-
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 2 Other games.
- Thread starter craig
- Start date
Its laughable. From what I read on the AFL website, it seems because it stated arms and a not arm(s) pinned meant that technically because Burgoyne didn't pin BOTH arms when he slung Diverfield then it was ok to fine him, they have now put the brackets in to catch anyone that does the same.
Really??? They can't distinguish that its pinned arm/s and driving head into the ground, its the freaking sling that's the issue, not whether or not he was lucky enough to only pin 1 instead of both arms.
EF me. What about all the other suspensions of similar cases, many not as severe.
Yep apparent they are changing the wording so that the loophole of having both arms pinned is removed. Yet they are not going to overturn the MRO decision to let Burgoyne off with a fine
Hocking is clueless.
This is enough for Hocking to be shown the door. Rapidly losing interest in this game's logic gymnastics.
agree - and where is gill the dill to come in over the top of the match review verdict and whack him for 4 like he did a few seasons back.
It didn't need to be a ridiculous penalty - just a reminder of their commitment to reducing head trauma after all the hoo-hah about CTE.
The rules were already in place to sit him out for a week and show that the AFL is serious. They failed.
Yep where is the manifestly inadequate penalty that they could choose. These are the AFL rules and they DO have the power to punish Burgoyne correctly but are hiding behind a typo of the letter s. There is a village missing its idiot somewhere.
<
Round 2 Collingwood
|
Rowell
>
