Stocker Free

[Vortex]

What would be the outcome if Stocker was hit in the head, that would be confusing for the AFL or would it still be penalised for below the knees?

In this case - still below the knees - after all according to Laura Kane - "We are pleased players didn't have to leave injured, and Dangerfield went on to make an impact on the scoreboard"

What even if Stocker is concussed?

Surely the discussion would have turned to Danger electing to tackle with his knees and had a duty of care to protect the head?

100% Danger could have avoided contact, elected to drop instead of pushing off and over.

[Sainter_Dad]

What would be the outcome if Stocker was hit in the head, that would be confusing for the AFL or would it still be penalised for below the knees?

In this case - still below the knees - after all according to Laura Kane - "We are pleased players didn't have to leave injured, and Dangerfield went on to make an impact on the scoreboard"

What even if Stocker is concussed?

Surely the discussion would have turned to Danger electing to tackle with his knees and had a duty of care to protect the head?

100% Danger could have avoided contact, elected to drop instead of pushing off and over.

Ahhh- my young Padawan - the message from Laura Kane was - NO player had to leave the ground injured - We were 23 NOBODIES out there - so what would it matter what happened to Stocker - He is a Nobody.

We should all ring SEN and ask for the definition of No Player had to leave injured when Stocker hobbled off - not to return.

[Vortex]

What would be the outcome if Stocker was hit in the head, that would be confusing for the AFL or would it still be penalised for below the knees?

In this case - still below the knees - after all according to Laura Kane - "We are pleased players didn't have to leave injured, and Dangerfield went on to make an impact on the scoreboard"

What even if Stocker is concussed?

Surely the discussion would have turned to Danger electing to tackle with his knees and had a duty of care to protect the head?

100% Danger could have avoided contact, elected to drop instead of pushing off and over.

Ahhh- my young Padawan - the message from Laura Kane was - NO player had to leave the ground injured - We were 23 NOBODIES out there - so what would it matter what happened to Stocker - He is a Nobody.

We should all ring SEN and ask for the definition of No Player had to leave injured when Stocker hobbled off - not to return.

I see where your going with this, we need to create a talk back shyte storm and threaten Dangers wife on social media and demand Danger be suspended for 3 years.

I'm onboard. Listen to SEN tomorrow for the anger and fury coming from Harry from Highett.

[Sainter_Dad]

What would be the outcome if Stocker was hit in the head, that would be confusing for the AFL or would it still be penalised for below the knees?

In this case - still below the knees - after all according to Laura Kane - "We are pleased players didn't have to leave injured, and Dangerfield went on to make an impact on the scoreboard"

What even if Stocker is concussed?

Surely the discussion would have turned to Danger electing to tackle with his knees and had a duty of care to protect the head?

100% Danger could have avoided contact, elected to drop instead of pushing off and over.

Ahhh- my young Padawan - the message from Laura Kane was - NO player had to leave the ground injured - We were 23 NOBODIES out there - so what would it matter what happened to Stocker - He is a Nobody.

We should all ring SEN and ask for the definition of No Player had to leave injured when Stocker hobbled off - not to return.

I see where your going with this, we need to create a talk back shyte storm and threaten Dangers wife on social media and demand Danger be suspended for 3 years.

I'm onboard. Listen to SEN tomorrow for the anger and fury coming from Harry from Highett.

LOL - probably not that intense, but it would be nice not to be thought of as No Players.

[Scollop]

Typical woke, useless AFL

Laura Kane is an ambitious well spoken corporate.

What is woke about corporate speak bs and the language she uses?

She is perfect for the role of defending everything AFL and defending umpires and the AFL administration and the AFL commission from criticism

Quoting Carl D below when he described Laura

quite a bit of waffle and a lack of substance in her answers.

[B.M]

The fact she is a women who hasn’t got a footy background heading up football in the biggest sporting competition in the country

Baffling - what umpiring expertise does she have
What coaching expertise does she have
What playing expertise does she have

Yet she has to make comment on all three

Her explanations of the Stocker incident were laughable

He had other options- what were they? To not be first to the ball and try to win it?
That alone indicates she hasn’t got a fkn clue

[SaintPav]

This is what Laura Kane said on AFL Footy Feed:

“Honestly we’re just relieved that players didn’t go off hurt or injured and I know that Dangerfield goes on to be impactful on the scoreboard later that quarter”.

