Re: AFL Finals Week 1
Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2023 8:36 pm
tigerpie wrote:Well, pile on now haters.
Yeah come on head trauma haters.
tigerpie wrote:Well, pile on now haters.
tigerpie wrote:Well, pile on now haters.
Wedgie wrote:tigerpie wrote:Well, pile on now haters.
Noone can hate after that schmozzle of a prosecution by the AFL guy, had the completely wrong argument and his points were ridiculous.
The tribunal had no option.
tigerpie wrote:Wedgie wrote:tigerpie wrote:Well, pile on now haters.
Noone can hate after that schmozzle of a prosecution by the AFL guy, had the completely wrong argument and his points were ridiculous.
The tribunal had no option.
Present whatever argument you want he's not guilty of anything!
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Common sense
Now there will be an appeal
tigerpie wrote:Well, pile on now haters.
DOC wrote:tigerpie wrote:Well, pile on now haters.
OK.
You are a shit groundsman and a pissweak Glenelg supporter and don't have the courage to support a local side in the AFL.
Also overweight with smelly breath and have not had sex with anyone else besides yourself for over 20 years.
amber_fluid wrote:Maynard gets off so I’m assuming Martin is next?
Only fair!
tigerpie wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Maynard gets off so I’m assuming Martin is next?
Only fair!
They dropped it to one game.
So you can punch blokes in the face and only get one?
Wow.
DOC wrote:tigerpie wrote:Well, pile on now haters.
OK.
You are a shit groundsman and a pissweak Glenelg supporter and don't have the courage to support a local side in the AFL.
Also overweight with smelly breath and have not had sex with anyone else besides yourself for over 20 years.
Reckon you might be on the right track here.rd wrote:Armchair expert wrote:RB wrote:Maynard will argue that the collision occurred after he attempted to smother Brayshaw's kick, and there was nothing he could do while he was in the air. The counterargument would be that if you're essentially jumping into someone in order to smother (rather than jumping straight up), you need to ensure you don't collect them high. I don't think it's anything greater than careless, but I reckon he'll cop a week.
In the regular season it would be
Classifiable Offences - Forceful Front On Contact
Careless - High impact - High Contact ----> 2 Weeks
However I don't see him getting any weeks
Non Vic-based player gets 3 weeks
Vic-based player gets 1 week which then gets overturned after a review.
amber_fluid wrote:tigerpie wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Maynard gets off so I’m assuming Martin is next?
Only fair!
They dropped it to one game.
So you can punch blokes in the face and only get one?
Wow.
He didn’t knock anyone out cold though!!
Nor will the victim have long term effects by it.
He deserves to be suspended as does Maynard!
Other than Pies supporters I haven’t heard too many say Maynard should of got off.
woodublieve12 wrote:Martin really lucky to get just one.
amber_fluid wrote:tigerpie wrote:amber_fluid wrote:Maynard gets off so I’m assuming Martin is next?
Only fair!
They dropped it to one game.
So you can punch blokes in the face and only get one?
Wow.
He didn’t knock anyone out cold though!!
Nor will the victim have long term effects by it.
He deserves to be suspended as does Maynard!
Other than Pies supporters I haven’t heard too many say Maynard should of got off.
Spargo wrote:I think both Port & Melbourne win this weekend & win comfortably. I still think Melbourne will win the flag. But what would be the fallout if Port and/or Melbourne were to go out in straight sets?