SA Footy

bennymacca wrote:I think the penalty for rough conduct is the part of the game that is stuffed up the most.

I doubt anyone would have cared if he got 1 week reduced to a reprimand with an early plea for instance, but to get 2 here (and fyfe and douglas included) is just ridiculous.

Lol Douglas deserved his, sniped a guy who was more than 5m away and wasn't even looking or trying to get in the play.

They are the type of hits the AFL should be trying to get rid of not the accidental contact like Vineys

Funny that kids at a young age are taught the bump and not tackle

Agree with every post on this tribunal decision. Utter FARCE !!!!!!!!!!! So what does it say about the idiots that makes these decisions when they do not get one crumb of support from players, coaches, supporters, journos, ANYONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FFS !!!!!! Seriously ? Where do they get these idiots from to sit in on judgement?

whufc wrote:

bennymacca wrote:I think the penalty for rough conduct is the part of the game that is stuffed up the most.

I doubt anyone would have cared if he got 1 week reduced to a reprimand with an early plea for instance, but to get 2 here (and fyfe and douglas included) is just ridiculous.

Lol Douglas deserved his, sniped a guy who was more than 5m away and wasn't even looking or trying to get in the play.

They are the type of hits the AFL should be trying to get rid of not the accidental contact like Vineys

Correct. Crows people really gotta get over the Douglas snipe. Viney and Fyfe deserve an apology for even being sighted.

My point was Douglas should have gotten 1 probably, not 4 reduced to 2 with his plea and good record. Not denying he should have gotten suspended, but was still making the comparison between that and mckernan.

But of course it wasn't that at all it was just my crows bias.

FFS

Dunno how many of u fellas follow tex on twitter but thought his tweet was good.

bays09 wrote:Dunno how many of u fellas follow tex on twitter but thought his tweet was good.

What did it say?

I'm not a tweet follower

@texwalker13: Can't bump? Kids can't tackle. Kids can't play to win. Might as well go and play a violin because there is no contact #thisisajoke

This is what Viney should of done

Jim05 wrote:This is what Viney should of done

If Georgiou had been behind Murphy the same injuries could have occurred and Hibberd would get 2 games for corralling a head injury

Where do I get tickets to the next ANZ Championship game in Adelaide? I'm more likely to see more physical contact at the Stadium at Mile End than the Stadium in North Adelaide

Melbourne must appeal this on the grounds of gross injustice and that no person in their right mind could possibly come up with this ruling.
Take it to the courts of they have to, get an injunction, whatever it takes, the fabric of our game is at stake here. They should have the backing of every club
This is bigger than just Viney getting 2 weeks.

No games for Deledio ... so OK to elbow someone in the head but don't brace yourself when 2 players are about to run into you.

Seems reasonable

Time for Moose, Schimma and Dunne to find something else to do with their Tuesday nights

dedja wrote:No games for Deledio ... so OK to elbow someone in the head but don't brace yourself when 2 players are about to run into you.

Seems reasonable

Time for Moose, Schimma and Dunne to find something else to do with their Tuesday nights

Don't give yourself a headache trying to find reason for their moronic decisions. It's just not worth it.

That's the fundamental flaw- once striking was seen as one of the worst things you could do (Or attempt to do- ask Super Carey!).

Now striking is frequently let off where as a bump is seen as the filthy act.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

bennymacca wrote:@texwalker13: Can't bump? Kids can't tackle. Kids can't play to win. Might as well go and play a violin because there is no contact #thisisajoke

Some will agree with him, but the PR department at the Corporation must really wonder why he's so slow on the uptake.

Viney 2 games
That tribunal should have to front a tribunal

I'm sick of the word "Bump".

It means so many things on a footy field and is still used in the rules of the game.

Two ruckmen "bump" into each other at every centre bounce (well every ball up in general). Players "bump" into each other when a ball is coming in to the forward line, feeling for bodies.

There are 36 players on a field and with the game is these days, most of those are trying to get a small leather ball. Things like this will happen, it is that simple. Trying to legislate against footy collisions is so stupid. Not every bump on an F1 track is an issue, it all comes down to intent and recklessness - but that many cars fighting for not much track will mean it happens.

The first question that the panel had to ask themselves was "Did Viney bump". What a STUPID first question.

Did Viney bump into Lynch? yes.
Did Viney bump Lynch? no.

The AFL have compressed "player consciously making the decision to give forceful high contact to another player who may or may not be expecting it" into "bump", which is ridiculous.

And to suggest Viney should have "pirouetted" out of the contact is an insult

yep as mentioned before, he would have been pilloried for shirking the contest if he pulled out