Butler tackle on Blakey

Remove this Banner Ad

Its beyond incompetence. The AFL simply have zero clue what they are doing. They hand out different numbers of weeks for the same type of incident and then they let players get away with the same incidents with no charge.

Bont obviously because he is Bont and always gets a heap of Brownlow votes, but Merrett has already been suspended so cant win. Why is his arm pin tackle where the player is driven in to the ground and hits his head any different to Butler's?

Surely a part of the Butler defence is to show the Merrett tackle and say "see, there is nothing wrong here" ?
hqdefault.jpg


Funny also that Maddo is hopelessly wrong on another suspension thread. The OP hasn't got a Scooby Doo.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Finally a win for us at the tribunal.

The right decision though, it would've been a farce if Butler got suspended for that tackle especially with how ridiculous the AFL lawyer's arguments were

.
 
Last edited:


Basically boils down to "he released the arm so he could protect himself" as some pointed out earlier in the thread
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Good to see you fronting up to hold the L
Like i said on page one, I find this s**t interesting and like discussing the footy

Some have just come in here to throw stones which I've replied to appropriately.

So now the question is, would this be assessed the same way if he was concussed?
 
The right call.

Butler did not nothing over the top. Injuries can happen still, but it was a reasonable tackle.

Still pisses me off the s**t their lawyers come out with. Oh he hasn’t been suspended before? Big woop, this isn’t a court of law. Bachar Houli went years without incident and then smacked someone in the head. Football incidents should be judged on merit, not on their records.
 
Like i said on page one, I find this s**t interesting and like discussing the footy

Some have just come in here to throw stones which I've replied to appropriately.

So now the question is, would this be assessed the same way if he was concussed?
You weren’t discussing footy. You were telling everyone how and why they were wrong, when they were telling you how and why you were wrong.

You have zero credibility.
 
You weren’t discussing footy. You were telling everyone how and why they were wrong, when they were telling you how and why you were wrong.

You have zero credibility.
Wow it's almost as if people can have different opinions on things.

I also never argued against the fact that got him off, that he let go of the arm.
 
Hard to see how he avoids 2+ weeks for dumping Blakey in a tackle. Blakey subbed out.



Subbed off due to a foot injury, unrelated to the tackle.

Thrown out on appeal. Got what it deserved.

Waste of time for everyone involved.

Hope Daisy Pearce apologises to him after carrying on about it for half the game.
 
So now the question is, would this be assessed the same way if he was concussed?
Presumably it would be assessed the same way as they removed the "careless" conduct aspect of the grading rather than the impact severity from medium to low.

Once careless is removed from the equation there is no case to answer for and is essentially seen as a football action, no argument or defense was presented during the hearing suggesting the head never hit the floor with force.

Well that's applying a logical case, what the would actually happen would need a crystal ball as logic has been long removed from mrp/tribunal assessments.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top