The whole ‘worse than rooting a teammates wife’ is very amusing.
Oh Bacchusfox… You’re a character.
9 Likes
If he had actually bitten him, as determined by the medical examiner (which wasn’t determined), I would be much harsher in determining a penalty. But, the decision seems to have been made based on the ‘potential’ to cause an infection.
Not bias. Just assessing the case based on its individual merits. The AFL have adjudicated that a scratch on Dickson’s neck is worse than a full blown bite by Masten. I call that the AFL’s bias against Essendon.
2 Likes
BF has some strangely very conservative values/opinions.
1 Like
So the club should delist him? FFS
If Dickson had bitten Mckenna, and left a mark, and pled guilty to it…
I’d be farkin fuming if he only got a fine. I kinda think you would too.
3 Likes
‘Conor have a Snickers’
Ha, ha. You are prolly right, although we both wouldn’t have been surprised if (in reversed circumstances) the AFL decided a fine against Dickson was warranted. After all, WE ARE ESSENDON.
p.s. It would be even more amusing to see the reaction from Irish (if he had of been bitten).
C’mon JR, the whole AFL have taken this too far cause of EFC, we’re hard done by, poor us, rah, rah, rah is garbage. One of our players bit/attempted to bite, whatever, another person while playing a game of AFL footy. I’m a McKenna fan. Seems like a good bloke and is a good developing player. What he did was ridiculous and should never happen and I reckon 3 is light.
7 Likes
Getting a quick take, from Conors Dad
5 Likes
But the fact that opposition fans fume is not relevant to a rational decision. I’m not even sure it was a scratch as there was no mark on Dickson’s neck last night so it cleared in a day. The journos who said initially they saw the photo said it looked like a love bite, but even love bites linger for a few days.
It appears he got 3 weeks for a nip 'n suck.
3 Likes
I was referring to & agreeing wholeheartedly with Ewok’s statement around the flawed process & outcome. Having run a few hundred cases myself, I have some clue as to what I am saying. The AFL’s judicial system is a complete joke.
1 Like
Front page of the HUN today
lol
No problem. I’ve run zero cases. I understand you thinking along process lines and how it has been applied. My comment and thoughts are based purely on Conor’s actions. I don’t disagree with you that the AFL judicial system may be a joke but as an EFC supporter I am not complaining about him missing 3 because in my view he got off lightly for biting/attempting to bite a fellow footabller during a game.
1 Like
Seems like a pretty good result. He pleaded guilty. Admitting he did it. I was expecting 4-6, but hoping for less than 4.
Cheers.
I am sure you would agree that attempting to bite someone & actually biting someone are completely different matters & warrant different penalties.
How is it possible to bite someone & not penetrate the skin? It would appear that he lightly chewed or applied pressure to his neck & his teeth scratched Dickson’s neck. Interestingly, that is what Irish initially alleged & it fits the scratch like mark on Dickson.
He decided to plea guilty after the prehearing with Gleeson & Anderson for the exact point that Ewok raised.
Trust me. I am not trying to be dismissive. I am simply trying to point out that if a due process was in place that took into account the actual facts involved in this case, then 3 weeks is excessive - whether it is based on precedent, consequence (injury sustained), etc. I would find it hard to justify 3 weeks or more for a scratch. Anyway, I will leave it here. Opinion is divided. Fair enough.
3 Likes
hopefully not too quickly.
No worries, good response and good discussion.
2 Likes
yeah, yeah, maybe an exaggeration, but Conor McKenna deliberately bit an opponent.
You can always get a new Wife, but biting is very bad.
He admitted to biting. So he did it deliberately, and he has gotten off very lightly.
1 Like
Wth. People are recycling my jokes. I won’t stand for this!