A.F.L. Thread II

[howardj]

****ing hell, Ziebell getting four

I really think these suspensions are so over the top - the season only goes for 22 weeks

For mine, two weeks is a massive penalty

But four weeks is really 1/5th of a player's season

1/5th is a massive penalty, and should be reserved for king hits, really bad spear tackles, and eye gouging etc

 

[Jono]

James Kelly's tweet regarding the JZ decision is

wag

 

[Jono]

Cookies must be enabled | Herald Sun

Rofl Saints. Just before Women's round too.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Geelong vs. Essendon (Docklands)
Collingwood vs. Hawthorn (MCG)
Adelaide vs. West Coast (Football Park)
Gold Coast vs. Brisbane Lions (Carrara)
Melbourne vs. Port Adelaide (Marrara)
Western Bulldogs vs. Carlton (Docklands)
Sydney vs. St Kilda (SCG)
Richmond vs. North Melbourne (MCG)
Fremantle vs. Greater Western Sydney (Subiaco)

 

[Spikey]

Was this goal of the year? - YouTube

we've got future stars everywhere bitches

 

[Jono]

Take it to the Big Footy Bomber forum ****.

 

[Spikey]

you could have used him against the GC imo

 

[Spikey]

Incidentally, nice defence by Houli

 

[Jono]

Houli was not at fault, was guarding the goal. He shouldn't have had to guard the goal though, where the **** were the spare men?

In fact 50 seconds earlier if the ball had been kicked to him instead of Derickx we would have won. He called for the ball forever and I was screaming at the TV to kick it to him.

 

[howardj]

Nah, Hall got 10, but 7 with guilty plea, which Judd hasn't really done.


I think 3-4 is right though.

That in itself underlines how ridiculous the current system is (as pointed out by Rohan Connelly today in The Age). That Hall would get a 33% discount for what is (a) a top of the range offence and (b) for which there was incontrovertible evidence, is a reflection on how rigid and mechanical this system has become. It's equivilant (although a distasteful analogy) to Martin Bryant gettng a discount (in the sense that is top of the range, and incontroverible evidence exists). You should only get a discount where there is a tangible benefit in terms of justice or administration.

Moreover, ask anybody with a law degree....To get the best decisions, you give adjudicators maximum flexibility - the freedom to exercise their discretion and judge each case on the merits. Don't shackle them with gradings and predetermined loadings and discounts. Those things should be thrown into the mix, but should never be codified.

 

[benchmark00]

That in itself underlines how ridiculous the current system is (as pointed out by Rohan Connelly today in The Age). That Hall would get a 33% discount for what is (a) a top of the range offence and (b) for which there was incontrovertible evidence, is a reflection on how rigid and mechanical this system has become. It's equivilant (although a distasteful analogy) to Martin Bryant gettng a discount (in the sense that is top of the range, and incontroverible evidence exists). You should only get a discount where there is a tangible benefit in terms of justice or administration.

Moreover, ask anybody with a law degree....To get the best decisions, you give adjudicators maximum flexibility - the freedom to exercise their discretion and judge each case on the merits. Don't shackle them with gradings and predetermined loadings and discounts. Those things should be thrown into the mix, but should never be codified.

Are you arguing about the MRP or the tribunal?

The MRP is rigid but the tribunal allows for the exact thing you're calling for, they're not bound by any points system at all.

They just ****ed up completely re: Ziebell. Got it right with Judd.

 

[Spikey]

I think the tribunal got it right with Ziebell. They were told to find him guilty if they found he had no other way to contest the ball. He had another way, the same way the Carlton player contested the ball, with his arms out. So that's cool. And the MRP got it right, 'cause they've been told to cite players who hit the head and had another way to approach the incident. So the thing in question is the actual rules. And the MRP and the Tribunal can't do much about that midseason when other players have already been suspended over it.

