Opposition Camp General AFL Discussion - Opposition posters welcome

Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Posts
12,299
Likes
29,869
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter Moderator #1
This thread is designed for anyone looking to have serious and meaningful discussion about anything AFL related as there is still a need and a desire to be able to have these proper conversations with our fellow BF posters from across the site who can add input.


Normal rules apply.

Opposition input is more than welcome if you are keen for proper discussion. Don't cross that line though.


and with that, begin!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Posts
12,299
Likes
29,869
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter Moderator #2
Makeshft_Mauler and I were discussing on the podcast tonight that the biggest concern we / I have with the MRO still to this day is they are punishing players based on the outcome rather than the intent.

look at the weekend for example.

We have 2 intentional elbows to the head that caused no damage (thankfully) and 1 accidental head clash in a proper football act that unfortunately caused a concussion, and the accidental head clash is what copped a suspension.

Makeshft also made the good point that James Frawley got away with a fine (I think) for pushing Cameron into the fence. If anything we should be really trying to stamp that out with how dangerous it is.

It's just a bit confusing / frustrating that players who do things outside the rules of the game are being punished less than accidental incidents that happen from an action that is in the rules of the game with zero intent to hurt.


Until the AFL / MRO reverse this line of thinking, I don't think we will see any improvement.
 

Sir_Loin

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Posts
18,065
Likes
41,419
AFL Club
Richmond
#3
Makeshft_Mauler and I were discussing on the podcast tonight that the biggest concern we / I have with the MRO still to this day is they are punishing players based on the outcome rather than the intent.

look at the weekend for example.

We have 2 intentional elbows to the head that caused no damage (thankfully) and 1 accidental head clash in a proper football act that unfortunately caused a concussion, and the accidental head clash is what copped a suspension.

Makeshft also made the good point that James Frawley got away with a fine (I think) for pushing Cameron into the fence. If anything we should be really trying to stamp that out with how dangerous it is.

It's just a bit confusing / frustrating that players who do things outside the rules of the game are being punished less than accidental incidents that happen from an action that is in the rules of the game with zero intent to hurt.


Until the AFL / MRO reverse this line of thinking, I don't think we will see any improvement.
Michael Christian seems really unsure of himself. And I don’t blame him he gets second guessed by the tribunal and the AFL.

I’m not sure if it’s him or if it’s the role. The MRO is still fairly new but I’d suggest someone that has more of a legal background would be better off in that role
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Posts
12,299
Likes
29,869
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter Moderator #4
Michael Christian seems really unsure of himself. And I don’t blame him he gets second guessed by the tribunal and the AFL.

I’m not sure if it’s him or if it’s the role. The MRO is still fairly new but I’d suggest someone that has more of a legal background would be better off in that role
I feel like it is at the point now where more often than not, clubs will appeal any suspensions because the recent track record shows it will work.

that's not to say it will always be like that obviously, but I think it is flirting with danger no having both systems on the same page.
 

Sir_Loin

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Posts
18,065
Likes
41,419
AFL Club
Richmond
#5
I feel like it is at the point now where more often than not, clubs will appeal any suspensions because the recent track record shows it will work.

that's not to say it will always be like that obviously, but I think it is flirting with danger no having both systems on the same page.
Yep and the fact there’s no longer a meaningful punishment if the appeal fails. So on the one hand you have an MRO that’s ineffective in the first instance (for whatever reason) then there’s the clubs who will just challenge the decision because it’s in their interest and they’re incentivised to do so.

i like the idea of the MRO but they’ve not got it right IMO.
 

Tiger Toffee

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 22, 2014
Posts
11,301
Likes
33,633
Location
Punt Rd to Goodison Park
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Everton
#6
Chrisso has had a shocker fair to say, pre season they come out and say they are going to crack down on this and that, come round 1 and they let everyone off and don't even get me started on the disgrace that was the Dusty ruling.

Then saying Danger missed De Boer when he clipped him was just taking the piss and he hasn't recovered.

And Sir_Loin i don't think Chrisso is getting second guessed by the tribunal and AFL so to speak, i think he is allowing himself to be heavily influenced by the media and other sources.

