The Club is a Toilet

[BenDoolan]

This club keeps on producing shit.

Why the f*** would Peter Wright plead GUILTY to his charge? Did the club advise him???

If that’s the case, the club can GAGF for being a completely weak, shit of a joint.

All I know is, if this were Collingwood, they would go into today with all guns blazing trying to get their player off.

f*** off EFC

[grassy1]

This club keeps on producing shit.

Why the f*** would Peter Wright plead GUILTY to his charge? Did the club advise him???

If that’s the case, the club can GAGF for being a completely weak, shit of a joint.

All I know is, if this were Collingwood, they would go into today with all guns blazing trying to get their player off.

f*** off EFC

At the very least,you have a crack to get him off,with someone with Tribunal Smarts representing our Players,doing everything they can,no matter if the player looks guilty as all Sin.Draw precedent any way you can,look for loopholes in the Rules,as Collingwood did,then ram the advantage home!

AWFULL must have something else on us,for us to be this Weak!

[MH_Bomber]

Exactly.

Even Redman last week should have been challenged for insufficient force.

Brad Scott thinks he’s still working for the AFL.

We should used the same biomechanics experts as Collingwood used to get Maynard off and the same lawyers Carlton used to get Cripps off.

We gave up without a whimper.

You watch the next “name” player who does anything similar will get off. The tribunal is notoriously inconsistent.

[stryper]

Weak.
Enough of the Small Talk.
Way time to take a Stand and be Essendon who Refuse to take a Back seat with the Bullshit...
Players and Supporters Deserve Better...

[nudder12]

This club keeps on producing shit.

Why the f*** would Peter Wright plead GUILTY to his charge? Did the club advise him???

If that’s the case, the club can GAGF for being a completely weak, shit of a joint.

All I know is, if this were Collingwood, they would go into today with all guns blazing trying to get their player off.

f*** off EFC

At the very least,you have a crack to get him off,with someone with Tribunal Smarts representing our Players,doing everything they can,no matter if the player looks guilty as all Sin.Draw precedent any way you can,look for loopholes in the Rules,as Collingwood did,then ram the advantage home!

AWFULL must have something else on us,for us to be this Weak!

Someone with tribunal smarts??
Want to guess who the "legal" player rep was for Wright tonight?
.
.
.
.
The same guy that represented Maynard.

[grassy1]

This club keeps on producing shit.

Why the f*** would Peter Wright plead GUILTY to his charge? Did the club advise him???

If that’s the case, the club can GAGF for being a completely weak, shit of a joint.

All I know is, if this were Collingwood, they would go into today with all guns blazing trying to get their player off.

f*** off EFC

At the very least,you have a crack to get him off,with someone with Tribunal Smarts representing our Players,doing everything they can,no matter if the player looks guilty as all Sin.Draw precedent any way you can,look for loopholes in the Rules,as Collingwood did,then ram the advantage home!

AWFULL must have something else on us,for us to be this Weak!

Someone with tribunal smarts??
Want to guess who the "legal" player rep was for Wright tonight?
.
.
.
.
The same guy that represented Maynard.

What do want to read into that?I daresay,Pete had No Hope of getting off!

[s'dreams]

4 weeks was too heavy. But that's what the AFL asked,

2-3 would have been about right.

What's the point of pleading guilty if you don't get a sentence reduction?

[grassy1]

4 weeks was too heavy. But that's what the AFL asked,

2-3 would have been about right.

What's the point of pleading guilty if you don't get a sentence reduction?

Yeah!

[BenDoolan]

4 weeks was too heavy. But that's what the AFL asked,

2-3 would have been about right.

What's the point of pleading guilty if you don't get a sentence reduction?

Should have been zero weeks, plain and simple.

If Wright was “careless” in his approach, then Cunningham was also. The blame can’t be all on Wright.

To suggest (as these f***-wits have done), he had “time” to do something different when he was the target of the kick… ran hard to get to the point of marking it… with eyes on the ball… and then suddenly realise at the last second someone was about to collide with him… and a natural reaction would be to brace for contact… is pure bullshit to call it “careless”. Absolute f****** joke.

So, let’s paint this picture… what if Wright did exactly the same thing… but it was Gresham who went in to take the mark instead of Cunningham… would the AFL seek to suspend Wright? Serious question. Would they? If not, why not??

I’d rather listen to the likes of Wayne Carey and Jono Brown, who would have more of a clue, than any f***-wit assigning blame on Wright in that scenario.

My enthusiasm and passion for this game is being killed off year by year. I really couldn’t give a damn if AFL dies. I actually hope it does after what Andrew Wilkie has revealed in Federal Parliament.

