Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Viking3 wrote: ↑Mon 05 Oct 2020 10:30pm
The AFL makes rules and then bends and breaks them to suit their own agenda.
They said if you choose to bump and not tackle, the result, whatever occurs, is on your shoulders. Long’s result was a shake of the head to clear the cobwebs and continued playing.
2 weeks ago Sean Darcy decides to bump Naughton and the result was a fractured eye socket and no further part in the game. Not even referred to the MRP!
I bet Naughton wishes he was hit as hard as Macrae.
Did anyone see the Zac Butters headbutt on O'Connor on the weekend?
Didn't quite nail him ..... but it still it had the "potential" to cause injury
He has only just come back from a 2 week suspension as well
I find it bizarre the “potential to cause impact” you cause it or you don’t and the facts are Long didn’t
I get they want these type of off the line head related incidents out of the game and that’s good but go hard and really punish a player IF there is factual evidence of impact
Otherwise you are crystal balling and players miss finals on “potential” it’s BS
Teflon wrote: ↑Mon 05 Oct 2020 11:21pm
I find it bizarre the “potential to cause impact” you cause it or you don’t and the facts are Long didn’t
I get they want these type of off the line head related incidents out of the game and that’s good but go hard and really punish a player IF there is factual evidence of impact
Otherwise you are crystal balling and players miss finals on “potential” it’s BS
Yep the AFL now have a bunch of special minority report precogs in a large pool mind melding to imagine potential "if only" injuries that might have happened in parallel dimensions
Of course these "imaginary potential" outcomes only apply to certain special players from certain special clubs
It's not the potential to cause impact! jeez. it's the potential to cause injury. The reasonable person test - it's fundamental in any proceeding. Not something made up by the AFL. Not a specially invented punishment for St Kilda. Fingers crossed though whoever hears the appeal will take a different view about what's reasonable.
Can someone explain to me how it is that the AFL has this conspiracy against St Kilda when its CEO is a fanatical Saints supporter. You'd really think he'd be able to do something about it, eh?
freely wrote: ↑Tue 06 Oct 2020 2:05am
Can someone explain to me how it is that the AFL has this conspiracy against St Kilda when its CEO is a fanatical Saints supporter. You'd really think he'd be able to do something about it, eh?
I’m not sure about conspiracy , but I am sure we get the rough end of the pineapple
Should be reasonably obvious I would think.. Any preference given to the team Gil supports would bring the integrity of himself and the AFL into question ( Not the the AFL has much integrity at all but must be seen to have)
A similar thing happens with our ex player umpire ... he does not do the Saints any favors and shows a bit of bias against them to “ prove his integrity... happens when coaches sons play ( The coach usually removes himself from the selection panel... IMO Having Gil support us is not a great thing .... he will always try to show he has no bias so will not stand up for us
I used to be supersaints but after 16 years my profile dissapeared... ??? if I make any reference to past posts .. it will be under supersiants.. glad to be back on line
freely wrote: ↑Tue 06 Oct 2020 2:05am
Can someone explain to me how it is that the AFL has this conspiracy against St Kilda when its CEO is a fanatical Saints supporter. You'd really think he'd be able to do something about it, eh?
Arking up about the classification of a reportable offence by the MRO is now a conspiracy theory!
Brilliant analysis..
The classifications are inconsistent and the reasoning is non-sensical so stop gaslighting us.
We’re likely to appeal.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
its the blatant arbitrariness that is galling. We know if it was Gaz, Barry Hall/Sydney or a Richmond player not Ben the appeal would have been upheld, if a charge was laid at all. We are a soft target and the tribunal never misses; very poor system for a big business like AFL (designed by Vic public servants?). I like the idea of taking it further if only to demonstrate what a corrupt system it is as the AFL turns itself in knots trying to square the circle.
freely wrote: ↑Tue 06 Oct 2020 2:05am
Can someone explain to me how it is that the AFL has this conspiracy against St Kilda when its CEO is a fanatical Saints supporter. You'd really think he'd be able to do something about it, eh?