1. Dusty behind play and all hell breaks loose in the media, Chrisso wilts and adds mayo to the charges.
2. Jumper punches will be punished we are told in the off season, Mumford jumper punches in his return and gets let off.
3. These elbows are really confusing, Grimes and Dusty go but Danger, Ablett and Fyfe are free to play. WTF.
 
Last edited:

Sir_Loin

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Posts
18,065
Likes
41,419
AFL Club
Richmond
#7
Chrisso has had a shocker fair to say, pre season they come out and say they are going top crack down on this and that, come round 1 and they let everyone off and don't even get me started on the disgrace that was the Dusty ruling.

Then saying Danger missed De Boer when he clipped him was just taking the piss and he hasn't recovered.

And Sir_Loin i don't think Chrisso is getting second guessed by the tribunal and AFL so to speak, i think he is allowing himself to be heavily influenced by the media and other sources.

1. Dusty behind play and all hell breaks loose in the media, Chrisso wilts and adds mayo to the charges.
2. Jumper punches will be punished we are told in the off season, Mumford jumper punches in his return and gets let off.
3. These elbows are really confusing, Grimes and Dusty go but Danger, Ablett and Fyfe are free to play. WTF.
Not sure how he can be influenced by the media when it’s his own decisions that drives the media reporting.

The minute he starts rubbing out Ablett and Fyfe is when he gets the hard word from city hall. My theory is we’re fair game because how powerful we are. The minnow clubs apart from north get preferential treatment.
 

Tiger Toffee

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 22, 2014
Posts
11,301
Likes
33,633
Location
Punt Rd to Goodison Park
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Everton
#8
Not sure how he can be influenced by the media when it’s his own decisions that drives the media reporting.

The minute he starts rubbing out Ablett and Fyfe is when he gets the hard word from city hall. My theory is we’re fair game because how powerful we are. The minnow clubs apart from north get preferential treatment.
His decisions are coming after the weekend when incidents are getting media play, media had two days to unload about Dusty. Chrisso needs to come out the next day IMO and take the media out of the equation, Dusty commits his crime, decision should be done by 10am next morning on the sunday not 5pm monday evening.

We hear during the day that the ' potential to cause injury ' could be added to Dusty's charge, nek minnet Chrisso blurts it out. nothing sus there :rolleyes:
 

Sir_Loin

Premium Platinum
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Posts
18,065
Likes
41,419
AFL Club
Richmond
#9
His decisions are coming after the weekend when incidents are getting media play, media had two days to unload about Dusty. Chrisso needs to come out the next day IMO and take the media out of the equation, Dusty commits his crime, decision should be done by 10am next morning on the sunday not 5pm monday evening.

We hear during the day that the ' potential to cause injury ' could be added to Dusty's charge, nek minnet Chrisso blurts it out. nothing sus there :rolleyes:
I absolutely agree there’s no reason why he can’t come out the next day and make the call. But then when it’s dusty why would he?
 

joelsyt

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Posts
15,033
Likes
32,235
AFL Club
Richmond
#10
This thread is designed for anyone looking to have serious and meaningful discussion about anything AFL related as there is still a need and a desire to be able to have these proper conversations with our fellow BF posters from across the site who can add input.


Normal rules apply.

Opposition input is more than welcome if you are keen for proper discussion. Don't cross that line though.


and with that, begin!
Thanks for this Michaels i appreciate it. :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

joelsyt

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Posts
15,033
Likes
32,235
AFL Club
Richmond
#15
Something has to be done with the mrp Fyfe and gaj getting off for pretty blatant acts and then the north bloke getting done for a head clash is just ridiculous
I hate north and usually enjoy watching bad things happen to them, but that was beyond a joke, it was a perfectly valid and legal bump that resulted in an 'accidental' head knock. He did NOT deserve a suspension, especially with Gaz and Fyfe not even getting a fine at the very least.
 

