Tex rubbed out for a push

[BRL121]

Bailey has a shit for brains narrative, he isnt liked or admired at all. Most are just amazed he can play that well despite how stupid he is. The game however protects him for some unknown reason.

"mental health"

He can smash someone's face with the football and easily get away with it.

 

[CrowMania1990]

Bailey has a shit for brains narrative, he isnt liked or admired at all. Most are just amazed he can play that well despite how stupid he is. The game however protects him for some unknown reason.

The media clearly likes him, and it does seem to influence how he's perceived and treated on the field. That said, there's no denying his quality, I'd happily have a player of that calibre in our midfield.

 

[Daniel6]

When is the tribunal held?

6:45 pm Thursday night at the MCG.

Na, I have no idea.

 

[spenze]

I'd absolutely challenge it at the Tribunal just to force the MRO to justify the decision. The fine itself is almost beside the point, it's the logic behind it that doesn't seem to stack up.

Of course, the day Adelaide has a midfielder of Bailey Smith's quality, maybe we'll find out whether our players get the same benefit of the doubt. Somehow I suspect that's a test the AFL would prefer not to run.

It would cost us 10k to challenge a fine of less than 2k, that's pissing money away like you're a politician

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Presumably, the AFL thinks that Peatling's actions during the melee were untoward, while Smith's weren't. I can't really say given that we only got to see part of it.

Unfortunately, there is no way to challenge Smith not being cited.

Smith is a protected species by the AFL... so they just encourage his poor behaviour.

 

[Ham]

When is the tribunal held?

Seems like tonight

 

[CrowMania1990]

It would cost us 10k to challenge a fine of less than 2k, that's pissing money away like you're a politician

I get that, but the fact we have a competition where it costs that much to challenge a clearly wrong or questionable decision is very poor. The system seems designed to discourage clubs from challenging AFL rulings, which is probably the point. It's just a tough pill to swallow when you're one of the "unpopular" clubs in AFL land that often finds itself on the wrong side of these decisions.

 

[Crow till I die]

No problem with them rubbing tex out for 1 week for that as it is dangerous BUT be consistent and apply the laws the same to others. We have always copped stuff over and above and nothing changes. I remember McAdam got a 3 week ban for a chest bump and the same week Pickett got 2 weeks for leaving the ground and collecting his opponent in the head concussing him. That shit should never ever happen at MRP and tribumal level unless people in there have agendas.

 

[StonesThrow]

Similar, not identical. Main difference is that Owens pushed to remove his opponent from the marking contest so he could take it. Tex just pushed his opponent in as a cannonball. But, if the rule is about danger to cause injury, then he should probably be cited as well. Tex is copy book citable, argue about grading and force for sure, but not that the act wasn’t what they deliberately are trying to remove from the game.

O'Sullivan goes forward to avoid contact with the Geelong player coming back. You could still argue tex had his hand in his back (not allowing him to pull back) such that he was in danger of being wiped out by his team mate.

It's a hard one because it looks worse than it is and players could have gotten injured just by tex putting his hand in his back (regardless of how much he was pushing). Like everyone has pointed out. These situations happen in almost every single game and it's going to be a real shit show once your start suspending people for it.

I think most of us are annoyed that it seems to be our club that gets the ball rolling with this type of thing only for the AFL to eventually back track and start letting players off again.

 

[Smart Fella]

Butters gets the same run. At this stage the only way Butters could get suspended is he dropps a dookie in the centre square, rips off an umpires shirt and proceeds to wipe his ass with it. Maybe then...he might get a week.

This might be the thing that makes me pay to watch the power at AO.

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

It’s a textbook case of pushing someone into a marking contest, not sure how you can claim he tried to push him out of the way. His intent is irrelevant, it’s only his action and the outcome that matters, so somehow believing he was trying to push him ‘away’ has zero bearing. At least you admit he pushed him, which is a fair bit more rational than a couple of other views.

Anyway, I agree marking contest or not probably shouldn’t matter, which is why I’m keen for a clear explanation if the other 2 aren’t cited. Anyway, I do think it might be seen differently if you’re actually part of the contest and your overall goal is to mark the ball. Surely we’ll see reporting around the different treatment if they’re not cited, forcing the AFL to explain the different why.

That’s contradictory to your previous statement.

You talked about the going the mark excuse. Why does intent to mark count but intent to protect your teammate not?

 

[BRL121]

Seems like tonight

Good. This is exactly the avenue I picked, above.

 

[Pugsley]

Good. This is exactly the avenue I picked, above.

O'Sullivan's thrusting himself forward could have caused serious injury to his teammate.

Dumb thing to do by him.

 

[Crow_68]

Delusional if you think he is getting off.

AFL have found their big fish to make an example of. And we are up against one of their great Victorian finals hopes.

 

[Carmo]

Delusional if you think he is getting off.

AFL have found their big fish to make an example of. And we are up against one of their great Victorian finals hopes.

Probably but not a bad week to test it considering TT just got suspended for something that happens once a game every week and no one has been suspended for for this season so far. Almost looks like a pattern...

 

[Pugsley]

Delusional if you think he is getting off.

AFL have found their big fish to make an example of. And we are up against one of their great Victorian finals hopes.

Of course he isn't getting let off but whoever is advocating for him should be showing the other examples from the round letting the VFL know they're biased campaigners.

 

[ams4crows]

Of course he isn't getting let off but whoever is advocating for him should be showing the other examples from the round letting the VFL know they're biased campaigners.

That's all I want, if the AFL want to suspend that action fine but call attention to all of the pushes so far this season that have been unsighted.

Michael Christian has an obvious vendetta against us

 

[Pugsley]

That's all I want, if the AFL want to suspend that action fine but call attention to all of the pushes so far this season that have been unsighted.

Michael Christian has an obvious vendetta against us

He is a meathead.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

 

[cleanhands]

F****d

 

[n4sir]

Michael Christian has an obvious vendetta against us

This dickhead literally brings the AFL into disrepute. How the hell this biased, racist, corrupt arseh*le still has an official position is way beyond me.

 

[Syd Crow]

This dickhead literally brings the AFL into disrepute. How the hell this biased, racist, corrupt arseh*le still has an official position is way beyond me.

Christian is a Cnut!

 

[1970crow]

Good. This is exactly the avenue I picked, above.

It’s the only out. He pushed him into the contest, that’s a given, all comes down to the definition of ‘forceful’. If that’s upheld, hope they don’t upgrade to medium impact.

 

[1970crow]

That’s contradictory to your previous statement.

You talked about the going the mark excuse. Why does intent to mark count but intent to protect your teammate not?

I’m not saying it’s an excuse, I’ve actually specifically stated I don’t think it should be. I have merely questioned whether the AFL take that into account if the other 2 aren’t cited.

And your taking the piss with your protecting teammate’ line, he pushed him into Dawson from behind, he was t shepherding or protecting in any way.

 

[Go the Guts]

Anyone know where the live tribunal link is? Can’t find it anywhere. TIA.