Didn’t Stocker go off injured for the rest of the game after that hit?

She is totally clueless!

[NickyDal]

The St Kilda football club should put in a please explain for her comments. She has said straight out that our players are Nobody's. This is one of the most disgraceful and unprofessional explanations by an official I have ever heard.

Bassat should be on the phone tomorrow demanding a please explain!!!

Like I said in my previous post, she is a stupid cow!!!

[Scollop]

She has said straight out that our players are Nobody's.

That's not what she said.

She said she was really glad that Dangerfield wasn't injured because she's met him a couple of times and he's very charming and she likes watching him play

[Sainter_Dad]

She has said straight out that our players are Nobody's.

That's not what she said.

She said she was really glad that Dangerfield wasn't injured because she's met him a couple of times and he's very charming and she likes watching him play

No - she said - No player from a team that counts was injured - and she was glad that Danger could do that kicky thing thing he did and for the proper team to win.

[nostalgicsaint]

The fact she is a women who hasn’t got a footy background heading up football in the biggest sporting competition in the country

Baffling - what umpiring expertise does she have
What coaching expertise does she have
What playing expertise does she have

Yet she has to make comment on all three

Her explanations of the Stocker incident were laughable

He had other options- what were they? To not be first to the ball and try to win it?
That alone indicates she hasn’t got a fkn clue

You make several good points in this comment. The impact is however diluted by the unnecessary mention of her gender.

[Yorkeys]

The fact she is a women who hasn’t got a footy background heading up football in the biggest sporting competition in the country

Baffling - what umpiring expertise does she have
What coaching expertise does she have
What playing expertise does she have

Yet she has to make comment on all three

Her explanations of the Stocker incident were laughable

He had other options- what were they? To not be first to the ball and try to win it?
That alone indicates she hasn’t got a fkn clue

You make several good points in this comment. The impact is however diluted by the unnecessary mention of her gender.

I ( being a cynic) think it would be naive to consider gender was not a significant factor in the appointment.
It appears that the priorities consuming the attention of the AFL Admin bosses are probably: AFLW, making the Tasmanian side competitive, even if it further slants the competition to a new degree of un-levelling, marketing esp. trying to blunt/copy Peter V'Landys successes, defending umpires absolutely, boosting the northern state sides (Chris Fagin watch your back) and micro chips into footies. I think concussion is a lip service matter that is too hard for them, see Maynard, punch to Neale's head, Dangerfield recklessly trampling Stocker, engaging a tame plagiarist to do its concussion report.
As a forum poster noted, Ms Kane is a very competent administrator (she got amazing concessions for North), good media performer, understands she has a lot of capital to work with and will be a senior AFL executive for at least a decade. Its unfortunate her interests don't include or overlap much with our Club's.
She could just as easily have called out the Stocker/Dangerfield nastiness for what it was, and she does know what it was, but she chose to keep Dangerfield and the umpires onside rather than speak the truth. Watch her go well in the world of footy politics.
Have to see in what condition it leaves the game.

[magnifisaint]

Woke says it all. You can't say she or he, it's them.
The fkn world is nuts. Just look at the US and the apparent support of Trump.

[Otiman]

Woke says it all. You can't say she or he, it's them.
The fkn world is nuts. Just look at the US and the apparent support of Trump.

I think you've missed the point. You can say what you want.

But there are consequences from those that take offense.

[CURLY]

The fact of the matter is that if that was a Collingwood player doing what Stocker did they would have received a free kick. The same as when Clark tunneled Liam Henry.

[Beno88]

Why do they even bother commenting on umpiring mistakes?

It's like the Reserve Bank commenting on inflation.

[Sainter_Dad]

Woke says it all. You can't say she or he, it's them.
The fkn world is nuts. Just look at the US and the apparent support of Trump.

