Remove this Banner Ad

The Report/MRP Thread

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

"I didn't hit him in the head"
"But you COULD have"
"Campaigner I could have Stone Cold Stunner'd him into the turf but I didn't so why would I get suspended for it?"

AFL's whole match review system is based on consequentialism, it been heavily criticized because of its outcomes-based results and now they're critical of Yeo's moral luck because there was no bad outcome?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Yep. It was completely gutless that there was hardly any remonstration after Dom gave Adams a tummy tickler.

That isn't what I am saying, and you are creating a false binary by saying it is one or the other.

Hitting people in the head isn't football.

You don't understand. The AFL could be facing future lawsuits in the hundreds of millions of dollars for the way the game has been played. They want NO CONTACT with the head. So unless we want our players sitting on the sidelines regularly we're gonna have to tell them to aim a little lower and stay away from striking people in places it could slide up and make contact with the head.

Sorry guys, that is footy in 2020.

Pushing at the stoppage isn’t striking. Yeo’s action was a football action. It was reasonable. The whole suspension is ridiculous, made more frustrating by inconsistent application of the rules.

The holier than thou “sorry guys, this is what the AFL want” approach is pretty frustrating mate.

If the AFL wanted no contact to the head, they’d adjudicate accordingly and stamp things like this out EVERY TIME. When they do that, I’ll complain that our guys are stupid. Until they do that, I have no issue with our midfielders pushing their opponent at a stoppage given that is how football is, has and always will be played.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Report/MRP Thread

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top