Stevi_Tigers

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Posts
46,112
Likes
88,473
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Manchester United
#16
I hate north and usually enjoy watching bad things happen to them, but that was beyond a joke, it was a perfectly valid and legal bump that resulted in an 'accidental' head knock. He did NOT deserve a suspension, especially with Gaz and Fyfe not even getting a fine at the very least.
This ******** of only punishing for injury is just that ********. It should be is the act illegal and worthy of suspension if yes one week if the medical report says an injury or concussion you add more in

A legal bump that has an accidental head clash shouldn’t be punished
 

joelsyt

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Posts
15,033
Likes
32,235
AFL Club
Richmond
#18
So apparently the AFLPA have issue with Rampe’s fine, it’s too excessive apparently, (I agree with that by the way) however they have players getting away with elbowing other players in the head, why aren’t they talking about that? I figured that would be more important than a bloody fine for a stupid act?

I guess they’re more concerned with protecting a players wallet instead of a players health and well-being.
 

Tiges1229

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Posts
16,939
Likes
38,657
AFL Club
Richmond
#19
So apparently the AFLPA have issue with Rampe’s fine, it’s too excessive apparently, (I agree with that by the way) however they have players getting away with elbowing other players in the head, why aren’t they talking about that? I figured that would be more important than a bloody fine for a stupid act?

I guess they’re more concerned with protecting a players wallet instead of a players health and well-being.

I guess we all just haveto accept that the comp whilst pretending to be professional , is run by an incompetent and amateur management group . Until Gill is gone nothing will change .
 

Tiger_Of_Old

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 23, 2000
Posts
35,029
Likes
57,635
Location
Country Victoria
AFL Club
Richmond
#20
So apparently the AFLPA have issue with Rampe’s fine, it’s too excessive apparently, (I agree with that by the way) however they have players getting away with elbowing other players in the head, why aren’t they talking about that? I figured that would be more important than a bloody fine for a stupid act?

I guess they’re more concerned with protecting a players wallet instead of a players health and well-being.
Unplug the Umps is what the AFLPA should be gunning for.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Posts
12,299
Likes
29,869
AFL Club
Richmond
Thread starter Moderator #21
So apparently the AFLPA have issue with Rampe’s fine, it’s too excessive apparently, (I agree with that by the way) however they have players getting away with elbowing other players in the head, why aren’t they talking about that? I figured that would be more important than a bloody fine for a stupid act?

I guess they’re more concerned with protecting a players wallet instead of a players health and well-being.
I can't believe the AFL had the nerve to tick it off (climbing the post), which was 100% incorrect by the AFL mind you, and then offer Rampe a please explain and a fine!

It should have been a free kick from the goal line like the rules state, and everything would be done.


But to your other point, agree that it's odd that they aren't talking about allowing players to be elbowed in the head or pushed into the fence.
 

SunshineTiger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Posts
20,352
Likes
31,461
Location
Somewhere in Queensland
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC
#22
I can't believe the AFL had the nerve to tick it off (climbing the post), which was 100% incorrect by the AFL mind you, and then offer Rampe a please explain and a fine!

It should have been a free kick from the goal line like the rules state, and everything would be done.


But to your other point, agree that it's odd that they aren't talking about allowing players to be elbowed in the head or pushed into the fence.
It’s no different to the tanking you did nothing wrong but cop $500K

Or the independent AFL anti doping tribunal

This is a corrupt and cynical organusation
 

Muddiemoose

Premium Platinum
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
2,088
Likes
8,864
AFL Club
Richmond
#23
So apparently the AFLPA have issue with Rampe’s fine, it’s too excessive apparently, (I agree with that by the way) however they have players getting away with elbowing other players in the head, why aren’t they talking about that? I figured that would be more important than a bloody fine for a stupid act?

I guess they’re more concerned with protecting a players wallet instead of a players health and well-being.
The interesting thing for me is that the larger fine (10k) was for how he spoke to the umpire
When players have cracks at umps all the time but never get cited
What he said wasn’t even that bad imo
 

Tiger_Of_Old

Premium Platinum
Joined
Nov 23, 2000
Posts
35,029
Likes
57,635
Location
Country Victoria
AFL Club
Richmond
#24
The interesting thing for me is that the larger fine (10k) was for how he spoke to the umpire
When players have cracks at umps all the time but never get cited
What he said wasn’t even that bad imo
The offset to that is.What if the Ump was female what then?
10k for stating the obvious?lol
 
Top Bottom