If you get a third of a season for that we might as well just fast forward to the time when one team takes to the ground for a quarter, see how many goals they kick while the other team waits on the side lines, then swap over at quarter time and see how many goals they can kick.
Women's Footy Crows AFLW Season 2021 - “2nd comes right after 1st”
- Thread starter Firewalker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Sweet Jesus.
Forceful Front On Contact, was expecting a charging hip and shoulder delivered to someone bent down getting the ball.
They must have uploaded the wrong video, Ebony was just about stationary.
Not sure what else Ebony could do apart from acting like a Matador and letting her charge past with an Ole thrown in.
Just when you think the AFL can't get any worse, they go an surprise you again.
Forceful Front On Contact, was expecting a charging hip and shoulder delivered to someone bent down getting the ball.
They must have uploaded the wrong video, Ebony was just about stationary.
Not sure what else Ebony could do apart from acting like a Matador and letting her charge past with an Ole thrown in.
Just when you think the AFL can't get any worse, they go an surprise you again.
- Oct 3, 2012
- 1,466
- 3,701
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yeah. I was expecting to see the same... instead I see that she’s essentially standing still with her arms in the air while the opposition player drives her head into Ebony... absolutely ridiculous decision. Perhaps the worst I’ve ever seen at a tribunal, and that’s saying something.
manureid
Laziest Poster on Figbooty
I mean, that is a joke right?
What kind of a legal system where penalties are dealt with purely on an outcome and neglect the “intent” factor?
Yes, unfortunate there was a neck injury, but what was Marinoff supposed to do? Side-step her opponent and let the opponent carry the ball away?
Accidents happen all the time in sports. We shouldn’t muddle “accidents” as “intent to cause serious bodily harm”. * the tribunal!
Yes, unfortunate there was a neck injury, but what was Marinoff supposed to do? Side-step her opponent and let the opponent carry the ball away?
Accidents happen all the time in sports. We shouldn’t muddle “accidents” as “intent to cause serious bodily harm”. * the tribunal!
The AFL has been clear for years that they use severity as a major deciding factor in their rulings, and the only real way they have to judge the severity of an action is by the outcome.
Yes, it's stupid. Yes, it means that genuinely dangerous actions get slaps on the wrist because the opponent is lucky to avoid serious injury, while innocuous incidents get penalised harshly because of freak accidents. It's a dumb way of doing things, but it's the one they've chosen.
This seems different, though. Usually in this sort of situation you can at least say "well, that's a pity but that's the risk you take when you bump/tackle/whatever". But as far as I can tell here, Marinoff didn't actually do... anything. She just happened to be nearby when Stack accidentally drove her head into Marinoff's torso. Yes, the outcome needs to be taken into consideration when determining the length of suspension, but surely you need to actually be found guilty of something first. Rough conduct? Where? I've watched the footage a dozen times, I can't see anything whatsoever that would indicate rough conduct.
It was just a freak accident, a shitty situation. It sucks big time and I hate that I'm sitting here whinging about a suspension when someone is sitting in the hospital with an injured neck after travelling halfway across the world to be here. But I just can't see how Marinoff can be considered at fault here based on the footage we've seen.
Yes, it's stupid. Yes, it means that genuinely dangerous actions get slaps on the wrist because the opponent is lucky to avoid serious injury, while innocuous incidents get penalised harshly because of freak accidents. It's a dumb way of doing things, but it's the one they've chosen.
This seems different, though. Usually in this sort of situation you can at least say "well, that's a pity but that's the risk you take when you bump/tackle/whatever". But as far as I can tell here, Marinoff didn't actually do... anything. She just happened to be nearby when Stack accidentally drove her head into Marinoff's torso. Yes, the outcome needs to be taken into consideration when determining the length of suspension, but surely you need to actually be found guilty of something first. Rough conduct? Where? I've watched the footage a dozen times, I can't see anything whatsoever that would indicate rough conduct.
