|
Yeah I think the Bulldogs win this pissing contest. (note I counted the cohort numbers by hand so I may have made an error... maybe)
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Actually I'm a little surprised Hawthorn's still top of that table but that's maybe because I still think of people like Breust and Isaac Smith as "young" because they came up after 2008, and because of the dudes we've lost recently. But the Bulldogs are ridiculously young in comparison so they can probably be cut some slack for now given the changes in the past year...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
Periphery posted:The problem I have with the Nic Nat suspension is that Burton got away with a bump that concussed a player because it was an 'accident' and this tackle is somehow different? I'd be happy with a basic rule that you get a week for a tackle that concusses a player if the bump also got a week if it concussed a player. But of course the AFL fucks everything up so here we are. Some animals are more equal than others
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 13:34
|
|
|
The Deadly Hume posted:Yeah I think the Bulldogs win this pissing contest. Well then we are just poo poo. Burn the league to the ground I say.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Periphery posted:The problem I have with the Nic Nat suspension is that Burton got away with a bump that concussed a player because it was an 'accident' and this tackle is somehow different? I'd be happy with a basic rule that you get a week for a tackle that concusses a player if the bump also got a week if it concussed a player. But of course the AFL fucks everything up so here we are. The logic Christian used (he's on that weird panel-show thing on the AFL website) is that he'd rather Natanui not pin the arms. I stopped listening after I heard him say "instead of driving to the ground with arms pinned" while watching a clip showing Natanui clearly not pinning the players arms in the tackle. Watching the host stare at the camera dumbfoundedly while Christian natters on was pretty hilarious. There was also something about NicNat not being on top and driving him down when he's effectively side-to-side and lands next to the player not on top of. If it was just an arbitrary call or an application of some arcane rule the AFL seems to have made up like 20 minutes ago, then fine. But Christian is spouting bullshit that doesn't match up with the clip they're showing as he's describing his reasoning. Schlesische fucked around with this message at 16:18 on May 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Periphery posted:The problem I have with the Nic Nat suspension is that Burton got away with a bump that concussed a player because it was an 'accident' and this tackle is somehow different? I'd be happy with a basic rule that you get a week for a tackle that concusses a player if the bump also got a week if it concussed a player. But of course the AFL fucks everything up so here we are. The citation also says he pinned his arms:  It's in the back for sure, but nothing more than a free kick.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
It's almost like AFL management sees whatever it wants to see, and nothing else
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
It can gently caress off because our most important match of the season this week as well, away.
Diet Crack fucked around with this message at 16:58 on May 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
West coast should definitely challenge that
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
There is no way that is a loving reportable offence let alone a suspension
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:The citation also says he pinned his arms: That's just a bad push in the back, and something that big ruckman do every game by virtue of being so much physically larger than a lot of midfielders.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:The citation also says he pinned his arms: yeah, and if arms got 'pinned' it's surely by the ground. NicNat's just guilty of a hard in the back. also I still have a ways to go in learning the game but I'm with any other Saints supporter who just wants to play the kids and get games into the younger players this year. don't have much to lose, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Yeah that's dumb. Free kick, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Massive in the back but surely the Eagles appeal the suspension.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
I'm glad common sense prevails, which means NicNat will not be playing this weekend.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
demons aflw keep lily mithen but lose hickey, erin hoare, teague and cranston. hickey is a loss mainly as a key defender but will be coming off an ACL next year, cranston has only just started to show her best footy so thats a shame. hoare i can understand leaving as lauren pearce is much more of an effective ruck than her
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
snaeksikn posted:demons aflw keep lily mithen but lose hickey, erin hoare, teague and cranston. IMO it’s cool and good that a single club can poach 1/7th of our list all of whom were starting 16
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 08:33
|
|
|
Yep, big outs. The AFL loving finally released details for trades. New clubs get to raid whoever they want (but original club gets to counter-offer) but each existing club can only have 4 players maximum taken off of them, going to either of the new expansion teams.
