- Moderator
- #101
I tried to have a look, but couldnt find it. The AFL usually releases a video complilation with all the incidents that are cited by the MRP, but they might not do it this week until after tonight's game.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
MRP / Trib. Taylor Walker
- Thread starter DREAM TEAM BUFF
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I tried to have a look, but couldnt find it. The AFL usually releases a video complilation with all the incidents that are cited by the MRP, but they might not do it this week until after tonight's game.
It was negligent ( 1 point), medium impact (2 points) and high contact ( 2 points)
Why medium and not low?
Why medium and not low?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
ChipDawg23
Debutant
Wouldn't be surprised if they introduce the '3 feet' rule, like they have in netball, into the NAB cup next year the way things are going
Yeah true, I have kept forgetting there's a game tonight.
Hopefully we can see some comparative footage so we can see where Tex apparently went wrong.
Smoooothy
May have been wrong about em!
- Jan 12, 2005
- 24,773
- 23,330
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- North Adelaide; ConeyIslandWarriors
also bullshit (4 points)
Wilburwild
Team Captain
Could be way off the mark, but my first thought was if Walker's is deemed rough conduct, How isn't Lovett_Murray's? Then I remembered its dreamtime at the G this weekend. Coincidence?
I think we'll challenge. A good tackle shouldn't be punished. I doubt it would have even come up without the media focus. I was at the game and at the time I thought it was a great tackle. That seemed to be the consensus of the crowd.
I think we'll challenge. A good tackle shouldn't be punished. I doubt it would have even come up without the media focus. I was at the game and at the time I thought it was a great tackle. That seemed to be the consensus of the crowd.
We will challenge this, even if to get it down to a match. The Nahas one was considered in media circles to be a lot worse and the only one likely to cop a suspension, so the fact he gets off pisses me off! It was a bloody spear, this was simply a tackle with one motion and it was unfortunate Taylor was slightly hurt. It was not a sling ffs!!
Why high and medium?
Didn't touch Taylor's head, Taylor came back onto the field.
Bullshit.
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
CrowMania1990
Senior List
I hope we do challenge, Lovett-Murrays was probably the worst of the three, so the decision made is bizarre.
This is what doesn't make sense, and gives more than enough doubt for a trip to the tribunal.
Harry Taylor played 90% of the game FFS!! The 6th highest TOG by a Geelong player.
Adelaide have to challenge it - as I posted elsewhere Taylor was only off the ground for 7 minutes of the 1st quarter and resumed without any sign of concussion at the beginning of the 2nd quarter.
The AFL is a Vic-centric run game - 2 similar potential charges against players of Victorian based teams totally ignored, but as usual its slam the non-Victorian.
No way did that tackle deserve citing, let alone the hefty penalty being offered.
Adelaide have to challenge it - as I posted elsewhere Taylor was only off the ground for 7 minutes of the 1st quarter and resumed without any sign of concussion at the beginning of the 2nd quarter.
The AFL is a Vic-centric run game - 2 similar potential charges against players of Victorian based teams totally ignored, but as usual its slam the non-Victorian.
No way did that tackle deserve citing, let alone the hefty penalty being offered.
Wilburwild
Team Captain
Contact wasn't high either, It was the grass that got him high. Firstly it should be thrown out, but if they want to keep it, it should be negligent (1 point), low impact (1 point) and whatever you get for not high contact...
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 86,082
- 179,666
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #119
AFL House: The footage of the Nahas and Lovett-Murray tackles has uh... mysteriously disappeared.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
The club must challenge this
Harry was not injured
Harry did not release the ball so Tex was well in his rights to bring the player to ground
The tackle was continuous, there was no secondary motion in the tackle
Harry was not injured
Harry did not release the ball so Tex was well in his rights to bring the player to ground
The tackle was continuous, there was no secondary motion in the tackle
Adelaide twitter has just said that Tex only risks three if he pleads not guilty and the appeal fails. If we challenge the classifications (high contact, medium impact) the third is not risked
blackbird_RGB
Team Captain
Complete. Utter. Bullshet.
it was a great,strong tackle, with no secondary motion. both guys hit at the same time, with the same part of their body.
is tex getting a week for the damage that he may have done to himself as well????
Please afc, please challenge this.
it was a great,strong tackle, with no secondary motion. both guys hit at the same time, with the same part of their body.
is tex getting a week for the damage that he may have done to himself as well????
Please afc, please challenge this.
Hank93
Brownlow Medallist
I'm leaning towards challenging. It would suck if we lost at the tribunal and he ended up being out for 3.
The impact grading is the most confusing. Harry Taylor was off the ground for like 5 minutes, and Tex gets medium impact. And yet NLM gets off despite Priddis going off for concussion.
Inconsistency?!
The impact grading is the most confusing. Harry Taylor was off the ground for like 5 minutes, and Tex gets medium impact. And yet NLM gets off despite Priddis going off for concussion.
Inconsistency?!