Got to ask, why does the AFl even allow players (and their expensive lawyers) argue there way out of suspenions? Seems an odd thing to allow, opens it up to all sorts of bias, and lebal mumbo jumbo. Not sure how many others sports do this worldwide?
2 Likes
Wrong
It was decided much earlier than that.
Many of us here tipped exactly this would happen before 48 hours ago.
FFS, all anyone need to know is:
*is the report against an AFL favoured player?
*does he play for an AFL favoured club"
If so: no worries, he is clear to play.
If any doubt:
*does he play against Essendon next week?
If so, he is ABSOLUTELY clear to play.
AFL is trying harder and harder every day to earn the mantle of the most corrupt competition in the world.
5 Likes
because essendon, and we didn’t challenge.
gets more clicks and media on game they love it.
but don’t want everyone to go to tribunal just marque players.
I doubt I could hate this corrupt bunch of asshats running our game any more.
I’m so sick of them ■■■■■■■ down our backs and telling us it’s raining.
And anyone who thinks for a minute that had we appealed our players’ earlier suspensions that it would have made one iota of difference, I have a bridge you may be interested in. I’ve no doubt Dangerfield would have 100% got off the charges faced by Wright, Jones and Redman. Our players 100% would not have.
The AFL will do whatever they like to whoever they like whenever they like and we will like it.
FU AFL
8 Likes
We acknowledge that Dangerfield put Walsh in a dangerous position by pinning both arms, and we acknowledge that Walsh’s head hits the turf. However we’re letting Dangerfield off because between Dangerfield putting him in a dangerous position and his head hitting the turf, Dangerfield tried (though failed) to stop his head hitting the turf.
Interesting comparing that to other incidents where players “brace for contact” to supposedly “minimize impact” to the other player, yet head-high contact still occurs and they still end up suspended.
7 Likes
Hi, is this still available?
3 Likes
Laura Kane should be sacked for letting this happen i thought she was going to be tough over sling tackles
some players have different rules
if daicos was Laverde, then the umpire would not have paid the mark as less than 15m, but if he did then would have not allowed Lav to play on and would have forced him to come over the mark.
1 Like
Best thing I’ve read for a while
3 Likes
Can’t wait for the next person to go for something similar.
What grounds did they throw it out on?
Dangerfield tried to stop the high contact (after dangerfield put and held him in a dangerous position.)
Someone likened it before to someone who’s speeding and hit a pedestrian getting off because they tried (though ultimately failed) to swerve at the last moment.
5 Likes
Funny, trying to prevent something when it shouldn’t have been done in the first place and still eventually happens is ok
3 Likes
I may have 3 available. Special price for today only. Don’t miss out. You won’t regret it.
Assange should have engaged Dangerfield to defend him, would have saved himself 12 years of grief
6 Likes
I lost all respect for Dangerfield when he did that ad with him emerging from the surf in a three piece suit. What a wanker.
1 Like
I love a good conspiracy theory, but after tonight I’m all for this post.
4 Likes
Next time we have a player suspended for a sling tackle I want us to appeal there are no excuses for us not to appeal next time.
3 Likes
All this has really done, is instill in me the belief that Brad really is a brown noser for the AFL execs and their boys club.
Slid in behind his desk in AFL house, refuses to talk out of school or publicly take on the mro/back our players. Just likes being in the big boys purple circle.
Redman and Jones should never have missed games this year
8 Likes