It was just a freak accident, a shitty situation. It sucks big time and I hate that I'm sitting here whinging about a suspension when someone is sitting in the hospital with an injured neck after travelling halfway across the world to be here. But I just can't see how Marinoff can be considered at fault here based on the footage we've seen.
Some other players in that situation wouldn't even be concussed, just unfortunate about the ducking of the head and the contact point. Freak accident EB has stopped and the girl plows her head into her hip, what was she supposed to do? The contact didn't even look forceful?
If you watch it closely both players are almost stationary. The GWS player definitely stops and puts her head down and Marinoff paused before taking a couple of small steps as her opponent gathered the ball. She has a little momentum but not much. Actually pretty amazing that there was an injury at all.
Club is appealing
Club just announced we are going to appeal the decision
“We are appealing this decision because we all feel that the suspension is grossly disproportionate for the action"
“We are appealing this decision because we all feel that the suspension is grossly disproportionate for the action"
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 58,296
- 151,195
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #139
They had to appeal because it's the worst suspension ever handed out to an AFL player.
They cannot allow even the slightest precedent (knowing the AFL doesn't use precedent) to have that sort of action on field be suspendable
They cannot allow even the slightest precedent (knowing the AFL doesn't use precedent) to have that sort of action on field be suspendable
- Thread starter
- #140
Just taking a break from MRP nonsense, few things I noticed in this short vid the club put up
- Randall straight back into it, no strapping on knee and didn’t look hesitant in her movement in the clips of her
- Little weird seeing Sarah Allan up forward especially given it’s the only practice game they have
- Biddell spending time playing both key forward and back
- Maddie Newman looked like she was playing off half-back
- Najwa Allen looked like she was getting some midfield minutes
- Lisa Whiteley slotting in as a defender looked to allow Randall freedom to move up the ground a bit more
- Marinoff’s ball drop looked a little better
- Hannah Button née Martin and Mules are little Terriers with their tackling, good to see Button like Randall not hesitant in her return.
- Hatchard playing in a helmet now will take some getting used too
- Thread starter
- #142
Not sure but she’s worn it all through training as well from what I’ve seen, will at least help umpires realise it’s her to give the votes to this time unlike what happened in the SANFLW last year I suppose
Gee, Whiteley is a ringer for Cramey in that video! Took me a second to remember that #22 isn't Cramey anymore.
On a serious note, if the AFL direction is to overcompensate with the heavy penalties for accidental head knocks, then this will possibly lead to players being hesitant whenever there is congestion or when attempting a tackle. The game then might change for the worse as a spectacle.
So yeah, good on the club for the appeal!
NTRabbit
Brownlow Medallist
I think you'll find it's only going to apply to the dainty and delicate flowers of the women's game, because AFL House remains of the opinion that women aren't tough enough to play a rough contact sport, and they should perhaps consider a nursing or secretary job before finding a nice man for which to make a home at about 24.
- Jun 23, 2016
- 15,253
- 13,992
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Taking a Big Day Out's amount of piss.
I thought the AFL removed the free kick from the men's game because they realised they needed to stamp it out because it was inevitable that someone would end up with a bad neck injury.
- Oct 16, 2011
- 15,378
- 38,230
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
It s really hard to quantify a comment of "worse decision by an AFL Tribunal" given there is a vast body of work to choose from but geez, this has to come close. In 50 years of following the footy, that is some of the dumbest s**t I have seen. If she had gone the hip and shoulder, no probs, you wear what you get but she is trying to tackle a person leading with their head FFS
That's exactly right, this is a football collision, it's not a deliberate snipe, an unfortunate injury occured but what was EB realistically supposed to do there, also another GWS player is pushing her at the point of contact, so she couldn't move out the way even if she wanted too
The reality is, we do need to do whatever it takes to remove head knocks, even accidental ones, from the game to whatever extent is possible. Even if it means making the game a worse spectacle as a result. What we've learned in recent years about the effects of concussions is frightening and we need to go all-in on preventing it.
But that also involves finding ways to prevent, or even penalise, players for putting themselves in that situation in the first place.
Similar threads
- Locked