Also former Carlton coach Damien Keeping is the new coach of the casey demons vflw side, they had a bye in round 1.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
also someone on reddit made a ladder predictor which works and is out now, unlike the afl/tesltra one which comes online in like round 15 or whatever https://predictor.squiggle.com.au/
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
Hawkins got a week
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 08:58
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:IMO it’s cool and good that a single club can poach 1/7th of our list all of whom were starting 16 yeah, but we were always going to lose players regardless. cranston is less than ideal and hickey would be a big loss if not for her ACL. could have been much worse
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
realbez posted:Hawkins got a week good
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
snaeksikn posted:yeah, but we were always going to lose players regardless. cranston is less than ideal and hickey would be a big loss if not for her ACL. could have been much worse Look of the five I’m glad we kept Mithen, but gently caress me it’s a huge chunk of a list to walk out overnight
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 09:36
|
|
|
Well the contracts are again only for 1 season, so a few of those might find their way back to Melbourne in 2020... or go to the other 4 new teams.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
drunkill posted:Well the contracts are again only for 1 season, so a few of those might find their way back to Melbourne in 2020... or go to the other 4 new teams. The real answer is we hosed our selves in both seasons by losing to a poo poo team and now we’ll go 50 years with no flag just like the men’s team
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 10:03
|
|
|
"THE "EASIEST" case Match Review Officer Michael Christian has assessed this year was the decision to offer West Coast ruckman Nic Naitanui a one-match ban for his tackle on Port Adelaide's Karl Amon. Amon was left concussed after the incident at Optus Stadium on Saturday afternoon, and the Eagles will fight the charge. However, Christian told Melbourne radio station SEN on Tuesday it was a simple decision to make. "Tackling is the most challenging part of this role, because it's obviously something you're allowed to do. But this one, for me, was the easiest that I've had to adjudicate on, because the rules around tackling are pretty simple in a sense: if a tackle is unreasonable in the circumstances," Christian said. "Now that's the broad definition but when you nail it down, and the particular application here is where an opponent is driven into the ground with excessive force, particularly when the player tackled is in a vulnerable position, then that constitutes unreasonable in the circumstances, which is rough conduct, which is a charge." ---- Rolling my eyes out of their sockets right now. Remember when I spoke of how inept and bullshit having one man doing the MRP would be, setting precedents for no reason then never following them? Well.. Someone will get knocked out this weekend from some sort of contact and it won't go to the MRP, I can guaran-loving-tee it. Diet Crack fucked around with this message at 13:37 on May 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 13:30
|
|
|
Rumour is Ross Lyon may be stepping down today. RUMOUR.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:Rumour is Ross Lyon may be stepping down today. So he's getting another extension on his extended contract? Lyon must have really done a number on Sumich with all the leaking he's doing
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:"THE "EASIEST" case Match Review Officer Michael Christian has assessed this year was the decision to offer West Coast ruckman Nic Naitanui a one-match ban for his tackle on Port Adelaide's Karl Amon. There's also the fact that he is always coming out and saying that 'oh the report and subsequent suspension was correct' which means that any appeal is already coming against a biased position.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
There was a real danger with having one person adjudicate reportable offences that there may be some sort of consistency of thought from incident to incident I think the AFL should be commended for the great efforts they have gone to in finding someone so vastly unqualified, incompetent, and generally just loving dumb, to avoid that being the case.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 02:52
|
|
|
I love the fact that the AFL was constantly dogged for having an opaque system that seemed to constantly result in inconsistent decisions, and their solution was to turn it into a transparent system that constantly results in inconsistent decisions. Honestly, NicNat even being cited for that is a joke, let alone a week. And then to have the cheek to come out and say it was "the easiest decision" you've had to make, what a loving rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/cl...6f18d22db0c98d8 This article has some good shots to demonstrate why people complaining about Oliver’s kick to handball ratio are in fact idiots.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
Gil and the AFL are having a month they thoroughly deservequote:Former Gold Coast Suns player Joel Wilkinson will begin legal action against the AFL, seeking compensation for racial abuse and sexual harassment during his playing career.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Gil and the AFL are having a month they thoroughly deserve Ugh, that’s poo poo. Poor guy. Sad it seems that also the players were doing it too? Like not even sticking up for a team mate :/
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 10:17
|
|
|
teacup posted:Ugh, that’s poo poo. Poor guy. Sad it seems that also the players were doing it too? Like not even sticking up for a team mate :/ If he was at McKenna's Suns it sounds like there were massive culture issues, especially when you bring in someone as upstanding as Campbell Brown to set an example.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
Campbell Brown was almost certainly the one who called him a black oval office when asking what position he played, per the AFL produced video Wilkinson was in about racism in football Also Naitanui was found guilty by the tribunal because he should have known and understood that a 110kg guy tackling an 80kg would lead to this. loving lol they are so bad. Eagles should just punch the nuclear option and gently caress the AFL into the sun by going to the supreme court.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 10:29
|
|
|
This might be a controversial opinion, but I'd have no issue with a blanket 1 week ban any time a player that initiates contact (tackle, bump, spoil, marking attempt) that results in a concussion (with the normal tribunal appeal process available). If the players have a duty of care to protect the head, then concussing a player clearly has shown a lack of duty of care - accidental or otherwise - and it should be punished. The thing that's stupid about the NIc Nat decision is the inconsistency the AFL has shown either way. NTRabbit posted:Campbell Brown was almost certainly the one who called him a black oval office when asking what position he played, per the AFL produced video Wilkinson was in about racism in football The Suns culture clearly seems like it wouldn't have helped, but Henrietta Lumumba had some pretty serious claims about the way he was treated and these are just the players that we've heard stuff form cause they haven't signed confidentiality agreements.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 10:40
|
|
|
Periphery posted:If the players have a duty of care to protect the head, then concussing a player clearly has shown a lack of duty of care - accidental or otherwise - and it should be punished. Duty of care is a legal obligation requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Tackling like he did, I don't think could lead to a reasonable idea of him foreseeably harming others, unlike spear tackles, dumps, two-motion tackling, which is a different thing. It's not actually the end result that you adjudicate the duty of care on, it's the action. The concussion was, I think, not foreseeable, unlike shoulder charging a player looking the other way, or stepping on someone's leg not leading to forseeable consequences. Paracausal fucked around with this message at 11:03 on May 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 11:00
|
|
|
Quantum Shart posted:Duty of care is a legal obligation requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really concerned with legal definitions and considering the AFL's lack of ability to implement and understand even the most basic rules I don't think we need to make it any more complicated than it needs to be. Replace 'duty of care' with 'responsibility' and my point probably make more sense. Fail in the responsibility to protect the head to the degree that the opposition player is concussed and you can have a week on the sidelines unless you can prove at the tribunal that you weren't the one to initiate contact.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
Look, if you choose to tackle when you could have bumped and the bloke gets injured as a result of that, then you have to wear the consequences. This isn’t a difficult concept.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 11:19
|
|