Remove this Banner Ad

Jack Viney

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Parents I believe, still don't know if it's the case but soccer use to have the biggest numbers at junior level and they thought that part of the reason was parents saw AFL as more likely to cause injury. Also I think the fact litigation has been taken against other sports for concussion they are trying to protect themselves for the future.
I hear you, that being said - if that's true I'm staggered.
 
So what the tribunal are saying is don't brace for contact,just snipe with an elbow
Elbow to another players face is A.O.K in today's AFL.
Contesting the ball is to be avoided at all costs
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Dermott Brereton: "As a bit of a protest against this … I'm in the Hall of Fame and I love going to those functions - for a start, I'm not going to turn up. They can get stuffed this year. I'm not going to do anything for them. I'm not turning up to their functions. This is just fundamentally wrong."

I don't always agree with Dermie, but this is just fantastic. Respect to him.
Agree with him. This decision is a joke.
 
Dermott Brereton: "As a bit of a protest against this … I'm in the Hall of Fame and I love going to those functions - for a start, I'm not going to turn up. They can get stuffed this year. I'm not going to do anything for them. I'm not turning up to their functions. This is just fundamentally wrong."

I don't always agree with Dermie, but this is just fantastic. Respect to him.
As drastic and somewhat childish this is, something needs to be done.

Bravo, Derm. Would be great to see some sort of revolt against some of these atrocious rules.
 
that grass looks way too dangerous and that ball could pop a bubble. lights also too bright.



found guilty actually

is he free to play next week?
 
Dermott Brereton: "As a bit of a protest against this … I'm in the Hall of Fame and I love going to those functions - for a start, I'm not going to turn up. They can get stuffed this year. I'm not going to do anything for them. I'm not turning up to their functions. This is just fundamentally wrong."

I don't always agree with Dermie, but this is just fantastic. Respect to him.

Dermott is full of shit he'll be there or he has a clash.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Nothing alike, Ziebell's sole intent was to put Joseph into tomorrow while Viney had no other option but to collide with Lynch.



Well. I don't agree with you on that assessment however it's largely irrelevant because that is not the incident I'm referring to.
 
I can only assume Jeff Gleeson coaches the team in yellow ...

8lul4.gif
 
I thought i understood the rule, i really did, even the Fyfe decision seemed pretty clear cut to me and i understood it (without agreeing with it, it made sense) now i have no idea. Today a panel of former AFL players listened to an AFL player and a lawyer give their versions of what could have been done... They sided with the lawyer. I haven't enjoyed alot of football this year and this has pushed me over the edge, i wont watch another game until the Grand Final and even then it will be a disinterested glance at the TV at a mates place with a few beers. I realise this will have little to no effect on the AFL overall so im doing it for myself.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

AFL legal counsel Jeff Gleeson proposed Viney could have "spun out" of the impending collision, rather than bracing for contact.

Viney said there "was not a lot of time to think about complex manoeuvres like spinning".
Training commences immediately:
Fouette%27s.gif
 
The most pathetic decision i can recall

Yeah nah.

Ziebell vs Joseph is hard to beat. Ball in dispute, arrived at the same time, Joseph played out the quarter = 4 weeks.

Ziebell got 3 weeks for attempting to smother Jarryd Lyons last year. A legitimate smother attempt, braced for the ensuing bump, Lyons played out the game without injury. Inexplicably, Duryea had a virtually identical smother/bump waved away by Muppet Fraser 2 weeks earlier. The contradictory explanations given absolutely defy belief.

Until the rules are amended to have penalties better reflect intent, shockers like the Jack V / Z rulings will continue.
 
So we have two "high impact" situations;

So on the one hand it is deemed "reckless" + "low impact" (Deledio)
While the other it is deemed "negligent" & "medium impact" (Viney)

As your run of the mill average joe blow supporter I'm constantly confused by the "interpretation" of/between "negligent" & "reckless". As far as I can tell, one is used when you meant to instigate contact (reckless) while one is used more-so when contact was going to happen and you 'went in wrong' (negligent). However I feel both are pretty hard to define.

Of course Jack's was going to be a higher amount of contact, it was two players running hard at each other into a contest (kinda the point of our game I thought, to win the ball & then use it to kick goals). While Deledio's was a lower level of impact it seemed to me to be more uncalled for and less instinctual than Jacks.

So it confirms the fact we are punishing players due to the outcomes of their actions as opposed to their actions. So long as your right hook only tickles their chin you'll be fine, but whatever you do don't go in hard in the contest and win the ball whatever you do.... You might actually physically hurt someone if you bump them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom