Autopsy Insipid Dogs flogged by Hawks - Rd 22

[bobs head soup]

It's not a biggie as neither player will miss matches, but how does Cordy get a fine for his dangerous tackle and Hawkins gets nothing?

They were absolutely identical.

Hawkins was actually worse because the player he tackled was concussed and the outcome is meant to be taken into account. Agree the tackling actions were the same.

Also, Cordy's player still had the ball whereas Hawkins had disposed of it. Bizarre.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm probably in the minority here but 'posters' should be eliminated from the game. If the ball hits the post and goes in through the middle it should be a goal or it should be a point if it goes through the behinds. If it comes back out into play it should be play on. Just seems a silly rule that doesn't serve any purpose, would eliminate silly score reviews where we try to see if a ball has hit padding plus it would be exciting watching the scramble when the ball comes back into play.

They trialled this in the pre-season maybe about 10-15 years ago and whilst I agree with you on principle, for the players and fans it was just too jarring a visual/familiarity. The adjustment was too big to really work.

 

[Northernsoul74]

It's not a biggie as neither player will miss matches, but how does Cordy get a fine for his dangerous tackle and Hawkins gets nothing?

They were absolutely identical.

One plays for Geelong. It’s literally that simple.

 

[SupercededMan]

Agree and I'd love to see score reviews abolished too.

What's the point in goal umpires anymore? Any decision they have to make without a 99.99% certainty they just send to review. Why are we employing people who can't trust their own eyes or ears enough to make a decision? Either get rid of the ARC or get rid of the goal umpires.

Score review might have been handy in the 1997 prelim :-(