Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Put it this way. I wasn't calling for blood, but I think the MRO and Tribunal got it rightYou think it was correct to suspend Toby?
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.
Put it this way. I wasn't calling for blood, but I think the MRO and Tribunal got it rightYou think it was correct to suspend Toby?
You're a doctor, are you? Are you saying the Geelong doctor over reacted by calling for Dangerfield to go to hospital? Un-*******-believable! Your hatred of anything Geelong is so overwhelming that you're questioning the wisdom of medical decisions.OMG he had SWELLING! SWELLING I tell you.
Tell me, did they intubate at hospital?
I didn’t say he over-reacted. What he did was take precautionary measures (which included the scans), which is perfectly fine, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for severity of incident and/or punishment. If the GWS doc sent Kelly to hospital because he got caught in the throat you’d be here saying “nothing to see here, Kelly is ok, what over-reaction”. If the Geelong doc was experienced in ENT he might’ve said your ok Patrick, no need to go to hospital. If it was a Grand Final I doubt Dangerfield would’ve even left the stadium after being assessed. If being rushed to hospital was a basis for suspension then Hawkins should’ve copped a few weeks for fracturing May’s eye socket requiring May to be… wait for it… rushed to hospital.You're a doctor, are you? Are you saying the Geelong doctor over reacted by calling for Dangerfield to go to hospital? Un-*******-believable! Your hatred of anything Geelong is so overwhelming that you're questioning the wisdom of medical decisions.
FYI, he had scans to show whether he had fractured the laryngeal.
You didn't explicitly say he overreacted but you were highly dismissive of the actions taken by the club to sub Dangerfield out and take him to hospital. Your words, "OMG he had SWELLING! SWELLING I tell you. Tell me, did they intubate at hospital?" FYI, a fracture of the laryngeal is potentially fatal. It's rare, but it can happen. Do your GooglesI didn’t say he over-reacted. What he did was take precautionary measures (which included the scans), which is perfectly fine, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for severity of incident and/or punishment. If the GWS doc sent Kelly to hospital because he got caught in the throat you’d be here saying “nothing to see here, Kelly is ok, what over-reaction”. If the Geelong doc was experienced in ENT he might’ve said your ok Patrick, no need to go to hospital. If it was a Grand Final I doubt Dangerfield would’ve even left the stadium after being assessed.
Your one-eyed bias refuses to see the similarities between the two incidents but if you showed both to someone unfamiliar with AFL I’m pretty certain they’d view them as identical.
All I’m wanting is consistency from the MRO.
I wasn't mocking the doctor I was mocking you. FMD!You didn't explicitly say he overreacted but you were highly dismissive of the actions taken by the club to sub Dangerfield out and take him to hospital. Your words, "OMG he had SWELLING! SWELLING I tell you. Tell me, did they intubate at hospital?" FYI, a fracture of the laryngeal is potentially fatal. It's rare, but it can happen. Do your Googles
This has nothing to do with being "one eyed biased". As other posters have pointed out in this thread the two cases are NOT identical. In fact they are different in so many respects, including severity of impact.
Tell me in all honesty, if Greene's hit was worth a one week suspension, what is Selwood's worth?
“It was the view of the MRO that there was insufficient forceful high contact to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.”I wasn't mocking the doctor I was mocking you. FMD!
You can't see any similarities? You don't see Greene and Selwood both being first to the ball, both taking possession, both being aware of an approaching opponent, both raising the arm to fend off and both collecting their opponent in the throat region? OK, you're more biased than I thought.
Now, if you want to punish based on the outcome and not the action that is fine. But then you'll definitely have wanted Hawkins suspended for the hit on May, because outcome is what is important and not the action. But if you want to punish on the action and not the outcome then Hawkins walks but Selwood has to be looked at. So which is it?
I wasn't mocking the doctor I was mocking you. FMD!
You can't see any similarities? You don't see Greene and Selwood both being first to the ball, both taking possession, both being aware of an approaching opponent, both raising the arm to fend off and both collecting their opponent in the throat region? OK, you're more biased than I thought.
Now, if you want to punish based on the outcome and not the action that is fine. But then you'll definitely have wanted Hawkins suspended for the hit on May, because outcome is what is important and not the action. But if you want to punish on the action and not the outcome then Hawkins walks but Selwood has to be looked at. So which is it?
Do I know you?I hope he gets 2 weeks.
Do I know you?
And should I?
Poor Greene...The two were identical in terms of actions.
The only difference was the obvious and ongoing bias. Anyone else gets a week for that action. Just Greene gets the +1 bias and Selwood gets a +1 wristy. Is anyone surprised?
I didn’t say he over-reacted. What he did was take precautionary measures (which included the scans), which is perfectly fine, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for severity of incident and/or punishment. If the GWS doc sent Kelly to hospital because he got caught in the throat you’d be here saying “nothing to see here, Kelly is ok, what over-reaction”. If the Geelong doc was experienced in ENT he might’ve said your ok Patrick, no need to go to hospital. If it was a Grand Final I doubt Dangerfield would’ve even left the stadium after being assessed. If being rushed to hospital was a basis for suspension then Hawkins should’ve copped a few weeks for fracturing May’s eye socket requiring May to be… wait for it… rushed to hospital.
Your one-eyed bias refuses to see the similarities between the two incidents but if you showed both to someone unfamiliar with AFL I’m pretty certain they’d view them as identical.
All I’m wanting is consistency from the MRO.
Agreed, both boxes need ticking. Unlawful action leading to injury.Once you accept the MRO take into account both action and outcome, it'll frustrate you a lot less.
Plenty of people seem to struggle with it.