Generally whenever I think the MRP and the Tribunal are the worst things ever, I think of the NHL equivalent and then get over it. (Shea Weber head smash on Zetterberg Detroit Red Wings vs Nashville Predators 4/11/12 NHL Hockey - YouTube = 2,500 fine)

 

[Jono]

Moreover, ask anybody with a law degree....To get the best decisions, you give adjudicators maximum flexibility - the freedom to exercise their discretion and judge each case on the merits. Don't shackle them with gradings and predetermined loadings and discounts. Those things should be thrown into the mix, but should never be codified.

Tribunal is fine, they aren't restricted at all by that stuff.

They, and probably the AFL, are taking the game in the wrong direction. That has nothing to do with the legality of the rules and how they are implemented. It has to do with the people running the game going too far in protecting the player's head.

Edit: Or what Benchy and Spikehhhhhhhhhhh said.

 

[Spikey]

I suppose howardj was in part responding to the tribunal chopping Hall's ban down by 2-3 because of his plea, which yeah i don't really agree with and which they didn't have to do

 

[benchmark00]

I think the tribunal got it right with Ziebell. They were told to find him guilty if they found he had no other way to contest the ball. He had another way, the same way the Carlton player contested the ball, with his arms out. So that's cool. And the MRP got it right, 'cause they've been told to cite players who hit the head and had another way to approach the incident. So the thing in question is the actual rules. And the MRP and the Tribunal can't do much about that midseason when other players have already been suspended over it.

I honestly can't believe someone would have this opinion, it is mind blowing.

Ziebell couldn't possibly attack the ball in any other way. 'Arms out'. You do realise that if his arms were out he'd still make contact with the head? It's an absolutely rubbish decision, and it's not just because he's a North Melbourne player.

North couldn't appeal because there was no mistake of law, that's the problem. It's a disgrace.

 

[Jono]

Benchy ****ting his dacks at Richmond beating North one week after losing to Gold Coast. Fact! #trollintrollintrollintrollin

 

[benchmark00]

Benchy ****ting his dacks at Richmond beating North one week after losing to Gold Coast. Fact! #trollintrollintrollintrollin

You blokes are favourites, no doubt about it.

Richmond's game to lose.

 

[Jono]

We are value at anything over $2.20+. As if you blokes only play one game at the MCG all season?

 

[Spikey]

Or his arms might have captured the ball. Or maybe hit Joseph's arms. And anyway if he had got the head while running in a straight line and having his arms out with perhaps a little jump, it's likely he would have been fine, because I doubt the MRP would have "well you should have jumped from a distance out, and turned your body sideways with one of your arms a bit tucked in. you know, basically a bit like a bump". I don't see why Ziebell couldn't've contested the ball the way Aaron Joseph did. Of course, I understand why he's done it that way, he wants to get the ball and clear a body out of the way so he can move the ball on easier following his return to earth, and he's unfortunately taken the head. But yeah to me there's doubt he had another way to approach the ball. So under the rules, ban. So it's the rules in question.

 

[benchmark00]

Or his arms might have captured the ball. Or maybe hit Joseph's arms. And anyway if he had got the head while running in a straight line and having his arms out with perhaps a little jump, it's likely he would have been fine, because I doubt the MRP would have "well you should have jumped from a distance out, and turned your body sideways with one of your arms a bit tucked in. you know, basically a bit like a bump". I don't see why Ziebell couldn't've contested the ball the way Aaron Joseph did. Of course, I understand why he's done it that way, he wants to get the ball and clear a body out of the way so he can move the ball on easier following his return to earth, and he's unfortunately taken the head. But yeah to me there's doubt he had another way to approach the ball. So under the rules, ban. So it's the rules in question.

Ummm he couldn't attack the ball the way Joseph did because Ziebell had to move a considerable distance to get there whereas Joseph didn't. Have you seen the incident?

He had no other feasible way of attacking the football, and when we acknowledge, like the tribunal has, that his intent was the football it should have resulted in being acquitted.

It was nothing more than incidental contact. If the ball was a kick rather than a hand pass what do you think the result would have been? Ridiculous to suggest they got it right.