One minute's deliberation! What a waste of time and money this whole thing has been.Not guilty: Tribunal clears Tex in a minute. Says it all. Sack Christian.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One minute's deliberation! What a waste of time and money this whole thing has been.Not guilty: Tribunal clears Tex in a minute. Says it all. Sack Christian.
One minute's deliberation! What a waste of time and money this whole thing has been.
Not guilty: Tribunal clears Tex in a minute. Says it all. Sack Christian.
I like the idea of one person making the decisions. Should help with consistency.http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-07-03/not-guilty-tribunal-clears-tex-in-a-minute
AFL was in an untenable position. You can't argue it's not about the impact, but the "look" if the action was a response to exact same action which isn't penalized.
Major stuff up from Christian.
I like the idea of one person making the decisions. Should help with consistency.
The concept breaks down though if the person is an idiot.
Like MaoI like the idea of one person making the decisions. Should help with consistency.
The concept breaks down though if the person is an idiot.
At least the appeal system is working this year !I like the idea of one person making the decisions. Should help with consistency.
The concept breaks down though if the person is an idiot.
I like the idea of one person making the decisions. Should help with consistency.
The concept breaks down though if the person is an idiot.
I like the idea of one person making the decisions. Should help with consistency.
The concept breaks down though if the person is an idiot.
I prefer having a panel of 3 people. They can split the games to review the incidents. The majority of panel then must agree on any penalties.I like the idea of one person making the decisions. Should help with consistency.
The concept breaks down though if the person is an idiot.
They still haven't worked out that there needs to be clear conclusive evidence to overrule a decision.It’s like the video replay, good in theory, but s**t when the person making the decision makes up his own rules/interpretations.
It's one thing to take a shot from 60.. it's entirely another to do so when you have a player who is wide open 30m out. The probability of Gibbs kicking that goal would have been much higher than Walker kicking it from 60. There's a time and a place to be kicking bombs from 60 - and that was neither the time, nor the place.
Which he did moments later.See, I think this is just a bad instinctive feel for football.
Tex is a 50/50 shot from that distance. There were three things (at least) that could go wrong if Tex passes- he misses the pass, Gibbs drops the mark, Gibbs misses the set shot. I'm not convinced that the odds of us doing all three perfectly are better than the odds of walker just hitting from there.
But beyond that, its the value of the moment. Walker was feeling it, was up and about, and wanted to put the team on his back. There's something about your captain smashing a goal from 50m out that has a lifting effect on the whole team. It creates momentum.
That's the most baffling thing. Putting aside the ridiculousness of the charge, how does a punch to a player's back not get cited but the retaliation tap to a chest does?According to Michael Christian, they were "very clear" about not wanting punching off the ball. The link below has a video where you can watch him explain this while the footage shows Shuey hitting Tex then Tex retaliating (with what to me looks like similar force). They just ignore the Shuey punch. It's not even mentioned. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-07-02/the-reason-buddy-wasnt-banned
It's a truly baffling decisionThat's the most baffling thing. Putting aside the ridiculousness of the charge, how does a punch to a player's back not get cited but the retaliation tap to a chest does?
Shuey wasn't just not cited either, it wasn't even looked at. No scrutiny at all. It happened 1 second earlier ffs!
It's a truly baffling decision
The AFC should ask for an investigation as was a clear injustice & put a vote of no confidence in Christian.Robbo said it’s the dumbest decision he’s ever seen and he’s right. How can you let off the guy who punches a player in the back and then penalise the retaliator who does a similar thing? It’s absurd.
It's a truly baffling decision
Robbo said it’s the dumbest decision he’s ever seen and he’s right. How can you let off the guy who punches a player in the back and then penalise the retaliator who does a similar thing? It’s absurd.
Alright, time to put some numbers on this.See, I think this is just a bad instinctive feel for football.
Tex is a 50/50 shot from that distance. There were three things (at least) that could go wrong if Tex passes- he misses the pass, Gibbs drops the mark, Gibbs misses the set shot. I'm not convinced that the odds of us doing all three perfectly are better than the odds of walker just hitting from there.
But beyond that, its the value of the moment. Walker was feeling it, was up and about, and wanted to put the team on his back. There's something about your captain smashing a goal from 50m out that has a lifting effect on the whole team. It creates momentum.
And common sense.The AFL is a rudderless ship with a complete void in leadership and ethics.
One problem though, is that when Tex took the mark, Gibbs was behind Tex on his blind side (and moving further away) and Tex wheels onto his right foot. Maybe Tex might have heard Gibbs calling and other players perhaps could have pointed out Gibbs to Tex but Tex is at the 50m arc and sees no one ahead of him so decides to have a ping.Alright, time to put some numbers on this.
Let's say tex is a 50% chance to kick the goal.
On the other hand, he is a 90% chance of kicking to Gibbs without fluffing it. Gibbs is a 95% chance of marking it. He is then probably an 80% chance of kicking the goal. Multiplied together that makes it a 68% chance that Gibbs would have kicked the goal.
Should have passed it.