buddy's gets a week despite being dirty, unnecessary, and more force than Burton's, Burtons at 2 weeks, Pickets which was dirty, should have been a tackle, and much more force gets 2, Mcadam's was unlucky but he should have tackled, and the force was huge and gets 3.

Based on Burton's, Franklin's should have been about 3, Mcadam 4, and Pickett 6. Meanwhile, like almost every ******* year just wait. If someone's having a near Brownlow year later than rd 12 does this, they'll get zero. If a key player of a finalist does it in rd 22, he'll get zero. The AFL will sign off on it and the 98% of media won't discuss it because they're sycophants.

You’re failing to add the “interstate and/or unimportant player tax”..

Burton’s a nobody.. they go harder on nobodies so they can look tough on head knocks..

 

[PrisonBars4life]

You’re failing to add the “interstate and/or unimportant player tax”..

Burton’s a nobody.. they go harder on nobodies so they can look tough on head knocks..

No I understand. But then you'll get the 'wah wah' from the Vic clubs who get on the right side of chook lotto.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Unknown freo player got 4 weeks for a replica tackle (on gray) to broads a couple seasons ago before the concussion lawsuits so should be looking at 5 weeks
Broad a tiger -1 week
Good bloke -1 week
Injured player no star -1 week
Broad, 2 weeks by the matrix

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Broad will get 4
Clean record discount 3.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Broad will get 4
Clean record discount 3.

that seems about right

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Gut says the AFL will make a statement here after failing to last week. Do I think they should be using players as pawns though no. 3-4 weeks seems fine, but watch them go for 5-7 weeks.

 

[Crow till I die]

Same player Wehr - bumped again, now he was injured and taken from the field, didn't have the ball when bumped

Unfortunately for the bumping player, the McAdam precedent should see him miss weeks for that...I wonder what the AFL will do here

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Small difference there was no High contact at all whiplash or other. That was a perfectly executed hard bump and he took every precaution when doing it.

 

[Crow till I die]

Small difference there was no High contact at all whiplash or other. That was a perfectly executed hard bump and he took every precaution when doing it.

'potential to cause injury'...and he was injured and taken from the field. Don't think the AFL MRO can view it ny other way now the McAdam precedent has been set

 

[LukeParkerno1]

'potential to cause injury'...and he was injured and taken from the field. Don't think the AFL MRO can view it ny other way now the McAdam precedent has been set

It was the high contact via whiplash that out McAdam out. No this won’t be suspended despite you thinking it’s some adgenda against Adelaide. It was worth 3, and it was upheld in two tribunals. You are focusing way too much on one part of the finding. This was a good clean bump.

 

[Crow till I die]

It was the high contact via whiplash that out McAdam out. No this won’t be suspended despite you thinking it’s some adgenda against Adelaide. It was worth 3, and it was upheld in two tribunals. You are focusing way too much on one part of the finding. This was a good clean bump.

lol.. despite what you think, they set a precedent with these words 'potential to cause injury'.the guy came off the ground injured...its a precedent as it was unreaonable force that caused it

 

[LukeParkerno1]

lol.. despite what you think, they set a precedent with these words 'potential to cause injury'.the guy came off the ground injured...its a precedent

If there is head contact or the potential to cause head contact. There wasn't here, body was lower and he took every praucaution. No doubt he won't be charged and rightly so.

 

[Roachy8]

Broad should get four and I think he will.

Then I will be looking forward to all of the apology posts from tin-foil hatters here who since Sat arvo have asserted a pro Richmond and anti Adelaide AFL tribunal bias...