-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Round 13 game day thread vs Swans
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
Was talking to a swans member at work today (i live in Sydney) and they mentioned how much noise the tger fans made at the SCG and that they found it quite intimidating! I was sitting amongst the faithful in the paddington end pocket - I know I lost my voice and i think quite a few other did as well.
Well done tiger tribe!
Well done tiger tribe!
Wildride said:
95% of the rest of the players in the league would have got 3 weeks. IMHO (that's Buddy, Tippet was 1, maybe 2 weeks. Tippet's wasn't as bad as Buddy's and he doesn't have the priors.) Did Ty really get 4? Who gets four weeks these days? Oh right a richmond player... Ty's had far less potential to do damage, and the ball was right there! such crap
I mate asked me how many Buddy would get saturday, I said he should get 3, but he'll get 1 0r 2 'cos he's Buddy, ratings and attendances, sydney short attention spans and all that.
That is the one problem with the current system. Buddy is a repeat offender but as there is a gap between incidents, he has no applicable priors. I would double the penalty for every repeat offence.
How many did Goodes get for the squirrel grip? Or is that acceptable conduct befitting an Australian of the Year?
artball said:
In my opinion the injury shouldn't come into it. Whether a player is hurt or not is a matter of mm which the player can't control. What he can control is the action eg going past the ball and lining someone up = 3 weeks in my book. Tackling a player and then slinging him around into the ground potentially causing serious injury = 3 weeks as well (all in my opinion of course). Unless you penalise the act and not the outcome, footballers will keep performing the act and gambling that the outcome isn't severe.
Wildride said:
imo Gordon would have got 3 weeks with an early plea got 2 had none of the Syd players done anything wrong.
Was let off as they went light on Sydney the love child of the AFL and not to be seen to be favouring Syd, Gordon slipped through unscathed.
Well thats my take.
BooGoodes yeah, not even the AFL want to touch that goose. Interesting all night I could hear the boos for Rance.
Hmm maybe it was due to his religion beliefs??? It was non stop, maybe it was for something else???. Type of long bow in this hypocrisy of the Boogate.
I have a bit of trouble reconciling the "medium" impact bit with Deledio's bump in the opening game, which was also graded as medium. We lost Edwards at an important stage and it nearly cost us the game trying to get him back on.
joegarra said:
Spot on Joe. I was a bleeder in my footy days...would always get a blood nose with a knock to the head. If Shed was a bleeder, Buddy would have got 4 weeks as a blood-splattered face on Friday night footy isn't a good look. Shed brushed himself off, played on (after a rest), so Buddy gets 1 week. The outcome (ie. injury) should be totally irrelevant; the actual act should be the only thing that is taken into consideration.
Franklin penalty what a joke
How the AFLcan classify the Franklin hit on Edwards as careless is beyond me. He clearly made the decision to run past the ball to make contact. If that was not intentional then hard to figure out what was.
I know the swans are a protected species but that decision is ridiculous.
How the AFLcan classify the Franklin hit on Edwards as careless is beyond me. He clearly made the decision to run past the ball to make contact. If that was not intentional then hard to figure out what was.
I know the swans are a protected species but that decision is ridiculous.
<
Changes for GWS
|
MRC v GWS
>
