Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread XII

[Towno78]

I think the key games (apart from ours) are:

R21:
StK v Mel

R22:
WB v Port
Mel v Bris
StK v North

R23
Haw vs WB
Coll v Mel
Rich v StK

Regardless of who wins against the Saints and Dees tomorrow, if Port win next week against the Dogs, then we just need to win our 2 matches and we'll be in.

If we think that the Dogs are going to get up next week, then we want a Saints win tomorrow, and then hope that they lose against the Tigers in the last round OR hope that the Hawks beat the Dogs.

Well not really, either or both of wce or melb could potentially surpass our %. A close game tonight will almost be as good as a win in that respect, cos if we get thumped, that might make it very hard to get back in.

 

[Towno78]

Wasn't even a free kick.

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

Because?

 

[ezard15]

It's hard to mark a football when you are eating rice with chopsticks.

That's racist.

 

[pepsi]

It wasn't a marking contest, it was a handball receive. Does that change how it will be assessed? My guess is it does.

 

[JayJ20]

His eyes were on the ball. He lifted his leg before Dalhaus was in its path. I don't see how that's deliberate.

 

[Old Campaigner]

I don't know enough about the laws of the game to say whether or not he broke the rules but I want to see him get weeks anyway because he's a ****wit and the sooner he gets to 16 weeks of suspensions the better

 

[DERO]

Eric Cantona. Wow.

 

[Teflon Dons]

it looked terrible, and Greene definitely intended to hurt someone, not protect himself.

Sure, it might well be within the rules, but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

it was a campaigner's act but would require the AFL to reinterpret the existing rules on the fly... so he'll get two weeks

He cannot get weeks for that jmoo! It looked bad and knowing that campaigner he probably meant it. That's a scary precedent going forward though.

If he does it's pretty clear where the game is heading - no more speccies, you might kick someone in the head.

 

[Laverde2Smack]

Because?

It wasn't against the rules.

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

 

[jmoo wan]

He cannot get weeks for that jmoo! It looked bad and knowing that campaigner he probably meant it. That's a scary precedent going forward though.

If he does it's pretty clear where the game is heading - no more speccies, you might kick someone in the head.

i was being somewhat tongue in cheek with the two weeks.

but as pepsi pointed out - it wasn't a marking contest, and he used the dudes face as leverage to turn and dish off the handball. It was a deliberate and calculated act to put his studs into someone and push off them.

unfortunately it was his face rather than his chest.

ultimately it is against the spirit of the rules/game but we don't have any recourse to self manage this kind of behaviour like they do in ice hockey so I'd imagine the AFL will involve themselves.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

The foot is unnecessary - he could have protected himself with his body or even a raised knee as every other player in the league does. Instead, he chose to raise the boot, fully aware that an opposing player was coming, and then used it to push off Dahlhaus's face as he turned. That triggers the criteria for Rough Conduct - contact which in the circumstances may be deemed "unreasonable".

High contact and low impact, so the question is whether it's deemed intentional or careless, but with his priors he gets a week regardless I think.

 

[TheGrizz]

I don't know enough about the laws of the game to say whether or not he broke the rules but I want to see him get weeks anyway because he's a ******* and the sooner he gets to 16 weeks of suspensions the better

The 16 weeks rule is only relevant in local/amateur football.

 

[TheGrizz]

The foot is unnecessary - he could have protected himself with his body or even a raised knee as every other player in the league does. Instead, he chose to raise the boot, fully aware that an opposing player was coming, and then used it to push off Dahlhaus's face as he turns. That triggers the criteria for Rough Conduct - contact which in the circumstances may be deemed "unreasonable".

High contact and low impact I think, so whether it's deemed intentional or careless will determine whether he gets suspended - though a third fine might tip him over the edge too.

With his record even careless will result in a suspension if I recall correctly.
First week back too, if I was his teammate I would be fuming.

 

[Eleven 38]

If it's anything but accidental then we may aswell end the game on Wednesday. Don't worry about round 22-23 or finals the game as we know is finished.

 

[DERO]

The head is sacrosanct unless pulling of mad ninja skills.

 

[Runk]

Whilst I completely dislike this human it's been happening rarely for years and imo let's just move on. Let the AFL deal with it in the off season.

Michael Long did it religiously and it was never an issue.

Times have changed.

 

[Pweter]

What if it were Roughead instead of Dalhaus? It would've been to the chest and play on.

In its pursuit of a clean game that is played at breakneck speed with incredible physicality where split second secisions are required, the AFL is making life difficult for itself. There's this one, Grundy getting suspended for what was awarded a free kick etc. It's confusing for all and sundry due to so much grey area in the rules/interpretations.

 

[jmoo wan]

i guess we'll just call it even then...

 

[Pweter]

i guess we'll just call it even then...

View attachment 402806

Buggered if I'd waste a $10 beer by pouring it on someone

 

[Runk]

Buggered if I'd waste a $10 beer by pouring it on someone

It was mid strength ffs. Harden up GWS

 

[pepsi]

Think GWS are building and timing their run to the finals perfectly. The past 2 weeks they have been excellent and have players that have returned. They are my pick for the flag.

 

[AcuteWhistle]

The MRP ruling will be of interest either way but considering Greene's athletic skill level, which let's face it is extreme, I have little doubt it was an intentional act. It's not as if it was a glancing blow, he hit him right square middle of the face, that takes some talent.

If Greene was a clean skin he might have a chance at a fine or one week, but I reckon he's gone for a couple.

 

[Eleven 38]

His eyes were on the ball. He lifted his leg before Dalhaus was in its path. I don't see how that's deliberate.

Hopefully this is the main thing they look at. Dalhaus took his eyes off the ball which put him into a dangerous position. If he keeps his eyes on the ball and jumps for it Greenes foot goes into the middle of his back.

 

[Towno78]

It wasn't against the rules.

Sent from my F3115 using Tapatalk

High contact is not against the rules?
A fend off to the face with your hand is high contact. You don't believe the same might apply if using a boot?

 

[Zach Package]

I've flip flopped on Greene.

The more I watch it the more it looks like he's used Dahlhaus to push off and orientate himself toward the goals. Which in itself isn't necessarily bad but I don't don't think it's what you would call a 'natural' action.

I also don't think 'if you're under a high ball you can flail your legs around to scare everyone else away' is a good precedent to set.