Seriously? You want a forward, suspended for applying forward pressure?? You do that and forward pressure is gone from the game...
Tom Hawkins dangerous tackle, Darragh Joyce concussed
- Thread starter Back One Out
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Seriously? You want a forward, suspended for applying forward pressure?? You do that and forward pressure is gone from the game...
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,481
- 40,648
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
That wasnt the question. Also, is pinning both arms the only possible way to tackle someone?
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,725
- 19,564
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
If ever you needed any more evidence that the Cats are looked after by the AFL. What a joke.
Hawkins gets suspended a lot, and Danger got suspended in a potential Brownlow year for a dangerous tackle (and earlier this year.) People can be unhappy with the outcome, but I think bringing up conspiracy theories is a bit strange and shallow.
If the AFL truly looked after Geelong, finals would be played at Skilled.
lol- suggest you find yourself a new yoga teacher.
Remember the tanking but not tanking debacle. You would think Dee supporters would have a better handle on their own recent history when talking favouritism.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
But in a twisted way the GMHBA stadium argument seems to be part of the favouritism equation according to some posters. Because we don't get home finals the AFL has to look after Geelong FC in other ways
Anyone remember NicNat being suspended for performing a near on perfect tackle because he didn't take into account his height and weight differential as apposed to the person he was tackling, Geelong player I believe.
He copped his week, unfairly I believe, and I am yet to see the "NICNAT" rule invoked since.
This probably was a little closer sized players but action and result was near on the same.
He copped his week, unfairly I believe, and I am yet to see the "NICNAT" rule invoked since.
This probably was a little closer sized players but action and result was near on the same.
You're right, Hocking had Chavez retask the Dominion lottery machines that the MRO uses to formulate their decisions. You're insight was too good for them, you can see Hocking is a lizard person.
welease the Kwaken!
I don't suppose any of you guys had a talk with Sam Newman on a sidewalk before?
It wasn't a Geelong player at all
The Greene incident was different as it sent Danger to hospital. There was no getting off it. Raised elbow, high, high impact. Downgraded to medium at the tribunal.
The MRO has been a huge mess for years and it’s only now because Geelong has finally got the good end of the stick that the rest of you nuffs have finallly caught on.
um… raises hand in Fremantle…
Amon from Port, you are right. I was thinking it may have been Parfit.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,481
- 40,648
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
But they havent even had fines for elbow fends. Which means the elbow means nothing. Its only the injury the care about.
Except with tackles they are fining and suspending players who do zero damage and have no penalty for players who cause concussions.
It was Karl Amon.
Anyone turning this into a 'Geelong' thing are clearly just letting their biases show. This is a system that has repeatedly proven itself to be completely incompetent and inconsistent. You can take individual cases to try and prove how one club is looked after/discriminated against, or you can realise the bigger picture shows that this is just a terrible system with every club getting burned at times and lucky at other times.
The MRO has contradicted itself so many times it's impossible to have any faith in their decision making.
The MRO has contradicted itself so many times it's impossible to have any faith in their decision making.
What they’ve done is given themselves precedents to act upon both ways.
We suspended player X for action Y because it was just like player A who got suspended for action B…
or…
We didn’t suspend player X for action Y because it was just like player C who didn’t get suspended for action D.
The AFL need to recognise the mess that the MRO/tribunal is, the lack of faith that football fans have in it and start again.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
And for those who really think Geelong gets favourable treatment just check where we are on the Suspensions ladder - No. 1
Yeah I thought about that comparison as well. NN only pinned 1 arm and Amon still had the ball in his but still copped a week.
- Jul 28, 2012
- 11,059
- 10,407
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- QPR, Buffalo Bills
It was a football accident, for once the MRO described it perfectly. Hawkins was a perfect tackle and the injury was caused by the momentum of a 105kg man and the hardness of the playing surface. Good decision and nothing to answer.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,481
- 40,648
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Heaps of players bump and accidentally hit the head. So now we ahould allow incidental head contact in bumps and undo years of changes ?
You keep saying perfect tackle but the rule explicity has said that pinning both arms is a dangerous tackle and if a player gets injured the tackler is responsible.
- Jul 28, 2012
- 11,059
- 10,407
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- QPR, Buffalo Bills
The MRO didn't think so, it was not unreasonable and i agree with that. The injury was caused by the momentum of the tackle which was already in motion when Joyce had the ball. The hardness of the ground didn't help. It was an accident.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,481
- 40,648
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The MRO is universally considered an idiot.
Regardless of the MRO’s decision you have to stop going on about the hardness of the ground. Every player knows it is hard. If you choose to throw a player into the ground you don’t blame the ground for the injury. If you pushed an opponent into the fence the fence doesn’t get the blame. If you run into an umpire you don’t blame the umpire, do you? Do you want the game played on an over-sized marshmallow?
- Feb 21, 2006
- 20,725
- 19,564
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
