by GWW » Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:46 pm
Dutchy wrote:GWW wrote:Presumably its all Adrian Anderson's fault (inconsistent and unexplainable tribunal decisions) - the guy who designed the new tribunal system, but hasn't got a clue about the realities of what goes on out on the ground.
That guy is as much of a disgrace as what Demetriou is.
What AD done wrong?
by Dutchy » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:22 pm
GWW wrote:Dutchy wrote:GWW wrote:Presumably its all Adrian Anderson's fault (inconsistent and unexplainable tribunal decisions) - the guy who designed the new tribunal system, but hasn't got a clue about the realities of what goes on out on the ground.
That guy is as much of a disgrace as what Demetriou is.
What AD done wrong?
What's he done right, apart from strive to reach his own targets to the detriment of the game?
Contary to popular belief all the decisions the AFL make do not come from the CEOby jointman » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:34 pm
by GWW » Mon Jul 06, 2009 10:41 pm
Dutchy wrote:GWW wrote:Dutchy wrote:GWW wrote:Presumably its all Adrian Anderson's fault (inconsistent and unexplainable tribunal decisions) - the guy who designed the new tribunal system, but hasn't got a clue about the realities of what goes on out on the ground.
That guy is as much of a disgrace as what Demetriou is.
What AD done wrong?
What's he done right, apart from strive to reach his own targets to the detriment of the game?
He cant do much than reach the targets that the commision hand to him
by wycbloods » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:16 am
Constance_Perm wrote:NO-MERCY wrote:AFL definately a joke. ( Chaplin 2 games )
Chaplin could not pull out of that collision while in the air, a very couragous Rich put himself in a position to be crunched & crunched he was after taking a great suicide grab, the tough little bugger got up & never complained & good on him, Chaplin deserved to get off as far as i'm concerned.
Brennan well thats a different story, what an absolute joke he got 1 game instead of 3-4 weeks like the report warranted.
A deliberate headbutt that could of fractured an eye socket or cheekbone, i bet if an injury like that occured to Carr Brennan would of got 4-6wks.
AFL Tribunal system
Im inclined to agree mate, seems the only difference between Chaplin getting games and McPharlin getting off (despite a far more dangerous collision) was the judgement the panel made of where the offenders eyes are ... Does Chaplin not have the right to look at what's in front of him and brace for protection, only the player coming backward? Running forward you can still be focussed on the ball enough to not be aware of bodies backing toward you.
by Baron Greenback » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:47 am
Booney wrote:interested observer wrote:jimmy loughnan wrote:Let him off. Not his fault that Rich is a midget & consqeuently got him a bit high. What is the game coming to!!?? The bloke is in the air, how do avoid a collision when your already in the air?
If he shirks the issue, he would have faced much severe consequences from choco and team-mates.
Brennan's was deliberate & calculated. 4 minimum. No place for that on the footy field anymore.
The only reason Brennan should get games is because he did not clock that absolute w**ker of a runner..
His carry on after the incident, just shows what sort of a knob he is...
Arnfield...bloody good bloke. Has Port Adelaide's best interests at heart...
by dedja » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:33 am
by devilsadvocate » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:59 am
Dutchy wrote:I said at the time he shouldnt have even been reported, IMo he was committed to the clash, if he backed out he would have felt the coaches wrath.
Should be thrown out
by Thiele » Tue Jul 07, 2009 12:32 pm
by stan » Tue Jul 07, 2009 2:35 pm
Thiele wrote:Port are Challaging the decsion (sorry about the spelling)
by Zelezny Chucks » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:21 pm
stan wrote:Thiele wrote:Port are Challaging the decsion (sorry about the spelling)
Fair challenge in my opinion. Wasnt a massive hit at all, but more of the banned "Bump" that the afl is trying to get rid of!
by Baron Greenback » Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:34 pm
stan wrote:Thiele wrote:Port are Challaging the decsion (sorry about the spelling)
Fair challenge in my opinion. Wasnt a massive hit at all, but more of the banned "Bump" that the afl is trying to get rid of!
by Thiele » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:20 pm
Football AFL