Arking up about the classification of a reportable offence by the MRO is now a conspiracy theory!
Brilliant analysis..
The classifications are inconsistent and the reasoning is non-sensical so stop gaslighting us.
We’re likely to appeal.
No, no - I was speaking in general. Not even this thread in particular. I gather you haven't read anything on here to suggest that the AFL has it in for St Kilda but if you hang around for a couple of years you might spot something
freely wrote: ↑Tue 06 Oct 2020 2:05am
Can someone explain to me how it is that the AFL has this conspiracy against St Kilda when its CEO is a fanatical Saints supporter. You'd really think he'd be able to do something about it, eh?
Arking up about the classification of a reportable offence by the MRO is now a conspiracy theory!
Brilliant analysis..
The classifications are inconsistent and the reasoning is non-sensical so stop gaslighting us.
We’re likely to appeal.
No, no - I was speaking in general. Not even this thread in particular. I gather you haven't read anything on here to suggest that the AFL has it in for St Kilda but if you hang around for a couple of years you might spot something
I know. You’re talking about the St Kilda persecution complex but there is a kernel of truth to it as we do play the role of the expendable scapegoat at times.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
They wouldn't do it it to Collingwood as Eddie would be going tropo on his media outlets making the AFL look stupid. Remember the bulls*** when Jason Cloke punched Tyson Edwards head into the Southern Stand and he got rubbed out for the Grand Final. Eddie had him and his dad on the Footy Show crying and whinging and made the AFL look stupid.
CURLY wrote: ↑Tue 06 Oct 2020 9:13am
They wouldn't do it it to Collingwood as Eddie would be going tropo on his media outlets making the AFL look stupid. Remember the bulls*** when Jason Cloke punched Tyson Edwards head into the Southern Stand and he got rubbed out for the Grand Final. Eddie had him and his dad on the Footy Show crying and whinging and made the AFL look stupid.
CURLY wrote: ↑Tue 06 Oct 2020 9:13am
They wouldn't do it it to Collingwood as Eddie would be going tropo on his media outlets making the AFL look stupid. Remember the bulls*** when Jason Cloke punched Tyson Edwards head into the Southern Stand and he got rubbed out for the Grand Final. Eddie had him and his dad on the Footy Show crying and whinging and made the AFL look stupid.
Did he play in the grand final?
No because he king hit a bloke there was no grey area no avenues to get off. The fact Eddie and the Collingwood centric media went into fill meltdown was a terrible look and put enormous pressure on the AFL.
freely wrote: ↑Tue 06 Oct 2020 12:05am
It's not the potential to cause impact! jeez. it's the potential to cause injury. The reasonable person test - it's fundamental in any proceeding. Not something made up by the AFL. Not a specially invented punishment for St Kilda. Fingers crossed though whoever hears the appeal will take a different view about what's reasonable.
I think that most of us understand the concept ("potential to cause injury"), but it is the AFL that has always used the medical report to ascertain impact. This time medical report basically refutes medium impact, so they decide to change their own interpretations and go the "potential" route.
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
freely wrote: ↑Tue 06 Oct 2020 12:05am
It's not the potential to cause impact! jeez. it's the potential to cause injury. The reasonable person test - it's fundamental in any proceeding. Not something made up by the AFL. Not a specially invented punishment for St Kilda. Fingers crossed though whoever hears the appeal will take a different view about what's reasonable.
I think that most of us understand the concept ("potential to cause injury"), but it is the AFL that has always used the medical report to ascertain impact. This time medical report basically refutes medium impact, so they decide to change their own interpretations and go the "potential" route.
It was what the coppers would say was a case of being "fitted up" .
Why does the MRP/tribunal even bother with this "potential to cause" rubbish. That would cover every arms pinned tackle to ground. That in itself has the potential to cause head injury and concussion. Dozen times a game that happens. A week each?
Long gets that and I laugh to think back to Cotchin smashing a bloke in a final and it was all G.
