Review Dogs Comeback Win Against The Pies, You Beauty

Remove this Banner Ad

i know what you are saying but in both these cases it should not be a legal argument but practicality should prevale.

Darcy's contact was not high and not late

In Wests case the only suspension should be to the MRO who has got this one wrong

Bevo and the club have banged on how they will look after the players well here is a chance to show that

Agreed, but what was good for the Cripps goose is good for the Darcy and West gander.

Whatever it takes to get them off the charges.
 
Both Sam Darcy and Harley Reid should be allowed to play their AFL endorsed good bloke cards to escape sanction this week and to keep my bets alive.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

478c847a3d98cafff1f052557296bd52.jpg
They removed Joe Richards to make it fair, was -50 with him in for the Pies.
 
Sorry but the Darcy incident was black and white. Was late, high and deserved at least a week (and 50m penalty) in the current climate.

The only thing debatable was impact level which was assessed as high but could at most be argued down to medium (meaning 1 week) - but we know that the potential to cause injury is factored in for head high bumps like this, so you can expect the impact grading to be at the upper end. He just screwed up and now pays the price. There'd be no debate here if it wasn't a Dogs player to have done it.

1000031959.jpg
 
This 110% cannot agree with this more

The contact by Darcy is not high. If it was high Maynard would not be getting up.

Fossie32 is also spot on the Maynard incident he had not completed the mark so the 50 is questionable

Dogs should be appealing both and I would be angry if they don't.

Darcy was not high contact and was not late as Maynard had not completed the mark.
Pretty sure it automatically becomes high contact as he had to have a concussion test which is BS.
 
Sorry but the Darcy incident was black and white. Was late, high and deserved at least a week (and 50m penalty) in the current climate.

The only thing debatable was impact level which was assessed as high but could at most be argued down to medium (meaning 1 week) - but we know that the potential to cause injury is factored in for head high bumps like this, so you can expect the impact grading to be at the upper end. He just screwed up and now pays the price. There'd be no debate here if it wasn't a Dogs player to have done it.

View attachment 2009122
Yep agree with this - the screenshot is pretty obvious.

Same with the West one - he squared up and made contact with someone putting their head over the ball. It's not as bad but it is a week.

It's frustrating to have two suspensions in a week we also have two injuries but both are exactly what I thought they would be.
 
Sorry but the Darcy incident was black and white. Was late, high and deserved at least a week (and 50m penalty) in the current climate.

The only thing debatable was impact level which was assessed as high but could at most be argued down to medium (meaning 1 week) - but we know that the potential to cause injury is factored in for head high bumps like this, so you can expect the impact grading to be at the upper end. He just screwed up and now pays the price. There'd be no debate here if it wasn't a Dogs player to have done it.

View attachment 2009122

The Darcy one is fair. Although Maynard got nothing for his hit on Brayshaw and it was similar/worse than Darcy’s, that’s where the debate comes from.

The West suspension has to be an absolute piss take. There’s nothing in it and the only explanation is the MRO got that one wrong. Having a crucial player miss next week for no reason would be frustrating and I’m really hoping the club challenges it.
 
Fair enough but it is often brought up that we wouldn't be arguing about it if it was an oppo player doing it to our player implying that it is an unbiased view to say the latter [??] whereas that is actually biased as well. Probably what should be the aim is to say what would an unbiased person think and I would think that some unbiased people would take into account that Maynard got zero weeks for ending a player's career. But then that reflects more on how the system is f'd. :drunk:

Are you saying the 50 was fair because the mark had be completed or because the ump assumed it would be completed? I suppose either way is ok but a bit dodgy to assume as simple marks have been known to be dropped..

Sorry but the Darcy incident was black and white. Was late, high and deserved at least a week (and 50m penalty) in the current climate.

The only thing debatable was impact level which was assessed as high but could at most be argued down to medium (meaning 1 week) - but we know that the potential to cause injury is factored in for head high bumps like this, so you can expect the impact grading to be at the upper end. He just screwed up and now pays the price. There'd be no debate here if it wasn't a Dogs player to have done it.

View attachment 2009122
 
Last edited:
The Darcy one is fair. Although Maynard got nothing for his hit on Brayshaw and it was similar/worse than Darcy’s, that’s where the debate comes from.

The West suspension has to be an absolute piss take. There’s nothing in it and the only explanation is the MRO got that one wrong. Having a crucial player miss next week for no reason would be frustrating and I’m really hoping the club challenges it.
The club has just announced they're challenging the West decision but accepting Darcy + Duryea, which I think was expected for all 3.
Fair enough but it is often brought up that we wouldn't be arguing about it if it was an oppo player doing it to our player implying that it is an unbiased view to say the latter [??] whereas that is actually biased as well. Probably what should be the aim is to say what would an unbiased person think and I would think that some unbiased people would take into account that Maynard got zero weeks for ending a player's career. But then that reflects more on how the system is f'd. :drunk:
I agree with what you say about bias at both ends.

The two things re the Maynard incident last year are that 1. the MRP rules have since changed and he would have been suspended this season, so it can't really be used as a precedent and 2. if he had been let off when he shouldn't have, two wrongs don't make a right (but the inconsistency is certainly maddening)
 
An opposition supporter coming to complain about the absence of Joe Richards (is this a real player?) is about the same level of nuff as that Saints supporter that said Jack Bytel was as good as Libba and that they cancelled each other out (Bytel since delisted)
 
An opposition supporter coming to complain about the absence of Joe Richards (is this a real player?) is about the same level of nuff as that Saints supporter that said Jack Bytel was as good as Libba and that they cancelled each other out (Bytel since delisted)
Rather ironically, Jack Bytel himself played in our game on Friday and Libba didn't.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

His socks were down and he looked faster. Interesting
Sanders was asked about this at my Auskick centre on Saturday. He mentioned it was hot and it was making his skin itchy so he played out the match with socks down.
 
Coaches Votes

Collingwood v Western Bulldogs​

10 Marcus Bontempelli (WB)
8 Nick Daicos (COLL)
4 Adam Treloar (WB)
3 Bailey Dale (WB)
3 Sam Darcy (WB)
2 Darcy Cameron (COLL)
 
Coaches Votes

Collingwood v Western Bulldogs​

10 Marcus Bontempelli (WB)
8 Nick Daicos (COLL)
4 Adam Treloar (WB)
3 Bailey Dale (WB)
3 Sam Darcy (WB)
2 Darcy Cameron (COLL)
:think:At first glance a few combos are possible from Treloar down. What is certain is that both coaches gave Bont, Daicos and Treloar votes and they agreed on Bont and Daicos at the very least and possibly Treloar also.

Seems a reasonable assessment from both.
 
Reminds me of Round 22, 1996.

Had we pipped the Bombers, Granty would have had Charlie draped around his neck .... 3 to Hird, 2 to Grant, and only because Essendon won by 4.
The umpire, Russo, said as much in an interview a few years back.

With less than a minute left in the game and a few points up (3, I think), Steve Kretiuk marked in the back pocket. Instead of going long down the line, he went inboard to Horse Ellis but kicked it over his head and Mark Mercuri ran onto it and kicked the winner with about 17 seconds left.

Hird won, and Grant lost, a Brownlow, purely because of a piece of play neither were involved in.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top