MW wrote:
Based on outcome not act..
Can we go back to 1984 and replay the Prelim with Super Carey playing then please?
by Dutchy » Wed May 10, 2023 9:36 pm
MW wrote:
Based on outcome not act..
by Dutchy » Wed May 10, 2023 9:38 pm
Spargo wrote:Rioli should buy a lotto ticket.
by Spargo » Wed May 10, 2023 9:47 pm
Dutchy wrote:MW wrote:
Based on outcome not act..
Can we go back to 1984 and replay the Prelim with Super Carey playing then please?
by Spargo » Wed May 10, 2023 9:49 pm
Vamos wrote:Spargo wrote:Rioli should buy a lotto ticket.
And brush it across Ridley's face, that's about the extent of the contact.
by Vamos » Wed May 10, 2023 10:29 pm
Spargo wrote:Vamos wrote:Spargo wrote:Rioli should buy a lotto ticket.
And brush it across Ridley's face, that's about the extent of the contact.
How did Ridley suffer concussion then?
by tigerpie » Wed May 10, 2023 10:33 pm
Dutchy wrote:MW wrote:
Based on outcome not act..
Can we go back to 1984 and replay the Prelim with Super Carey playing then please?
by Spargo » Wed May 10, 2023 10:37 pm
tigerpie wrote:Dutchy wrote:MW wrote:
Based on outcome not act..
Can we go back to 1984 and replay the Prelim with Super Carey playing then please?
Attempting to strike wasn't it?
by Booney » Thu May 11, 2023 9:29 am
MW wrote:whufc wrote:FlyingHigh wrote:There are no words for the disgrace that is the Close suspension. Maybe it's time to suspend, or at least pay a free against, anyone who tries to break a tackle. After all I believe they do something similar in Rugby Union if a player in a certain circumstance puts his head in a dangerous position that in previous times he would have got a penalty for.
Same with the Van Rooyen one. How can he get two weeks and Fogarty from last week not even get cited?
Great example and ridiculous that the two incidents can be viewed so differently.
Based on outcome not act.
Just look at Pickett and McAdam. Pickett gets two weeks as Smith could play on no problem, and McAdam gets three because his opponent had a 20 minute concussion test.
by MW » Thu May 11, 2023 9:38 am
by gadj1976 » Thu May 11, 2023 9:49 am
MW wrote:Because a sling tackle is like striking, your intention is only to hurt them so you will go for that regardless of the outcome. A spoil is not an action intended to hurt someone but to spoil the ball, so I feel the tribunal are adjudicating those based on outcome only.
Just my opinion, could and likely to be completely wrong
by mots02 » Thu May 11, 2023 10:55 am
am Bays wrote:Jim05 wrote:Rioli got it downgraded and copped 2 weeks
Kudos to the Port Lawyer for this stunning piece of Court-room repartee: “ We say unfortunately because the arm (of Rioli) was up, Mr Ridley ran into it," Ehrlich told the Tribunal.”
https://www.afl.com.au/news/922373/the-verdict-is-in-tribunal-makes-call-on-rioli-hit?fbclid=IwAR3so-wZCWD0N1LOuPf6qslJj6Vl7e3ZgldmkdEbl_TQk8_sMNRmhlQSWRA&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
Beats the “Sun in my eyes” excuse they used with Frampton in 2019
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |