mots02 wrote:am Bays wrote:UK Fan wrote:5 games is to harsh and I hope we appeal.
More chance of @Booney becoming a Crows supporter than winning that!
So you’re saying there’s a chaaaaaaance .

by dedja » Thu Jun 12, 2025 2:58 pm
mots02 wrote:am Bays wrote:UK Fan wrote:5 games is to harsh and I hope we appeal.
More chance of @Booney becoming a Crows supporter than winning that!
So you’re saying there’s a chaaaaaaance .
by Booney » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:09 pm
by Hazydog » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:10 pm
mots02 wrote:Hazydog wrote:mots02 wrote:whufc wrote:Happy to concede that poor technique can get you suspended, no problems there at all. Also don't expect the 'rules' to change for weather conditions, ultimately there is one set of rules in the game and that's it.
I cant be convinced though that we haven't got the balance slightly wrong when it comes to outcome vs intent. I struggle to concede a tackle gone wrong should be more weeks than a completely non footballing act.
I'm happy for the league to get super strict, I'm happy for Grant to get 5 but a bloke who belts another player not going for the ball shouldn't be getting less than that either.
Lifting someone off the ground in a tackle isn’t necessary and is dangerous.
Lifting someone high enough, that they can be pivoted to be turned upside down (intentionally or not) is dangerous and reckless.
Comparing that action to a strike isn’t comparing apples for apples and is irrelevant
I can only assume you haven’t seen the incident and are only referencing others descriptions? At no time does he lift the player, let alone your “high enough, that they can be pivoted” comment! Ok, I get I’m in the minority on this and happy to stay in that lane but let’s stick to the facts and not embellish to exaggerate a point.
I watched it live in the tv but had not seen it since.
I have now and happy to remove my reference of ‘lifting him high enough’
He did however lift and pivot him forcefully enough that the eagles player ended up with his legs in fhe air and his head pointing towards the ground. Unless you’re suggesting the eagles player somehow contributed to that manoeuvre, that movement of lifting / controlling / pivotting/ making the eagles player be upside down and then landing on him is attributed to Grant.
Sorry for the embellishment, but the recklessness of Grant remains, no matter how we on here choose to describe it.
by mots02 » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:13 pm
Booney wrote:Zip.
Zilch.
Nicks.*
Nada.
Nil.
None.
*Not Mathew
by mots02 » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:15 pm
by gazzamagoo » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:19 pm
by dedja » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:24 pm
mots02 wrote:Booney wrote:Zip.
Zilch.
Nicks.*
Nada.
Nil.
None.
*Not Mathew
I feel the technicality here is wording ‘booney will become’
Can’t become something that you already are
by dedja » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:25 pm
gazzamagoo wrote:Did the Eagles player suffer a concussion?
Is he playing this week?
by mots02 » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:27 pm
by amber_fluid » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:27 pm
by gazzamagoo » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:29 pm
dedja wrote:gazzamagoo wrote:Did the Eagles player suffer a concussion?
Is he playing this week?
Shut up, it’s not the AFL
by gazzamagoo » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:29 pm
by gazzamagoo » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:32 pm
amber_fluid wrote:5 weeks for that is harsh
I know we are all about protecting the head but there wasn’t alot of force in the tackle.
Silly/clumsy - Yes
Malice - No
Dangerous -Yes could have been
2-3 weeks would have been enough to send a message about these tackles
by dedja » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:37 pm
gazzamagoo wrote:amber_fluid wrote:5 weeks for that is harsh
I know we are all about protecting the head but there wasn’t alot of force in the tackle.
Silly/clumsy - Yes
Malice - No
Dangerous -Yes could have been
2-3 weeks would have been enough to send a message about these tackles
Especially when you consider that
Grant is a very fair, clean player and
the other 2 that were reported for similar tackles only received a small fine.
by wenchbarwer » Thu Jun 12, 2025 3:42 pm
gazzamagoo wrote:Did the Eagles player suffer a concussion?
Is he playing this week?
by goddy11 » Thu Jun 12, 2025 5:01 pm
amber_fluid wrote:5 weeks for that is harsh
I know we are all about protecting the head but there wasn’t alot of force in the tackle.
Silly/clumsy - Yes
Malice - No
Dangerous -Yes could have been
2-3 weeks would have been enough to send a message about these tackles
by Hazydog » Thu Jun 12, 2025 5:09 pm
mots02 wrote:The good news is that the doggies fans on here are showing more fight than their players have over the last couple of weeks - a positive to take into the weekend
by PatowalongaPirate » Thu Jun 12, 2025 6:26 pm
by UK Fan » Thu Jun 12, 2025 6:35 pm
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.
Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.
by amber_fluid » Thu Jun 12, 2025 7:02 pm
goddy11 wrote:amber_fluid wrote:5 weeks for that is harsh
I know we are all about protecting the head but there wasn’t alot of force in the tackle.
Silly/clumsy - Yes
Malice - No
Dangerous -Yes could have been
2-3 weeks would have been enough to send a message about these tackles
A spear tackle is one of the worst tackles there is. The potential for serious damage is high. 5 weeks is a fair result. It's banned in other sports.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |