Michael Christian has to go!

Remove this Banner Ad

  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
Christian has the legal mind of a garden slug.

He's an AFL politician. Period.

He just sits their with that wooden look on his face and deadpans utter drivel with a monotone inflection.

He COMPLETELY contradicts the crucial element required to enable the charge at 0:50 of that clip.

It's not just that, it's the umpire contact precedent he ruled, and the bumping interpretations.

He's 8 rounds in to a career and has already produced some of the most puzzling stuff ever seen.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

He's just a puppet. No single person can be that inconsistent. Higher powers at work here :O

220px-ManWearingTinFoilHat.jpg
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
the mrp this year has been a bigger joke than it has ever been in the last 20 years


How must Tom Hawkins be right now?

Wasn't this bloke supposed to smooth out an already convoluted process?

In his 8 week tenure it has become the biggest farce in its history.
 
They also fined Cameron for kneeing in an incident where the Eagles player was holding on to his other leg and not allowing him to get up, they need to take into consideration if the other player contributes to the contact by also being an idiot.
 
Seriously, he is completely out of touch.

How did he even get the job?

The whole system is a farce and I am surprised the players haven't taken action. This isn't really about finding the truth, you have this campaigner assigned by the AFL (Woods) who thinks he is starring in some shitty American sitcom and he just throws complete fabrications at the panel attempting to get someone suspended rather than just asking pertinent questions about the incident which allows us to explore the truth of what happened.
 
I get they had to try something different and went with a one man show. But it’s failed. Horribly. Makes last years panel look competent. Luckily the tribunal still relies on common sense.

Time to change it again so let’s go the the other way this time - 9 man show made up of ex players with outcome based on voting.

Those incidents left in the ‘grey area’ would then simply be determined by which way the majority wants the game to go and some common sense.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I get they had to try something different and went with a one man show. But it’s failed. Horribly. Makes last years panel look competent. Luckily the tribunal still relies on common sense.

Time to change it again so let’s go the the other way this time - 9 man show made up of ex players with outcome based on voting.

Those incidents left in the ‘grey area’ would then simply be determined by which way the majority wants the game to go and some common sense.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Could probably put up a weekly poll on BF and get better outcomes at the minute.
I say this as a joke but it probably isn't far wrong.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Turned into an absolute joke the whole thing. I believe the original intention of the 1 man show was that the AFL could act as God and dish out punishments as they saw fit. Instead its turned into a complete cluster**** of irrational decisions - tribunal included.


Actually, this has a lot of merit.

It's a PR stunt with a wooden, cliched, deadpan monotone puppet at the helm.
 
Last edited:
appointing 1 person means that there is no need for consensus and there are good and bad things that come with that. i don't know the inner workings of his job, but are there colleagues he can confer with or is he all on his lonesome?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top