A.F.L Thread

[pasag]

If getting sent off because you've clocked an unsuspecting bloke on the jaw with a haymaker isn't fair, then I'm not here.

Fairness is the right to have a proper tribunal hearing before the handing out of serious punishment.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well yeah, that's their job and the limit of their jurisdiction. Things with more severe punishments than your free kick should (and do) get referred to higher powers. Obviously this case is in the middle of those two and my contention is that the power shouldn't be with the umpire to make that call, that it exceeds the limit of his power.

Yeah, fair enough. As I said, I don't think either way is right or wrong per se, but being an AFL cretin* I was a bit surprised that a contact sport doesn't send players off. I think with lots of differences across sports there's a tendancy to view what one's used to as the norm; I've made an effort to watch more AFL this year but I still struggle with the lack of an offside rule, but I imagine if you grew up watching it codes with one might seem to lack the freedom of AFL.

*I've learnt who Plugger is today tho, thanks to vic & Google.

 

[Johnners]

Gah, why do you need to have a proper tribunal hearing for something so clear cut though. It's not like there was any doubt that Barry hit him. Fairness is also being able to play a full match without having a man down due to foul play by the opposition.

 

[pasag]

Gah, why do you need to have a proper tribunal hearing for something so clear cut though. It's not like there was any doubt that Barry hit him. Fairness is also being able to play a full match without having a man down due to foul play by the opposition.

Because nothing is really that clear cut on ground level at real time, that's why we have proper tribunals analysing things propely after the game. Anyways, this is going in circles, as you can tell I'm very strongly opposed to giving umpires any type of power that can send a player off the field.

Also as a side point and not the primary reason I'm opposed to it or anything, if we have the possibility of players getting sent off for this sort of stuff then I guarantee you we'll start seeing a rash of players get little taps and falling over themselves in an effort to get the opposition player sent off.

 

[cameeel]

Gah, why do you need to have a proper tribunal hearing for something so clear cut though. It's not like there was any doubt that Barry hit him. Fairness is also being able to play a full match without having a man down due to foul play by the opposition.

Because unlike this case, the indiscretion isn't always so bleeding obvious. If we introduce a sending-off rule, and the umpire gets it wrong the consequences for the team whose player was sent off incorrectly are far more serious - and will happen more often than clear-cut cases like Hall/Waters - than if there is no way for the umpires to send the player off in the first place.

For every incident like this, there are probably 10 far less clear cut indiscretions where giving the umpire too much power will only result in teams being a man down because of an umpiring mistake, and god knows Mick Malthouse whinges enough about umpiring decisions as it is.

 

[BoyBrumby]

****, what a ****. Sam Mitchell out basically ruins my DT. Hopefully Pav, Cloke, Judd and Stevens have a big ones.

What happened to him? He got a 0 but my emergency wasn't subbed in, which is mildly annoying as it was Bryce Gibbs who got over a hundred this week. Did Mitchell start & then go off or something?

EDIT: ignore me. Gibbs has been subbed in.

 

[Jono]

Richmond in the 8

 

[Mr Casson]

Was at the West Coast/Swans game last night, **** Barry Hall is a ****. I have to say that I thought the same stuff Clapo and Jakovich were saying about the rules of the game, though it's clearly a difficult issue to come up with a solution to - like most things, it'll have its supporters and its detractors and probably just end up being debated for a while without any measure of change before everyone forgets the incident and it dies away (until someone else does it again.) Nevertheless, it still doesn't change the fact that Barry Hall is a woeful wanker - those who know the way the tribunal works seem to think he can only get 4-6 weeks, but the incident was so repulsive that you'd think Hall will be eating his weetbix with a heavy dose of regret for the next two months. Staker did nothing to provoke even the first two wild attempts let alone the one flush on the jaw, and with Hall's rap sheet and decade plus of experience in the game, a return before round 13 would be a surprise (and an injustice.) What a ****, gone.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, hope he gets 6 so that his return game is against WCE in Perth.

 

[Mr Casson]

That'd be agonising - went over 6.5 for $200.

 

[Mr Casson]

A must see for any Barry Hall-hater:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10655589859&ref=mf

 

[alternative]

Was at the West Coast/Swans game last night, **** Barry Hall is a ****. I have to say that I thought the same stuff Clapo and Jakovich were saying about the rules of the game, though it's clearly a difficult issue to come up with a solution to - like most things, it'll have its supporters and its detractors and probably just end up being debated for a while without any measure of change before everyone forgets the incident and it dies away (until someone else does it again.) Nevertheless, it still doesn't change the fact that Barry Hall is a woeful wanker - those who know the way the tribunal works seem to think he can only get 4-6 weeks, but the incident was so repulsive that you'd think Hall will be eating his weetbix with a heavy dose of regret for the next two months. Staker did nothing to provoke even the first two wild attempts let alone the one flush on the jaw, and with Hall's rap sheet and decade plus of experience in the game, a return before round 13 would be a surprise (and an injustice.) What a ****, gone.

I was there too, it was a great game .

 

[Mr Casson]

I was there too, it was a great game .

I can imagine it was for you Swans fans, you seem to take great pride in annihilating a team missing a whole roster of first-list players. All that aside though, some woman was walking behind me after the game and goes "Excuse me, are you wearing an Eagles jersey? Yeah you. Yeah, you better cover that up", as she closed my jacket up. I didn't say anything to her, but about 10 seconds later she turns around and goes "Sorry, I was just joking," to which I flipped her the bird and said "**** you."

 

[alternative]

Haha

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Haha, surely doing the reputation of your club justice there.

Anyway, wanted Hall to get a thousand weeks but the prospect of him playing the return leg is salivating.

 

[pasag]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/rohan-connolly/2008/04/13/1208024993057.html

AWTA.

 

[Mr Casson]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/rohan-connolly/2008/04/13/1208024993057.html

AWTA.

Saw that earlier today.

"I knew you'd like it."

 

[pasag]

There are cases where players should be banned for life though, Darren Milburn for example

 

[Jono]

I like Rohan Connoly, but that's a poor article IMO. Some of what he says is true, but his tone is (intentionally) ridiculous. I'll go into more detail later.

 

[Mr Casson]

Article on Sportal was much better. If Alastair Lynch got 10 for what he did in 2004, well, BH's was much much worse.