AFL Round 8

[Dutchy]

Based on outcome not act..

Can we go back to 1984 and replay the Prelim with Super Carey playing then please?

[Dutchy]

Rioli should buy a lotto ticket.

Absolutely 2 weeks is a piss week middle of the ground decision, it was minimum 3 or thrown out

[Spargo]

Based on outcome not act..

Can we go back to 1984 and replay the Prelim with Super Carey playing then please?

It was the Qualifying Final vs Centrals he copped 2. Missed the 2nd Semi vs Port & then the Prelim vs Norwood - criminal.

[Spargo]

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?

[Vamos]

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?

After he was hit by the 2nd spitter, did half a pirouette and fell to the ground. That's one magic loogie.

tumblr_lqunqheiAv1qj9qhto1_500.gif (494.05 KiB) Viewed 2589 times

[tigerpie]

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?

[Spargo]

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?

Yep.

[Booney]

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.

So why do sling tackles cop a suspension regardless of outcome? They're getting suspended based on the act.

[MW]

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

[gadj1976]

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

Problem is, a sling tackle is open to interpretation. Most are just momentum based tackles which take the player to ground. Hence why you'll see umpires either penalise the player with the ball, or call play on. It's then confusing for all when the player who might not have been penalised, or maybe even received a free kick, is reported after the game has been reviewed.

Striking in my view, has less interpretation required.

[mots02]

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

The Simpsons predict the future, once again.