sr36
Hall of Famer
No I don't. I'll let you try to work out what I was saying.
Daicos dangerous tackle on Daniel
- Thread starter ChristianBoy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,351
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #227
What your saying is that the bad umpiring has only been highlighted because of the two games being played. They are prelims and one team got a distinct advantage and it is now being discussed.
Should they ignore it?
sr36
Hall of Famer
No. That was about the Daicos tackle.
What I'm saying is that you're a tin foil hat conspiracy theorist who is too myopic to realise that the AFL rules are designed to help your club so that teams like Collingwood don't always dominate the comp. There isn't an AFL conspiracy to advantage Collingwood or any other big club - the AFL has done the opposite and have clearly brought in rules designed to bring clubs like Collingwood back to the field, so that clubs like yours can compete. It's just not debatable unless you are a tin foil hat wearer.
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,351
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #229
- Sep 3, 2019
- 17,241
- 49,913
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Obviously. We'd be angry if we didn't make it
sr36
Hall of Famer
Yep. Always happy for my team to get the rub of the green - be it umpiring decisions or bounce of the ball.
And despite my concern for society, I'm also happy to laugh at the tears of conspiracy theory nuffies.
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,351
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #232
I don't know what the issue is. Answer is yes we got a dream run and we are in the grand final as a result. Take it and move on.
- Dec 9, 2015
- 5,737
- 10,160
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Sep 3, 2019
- 17,241
- 49,913
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
You're telling me i need to move on?
- Dec 9, 2015
- 5,737
- 10,160
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Thirteen years, saddest case in historyYou're telling me i need to move on?
Christian Boy is the Miss Havisham of BF, probably still wearing his 2010 GF outfit
- Dec 9, 2015
- 5,737
- 10,160
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Um, actually that's exactly what the rules are now.
ITT: people with such little knowledge of the game that they think tackling someone to the ground without even pinning their arms is suspension worthy
This is the tackle Serong was suspended for:
Notice no arms pinned.
sr36
Hall of Famer
I'd argue that the issue is most people not understanding the rules and also not seeing significant differences between different incidents.
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,351
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #239
Yes I'd argue that every time an incident involves a player from their own club the player is innocent and can't possibly be suspended.
sr36
Hall of Famer
Or just as commonly "neutrals" who ahve a bias against a club think it should be suspended.
a) it's a standard tackle from behind
b) his head hits the turf because Pendlebury grabs his free arm after Daicos has tackled him
c) like most standard tackles from behind, you can't tell whether the tackler pushed him forward or whether the players momentum came from him playing for an in the back free.
It's farcical that anyone could actually think that incident was suspendable. Really shows that you have absolutely no idea about the game or are just so ridiculously biased that you can't see clearly on anything Collingwood or are just a simple troll.
- Sep 3, 2019
- 17,241
- 49,913
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Yeah but you'd argue that water wasn't wet if Collingwood suggested it
- Jul 15, 2022
- 2,382
- 2,351
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #242
Yet players have been suspended all year for it. Then again jump off the ground knock a bloke out is allowed.
sr36
Hall of Famer
a) no they haven't
b) For the Maynard case: read the careless conduct tribunal guidelines and the relevant charges and then come back and explain to me what jumping has to do with the charge. Then read the Tribunal findings and tell me how they are wrong.
I know it's a bit tough to expect you to read the rules - and it's much easier to just complain about corruption of the rules without knowing the rules.
- Sep 3, 2019
- 17,241
- 49,913
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
* me how many times do the Maynard finding have to be explained. There will probably be rule changes because of it but the amount of details people want to ignore to keep their pissy sooking up is laughable. On Daicos, every *n media talking head that either love or despise Collingwood we're of the opinion it wasn't an issue. They must all be on the secret Vicbias, umpire assisted, tribunal cheating Collingwood panel we've assembled this year. Get around us
sr36
Hall of Famer
You're underestimating the Machiavellian Vicbias evile genius of the AFL.
They knew that a Vic player would knock out another Vic player in an unusual incident in a final, so they wrote guidelines that would enable that Vic player to get off, denying the other Vic club what they felt was justice. Then rather than running a kangaroo court where they made a statement based on the vibe, they had an independent tribunal follow their evilly composed guidelines to advantage an entire state - most of whom hate Collingwood and wanted him suspended.
Evil corrupt Vicbiased genius from the AFL.
- Feb 27, 2011
- 13,001
- 13,940
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Christianboy is obsessed with hating anything Collingwood. Are you 'the finger' or 'fitzey' by any chance?
Nothing in the tackle, seethe.
Nothing in the tackle, seethe.
Similar threads
