How many for Darcy?

[Bald]

Theres no way to no whether it caused the injury.

But if you open palm someone, off the ball and cause a severe injury it’s 4+ weeks. You can do the open palm strike but you wear the result.

If there is concrete evidence that an action regardless of how soft or severe it is, causes an injury then you are 100% right.

 

[Elixuh]

If there is concrete evidence that an action regardless of how soft or severe it is, causes an injury then you are 100% right.

Maybe there was another hit which caused the injury, but on balance I'd say the AFL has chosen not to cite Darcy because if they did its 4+ basically immediately. Would be huge media and public pressure for a relatively lengthy ban. I think this is a nothing to see here moment.

 

[Bald]

Maybe there was another hit which caused the injury, but on balance I'd say the AFL has chosen not to cite Darcy because if they did its 4+ basically immediately. Would be huge media and public pressure for a relatively lengthy ban. I think this is a nothing to see here moment.

I’m just not sure. I’ve heard a couple of journalists say they don’t think the Darcy incident caused the injury but I’m not entirely sure how they’d know. Not even Adelaide seems to be sure, and whilst not really evidence there wasn’t any mark, bruise or anything in the spot they Darcy got him in the vision in the rooms. I don’t know whether or not there should’ve been but you’d expect at least a slight bruise.

Who knows.

 

[57 Milner]

Yet Windhager gets cited and fined for a palm to the chest on Daicos with no injury, let alone a punctured lung.

​

 

[Purple Suit]

Yet Windhager gets cited and fined for a palm to the chest on Daicos with no injury, let alone a punctured lung.

​

Darcy would have been cited too, if he hit Daicos.

 

[CrowToon]

I’m just not sure. I’ve heard a couple of journalists say they don’t think the Darcy incident caused the injury but I’m not entirely sure how they’d know. Not even Adelaide seems to be sure, and whilst not really evidence there wasn’t any mark, bruise or anything in the spot they Darcy got him in the vision in the rooms. I don’t know whether or not there should’ve been but you’d expect at least a slight bruise.

Who knows.

There would be no confusion.

But they wouldn't want that to be a successful defence that would become a precedent in future cases. Imagine every incident from now on needing an additional layer of 'prove that this action actually caused injury'. Nightmarish.

Better to pretend nothing happened and dont even make it a conversation.