Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Shane McAdam

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

ams4crows said:
Well at half time they just said if the ban is overturned it would go against the AFL's standing on head knocks which "we don't want"
Click to expand...
But the other 2 bumps actually hit the head and were penalised less.......
 
wtf GIF by WAX

Jon Ralph post game explaining the verdict on fox
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

John Who said:
Technically it was “low impact”, because Wehr still was able to play out the match. “High impact” is often for incidents where players are stretchered off, unable to play out the match, and likely to spend a week or more on the sidelines.
Click to expand...
If they are going on “potential” there should be no high, medium or low impact.
 
ams4crows said:
Well at half time they just said if the ban is overturned it would go against the AFL's standing on head knocks which "we don't want"

They hope to have a verdict by 3/4 time
Click to expand...

It’s bit of a silly comment by Jon Ralph

That the game needs is clear guidelines, and MRO rules that protect the head.

It can’t be based on “what if’s”, or seem to be making legislation up on the run

The most simple solution is to just ban the bump


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Dirty Bird said:
Lets be honest here.

If we're on an online forum, we're unlikely to be the best physical specimens.

So not sure we'd want to see the other posters strip down....
Click to expand...
You have no sense of adventure! 😜🤣
 
AFL Tribunal/ Appeals Board
Tribunal/Appeal Board Chairs: David Jones, Ross Howie, Geoff Giudice AO, Murray Kellam QC
Tribunal Jury Members: Wayne Henwood, Jason Johnson, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge, Stewart Loewe, Peter Matera, David Neitz, David Pittman, Paul Williams and Shane Wakelin.
Appeal Board Panel Members: David Jones, Ross Howie, Geoff Giudice AO, Murray Kellam QC, Wayne Henwood, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge
AFL Tribunal Counsel: Jeff Gleeson QC, Nick Pane QC, Renee Enbom SC and Andrew Woods
Secretary: Tom Gasti
 
ams4crows said:
Well at half time they just said if the ban is overturned it would go against the AFL's standing on head knocks which "we don't want"

They hope to have a verdict by 3/4 time
Click to expand...
Thanks for Vicsplaining how sacrosanct the head is Ralph, to the club that has supported and nurtured Seedsman the last 2 years
 

Remove this Banner Ad

FR0GGY said:
If they are going on “potential” there should be no high medium or low impact.
Click to expand...
Think of any action and the possible consequences from that action. Each action does have a potential of low to high impact. The issue here is, is the potential for harm within the realms of “within the rules of the game?”

An analogy I can think of is driving 100km/hr. It has potential to cause serious harm, but if driving in a 100/hr zone, the “potential for harm” shouldn’t be in the equation as a penalty.

McAdam’s bump is within the rules, particularly when a player can get up and play out the match. This has always been the main factor of “within the rules”.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I am ok with the decision for Guilty if their rationale was that it was a flawed decision but they had to uphold the AFL stance on interpretation.....but to compensate us for this farce, we get a pick 1 priority pick in the national draft this year
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom