Player Watch Shane McAdam

[cleanhands]

I'm the same.

Perhaps we should start a petition of actual members threatening to pull our support as we have no confidence in the AFL acting fairly.

The AFL can get funked!

Superleague

 

[pjcrows]

Now they can just suspend players for any amount of games based on some nebulous potential injury.

It is now truly a Kangaroo Court without any care to equity for the player.

This could cost them thousands of memberships on an ongoing basis.

Victorian clubs are dominating. They don't care.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Victorian clubs are dominating. They don't care.

AFL care about money.

They would sell their soul for more bonuses.

 

[Gtowncrow]

Stage a walkout on 23 minutes from the AO.

Or stand and clap for Shane at the 23 minute mark.
That would be galvanising for the club and a not so subtle slap to the AFL.

 

[Dirty Bird]

You know it’s bad when people say they’d rather follow Nor’d

I mean, I've never came across a fan base with a worse grasp on the game.

So maybe we're better off if they leave?

 

[Velvet George]

What? So their lawyer didn’t say it was body hit that could potentially do damage? They are making it up as they go

 

[AFC3000]

Always going to be the result I think but glad we did it. Take the cost out the marketing budget or something because I'd rather our message be that we'll actually push back instead of being happy to be the example.

Get rid of all these gradings and potential to do whatever. Just decide what they do and don't want in the game and set the rules and penalties. Shouldn't be this hard.

 

[Interloperer]

On what grounds did we fail? Will there be any acknowledgment by the AFL that they got the Pickett decision wrong?

The original tribunal implied in their notes that they would have rated Pickett's contact as "severe"

Adelaide was only disputing impact in the appeal. Arguing it was Low impact if you believe their pre-appeal comments (a poor argument given it's written in the definition of the charge that it can't be any less than medium.) The AFL has license in the rules to consider potential impact in addition to "actual" impact. Basically it came down to the AFLs claim it has infinite scope to increase the impact vs Adelaide's argument of "but come on..."

Can of worms officially opened IMO.

You could literally attach "Potential to cause injury" to any football action. It's now just a matter of perspective from a obviously corruptible system.

Tackle a player: Potential to cause injury
Spoil a mark: Potential to cause injury
Go in for a ground ball: Potential to cause injury

Not really. it's explicit in the rough conduct definition that "potential" injury can be taken into consideration, in those other situations it's explicit that potential injury is NOT considered (if the harm is not deliberate)

 

[Velvet George]

I mean, I've never came across a fan base with a worse grasp on the game.

So maybe we're better off if they leave?

Have you read your posts?

 

[Burtonsgottago]

So that was considered worse than Buddy’s and Kosey’s hits?… righto

 

[Betts are off]

Stage a walkout on 23 minutes from the AO.

Or a minutes Boo-ing at the 23 minute mark of each quarter

 

[Miss Vanessa]

So the AFL rate an act severe due to the potential to cause injury rather than the act itself. May as well ban tackling or any form of contact.

I don’t mind rating an incidents potential to cause injury. For example, if someone throws a haymaker at an opponent but misses, I think they should be punished more severely than someone who throws a one-inch jumper punch and connects.

But the stupid thing is with the McAdam incident, is that the potential for injury is exactly as extreme as what happened to Wehr. McAdam hit him precisely as hard and as perfectly as a front on body bump could ever hope to do. That is, there is no “potential” to cause harm. It caused as much harm as it was ever going to do. Had he lined him up and Wehr moved at the last moment and McAdam glanced his body, then you could take the potential to cause injury line… again, as it was it was the perfect big hit. There was no hitting him harder… there is no more potential to harm.

I just want them to ban the bump now. Just make that decision and defend it. But this decision is so stupid when compared to Buddy and Picket that it beggars belief.

I really am beginning to question whether this league is worth any of my time, effort and money. I dislike the leagues administration, the media personalities surrounding the game… and increasingly I find the game at the highest level more and more dull… bah! It all leaves a sour taste in one’s mouth.

 

[Geoffa32]

What? So their lawyer didn’t say it was body hit that could potentially do damage? They are making it up as they go

Bush League stuff

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[crowholder]

The strange thing is that when I was young we had modified rules whereby 2 bumps was classified as holding the ball, and we were not allowed to tackle. I am sure many others here played under these rules. I have not noticed junior football now, what are the rules now? Strange that they did consider bumping safer for juniors than tacking back in the day.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Have you read your posts?

It's one of the few pleasures of this forum

 

[robboaustralia]

Or a minutes Boo-ing at the 23 minute mark of each quarter

Love a good boo!

 

[pjcrows]

How can you argue there was an error of law when the AFL use "potential to cause injury" as the law? They get to decide whether there was potential or not, which is as flimsy as it gets. It's clearly been deliberately written that way.

 

[ams4crows]

I would rather get into Pickleball

[Media]TikTok - Make Your Day

 

[1990crow]

How can you argue there was an error of law when the AFL use "potential to cause injury" as the law? They get to decide whether there was potential or not, which is as flimsy as it gets. It's clearly been deliberately written that way.

Two players made contact with each other tonight. Both should be suspended?

 

[BACCS]

The original tribunal implied in their notes that they would have rated Pickett's contact as "severe"

Adelaide was only disputing impact in the appeal. Arguing it was Low impact if you believe their pre-appeal comments (a poor argument given it's written in the definition of the charge that it can't be any less than medium.) The AFL has license in the rules to consider potential impact in addition to "actual" impact. Basically it came down to the AFLs claim it has infinite scope to increase the impact vs Adelaide's argument of "but come on..."


Not really. it's explicit in the rough conduct definition that "potential" injury can be taken into consideration, in those other situations it's explicit that potential injury is NOT considered (if the harm is not deliberate)

Are you working for the AFL? They’re allowed to overturn the Pickett decision too, which is clearly wrong going by their arguments tonight

 

[All_In]

I have been thinking along the same lines as some.

I think we encourage everyone to stand and turn your back on the game at the 23rd min of the third QTR for 1 min.

 

[Brasher]

I normally don't post much here, but I enjoy reading, however this nonsense is too much.

The AFL has basically ruled McAdam performed an act based on the belief he intended his action to hurt the opponent.

Fair enough. The AFL have reset the entire competion to punish for intent. That's a new one.

Are they all pysch majors too?

 

[pjcrows]

I normally don't post much here, but I enjoy reading, however this nonsense is too much.

The AFL has basically ruled McAdam performed an act based on the belief he intended his action to hurt the opponent.

Fair enough. The AFL have reset the entire completion to punish for intent. That's a new one.

Are they all pysch majors too?

They'll just change it next time, if they want to.

 

[jackster83]

Reckon they should strip us of some draft picks while they are at it.

 

[MsTopG]

I'd seriously prefer a Saudi-funded rebel league to form as a * you to the AFL. Hopefully the class action lawsuits bankrupt them.

I don't mind liv golf but they must go to 4 rounds. Looking forward to seeing them tee up at grange