It seems now to be the case if the “change the rules committee” can’t make a change, the tribunal will do it for them.
1 Like
So, are we all clear on what constitutes a dangerous tackle that’s worthy of a ban?
1 Like
There are going to be 10-20 every single round that mouth breathers like Jon Ralph and Tom Browne can now raise and generate content with over a weekend if this is the standard.
1 Like
if they want to argue it, it has to be baed on the action marching the afl example of low impact.
I don’t even know what I feel about all this. What a ■■■■■■■ shitshow of clusterfuckery
2 Likes
David Evans has quite clearly taken a very nasty turn since his departure.
1 Like
You know we are doing well onfield when the rest of the opposition keyboard warriors start getting more vitriolic than usual.
Can’t help but notice many Collingwood Twitter users this week (surprised they can use the platform) have suddenly added 
to their profile names this week. I’m sure it isn’t referring to the previous stage of their life as heroin addicts either.
1 Like
Yep. Unless you lay a pillow on the ground before his head hits the ground and read him a bedtime story, you’re ■■■■■■.
3 Likes
8 Likes
I can feel a Bowie song coming on… AFL…Ch ch ch Changes:notes:
they all hold hands and sing it to start the day
2 Likes
Lick my crack you pack of ■■■■■
5 Likes
Upheld. Adams misses too
*current.
1 Like
5 Likes
So basically they need to re-argue the point that it was low in lieu of medium impact at the Appeals Board. I’d say they should give it a shot, stuff the $5k, what else do they have to lose?
2 Likes
It’s not a controversial decision until someone brings up a hypothetical situation about missing or losing a grand final.
You want to pay the 5k?
itd be a technical point or smth.