He got three weeks for imitating Hannibal Lector
1 Like
Wasnât it Green who got fined?
Yep, in one of the JLT games (I think)
Clarko called out Sellwood for ducking and Hinkley likewise with Shuey. Even if you donât name individuals Iâd love to see us more proactive and aggressive. North won by plenty and Brad Scott still had a crack at the umps for not protecting Brown
3 Likes
So can I just confirm that Martinâs blatant charge on Baguley wasnât seen as warranting assessment?
Run through a guy who was wide open with no intent of contesting the ball is everything that the AFL has said itâs stamping it for a decade.
5 Likes
We failed to out-source our medical report to Fark Carlton.
3 Likes
Was an outstanding bump. We should learn from it. No head contact, split him up the middle.
1 Like
Absolutely
What did Leroy get for faking?
That Fyfe suspension is a joke
They are appealing and I think it will get downgraded
As in he should have got longer? Or got off?
He should get off. Free kick at worst
1 Like
How many âuncharacteristicâ head high hits from Nat âfairestâ Fyfe now? 4, or is it 5?
At some point, like they did with Judd after his 5th or 6th one, the AFLâs going to have to face facts that uncharacteristic hits have become characteristic.
6 Likes
I must be looking at a different bit of footage.
The incident Iâve seen shows Fyfe choosing to jump at the player, raise his elbow, and get the Pies player with a forearm to the head.
After Carlisle getting a week for a clumsy spoil, that has to go.
The guy has form at this, too.
5 Likes
I think so. Maybe it was someone else?
Could I hate Rance any more already? Probably not, but now I do.
Heâs got form on this, and even spoke jokingly about it on the Footy Show when he got busted last year.
Do we want it in our game? No. So give the guy a week and be done with it.
3 Likes
yep- I thought jumping was going to be a big negative against him. And he collected him. With an elbow. Thatâs worth at least a week.
3 Likes
Outstanding bump in 1988. Or even 1998.
Whether itâs correct that theyâve set out to make it clear that you canât run through a player who is wide open when collecting the ball, it is what they have told us for 10 years. Duty of care and all that.
In the context of that it warranted at the least an acknowledgement from the tribunal that they looked at it.
I mean they paid a free against a guy for being first to the ball later in the game. If they create these interpretations they have to enforce them consistently.
2 Likes
took out greenwood, thatâs got to be a weeks discount, surely?