My pronouns are "Where, What, How" I identify as confused.

[Life Long Saint]

The fact she is a women who hasn’t got a footy background heading up football in the biggest sporting competition in the country

Baffling - what umpiring expertise does she have
What coaching expertise does she have
What playing expertise does she have

Yet she has to make comment on all three

Her explanations of the Stocker incident were laughable

He had other options- what were they? To not be first to the ball and try to win it?
That alone indicates she hasn’t got a fkn clue

Hasn't got a footy background? Or an AFL background?
She had more of an AFL background than the current CEO, or Adrian Anderson for that matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Kane
Brad Scott had a great AFL pedigree, but I didn't really think he did a great job as footy ops manager compared to the others before him.
Not all good footballers make good administrators or coaches.
And why does the administrator need to be an expert in umpiring, coaching, or playing? They are doing none of those things in their day to day job. You can also be a diligent student of the game without having played it.

You've brought her gender into the discussion, and it is the most irrelevant thing in your argument. Neither Anderson, nor Dillon had the credentials that you're potting Laura for not possessing.

Baffling, really.

[Yorkeys]

The fact she is a women who hasn’t got a footy background heading up football in the biggest sporting competition in the country

Baffling - what umpiring expertise does she have
What coaching expertise does she have
What playing expertise does she have

Yet she has to make comment on all three

Her explanations of the Stocker incident were laughable

He had other options- what were they? To not be first to the ball and try to win it?
That alone indicates she hasn’t got a fkn clue

Hasn't got a footy background? Or an AFL background?
She had more of an AFL background than the current CEO, or Adrian Anderson for that matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Kane
Brad Scott had a great AFL pedigree, but I didn't really think he did a great job as footy ops manager compared to the others before him.
Not all good footballers make good administrators or coaches.
And why does the administrator need to be an expert in umpiring, coaching, or playing? They are doing none of those things in their day to day job. You can also be a diligent student of the game without having played it.

You've brought her gender into the discussion, and it is the most irrelevant thing in your argument. Neither Anderson, nor Dillon had the credentials that you're potting Laura for not possessing.

Baffling, really.

Ms Kane is not the HR or accounting manager or legal counsel she is custodian of the rules of the game and how it's played. It's not something that can be done well with just generalist skills and misplaced confidence. She doesn't have the credentials of past occupants and will mould the job according to her background. She hasn't started well. Being female doesn't make you an expert or right. A female can be incompetent, lack necessary experience and be wrong. See Paula Vennels.

[loris]

Woke says it all. You can't say she or he, it's them.
The fkn world is nuts. Just look at the US and the apparent support of Trump.

Yup - sad isn’t it?

[SaintPav]

Totally irrelevant but I thought Trump said everything woke turns to s***?

Some people sound very confused.

[B.M]

Is she not a women?

Is my comment inaccurate

I don’t give a f*** about political correctness- she has lost my confidence- and strengthened the argument that most women don’t understand the physicality and/or technicality of AFL footy

Some do - she ain’t one!!!!

WTF does her expertise come from exactly where she can run the game at the highest level.

The decision was an error - that’s ok

He doubling down with benefit of hindsight and replays is fkn embarrassing

[Sainter_Dad]

Is she not a women?

Is my comment inaccurate

I don’t give a f*** about political correctness- she has lost my confidence- and strengthened the argument that most women don’t understand the physicality and/or technicality of AFL footy

Some do - she ain’t one!!!!

WTF does her expertise come from exactly where she can run the game at the highest level.

The decision was an error - that’s ok

He doubling down with benefit of hindsight and replays is fkn embarrassing

LOL - she is not a women - she may be a woman - she may be a female - but she cannot be the plural.

[B.M]

Wow

A typo

Best you’ve got?’

[skeptic]

I think nostalgicsaint’s point is (and correct me if I’m wrong)…

If BM’s post is not gender related, then why mention it? It’s essentially introduced the point into the discussion.

Here’s the comment
The fact she is a women who hasn’t got a footy background heading up football in the biggest sporting competition in the country

Remove the underline part and the point is poignant without making the discussion something that it’s not