[F111]

From the moment it happened, the footy commentary had Wright guilty and suspended. IT became THE story of the weekend, in an otherwise quiet round. They all became biomechanics experts, "turned his shoulders", "feet off the ground"...everyone has their feet off the ground in an athletic sport ffs. Such a bs concept to hang someone on..."he had his feet off the ground"...burn him!

Brown: "he's gunna get suspended and I agree with that" (whilst defending the intent)
Ling: "I don't think the AFL are gunna care if it's a football matter or not" "they'll put the responsibility onto Peter Wright" on the basis that the AFL have shifted over the off season from the Maynard decision and "he'll get weeks".
Hudson (I think): "no outstretched arms to punch the ball, there's no outstretched arms to mark the ball, there's a turning motion and leaving the ground as well" Gee, all in a split second.

Compare to St.K's King. Lined up an opponent away from the ball and directly shouldered his head. 1week.

After the Maynard thing, I expect they were all just waiting for such an incident to delve into.

[grassy1]

4 weeks was too heavy. But that's what the AFL asked,

2-3 would have been about right.

What's the point of pleading guilty if you don't get a sentence reduction?

Should have been zero weeks, plain and simple.

If Wright was “careless” in his approach, then Cunningham was also. The blame can’t be all on Wright.

To suggest (as these f***-wits have done), he had “time” to do something different when he was the target of the kick… ran hard to get to the point of marking it… with eyes on the ball… and then suddenly realise at the last second someone was about to collide with him… and a natural reaction would be to brace for contact… is pure bullshit to call it “careless”. Absolute f****** joke.

So, let’s paint this picture… what if Wright did exactly the same thing… but it was Gresham who went in to take the mark instead of Cunningham… would the AFL seek to suspend Wright? Serious question. Would they? If not, why not??

I’d rather listen to the likes of Wayne Carey and Jono Brown, who would have more of a clue, than any f***-wit assigning blame on Wright in that scenario.

My enthusiasm and passion for this game is being killed off year by year. I really couldn’t give a damn if AFL dies. I actually hope it does after what Andrew Wilkie has revealed in Federal Parliament.

Blimey,I had no idea of Wilkie's accusations,when I had a Sling at Swans elsewhere!Maybe I shouldn't have withdrawn my original statement?

I'll have to check the ABC,as nearly everything else is paywalled.Is this why the Sydney Chairman got a whole bunch of stuff off his chest,before the Shit hit the fan,with Wilkie's Claims?

[BenDoolan]

From the moment it happened, the footy commentary had Wright guilty and suspended. IT became THE story of the weekend, in an otherwise quiet round. They all became biomechanics experts, "turned his shoulders", "feet off the ground"...everyone has their feet off the ground in an athletic sport ffs. Such a bs concept to hang someone on..."he had his feet off the ground"...burn him!

Brown: "he's gunna get suspended and I agree with that" (whilst defending the intent)
Ling: "I don't think the AFL are gunna care if it's a football matter or not" "they'll put the responsibility onto Peter Wright" on the basis that the AFL have shifted over the off season from the Maynard decision and "he'll get weeks".
Hudson (I think): "no outstretched arms to punch the ball, there's no outstretched arms to mark the ball, there's a turning motion and leaving the ground as well" Gee, all in a split second.

Compare to St.K's King. Lined up an opponent away from the ball and directly shouldered his head. 1week.

After the Maynard thing, I expect they were all just waiting for such an incident to delve into.

Exactly

[grassy1]

4 weeks was too heavy. But that's what the AFL asked,

2-3 would have been about right.

What's the point of pleading guilty if you don't get a sentence reduction?

Should have been zero weeks, plain and simple.

If Wright was “careless” in his approach, then Cunningham was also. The blame can’t be all on Wright.
12 Day Concussion Rule for Cunningham,instead of saaaaay,....21?

Is the AFL Serious about Concussion,or paying lip service to it?

To suggest (as these f***-wits have done), he had “time” to do something different when he was the target of the kick… ran hard to get to the point of marking it… with eyes on the ball… and then suddenly realise at the last second someone was about to collide with him… and a natural reaction would be to brace for contact… is pure bullshit to call it “careless”. Absolute f****** joke.

So, let’s paint this picture… what if Wright did exactly the same thing… but it was Gresham who went in to take the mark instead of Cunningham… would the AFL seek to suspend Wright? Serious question. Would they? If not, why not??

I’d rather listen to the likes of Wayne Carey and Jono Brown, who would have more of a clue, than any f***-wit assigning blame on Wright in that scenario.

My enthusiasm and passion for this game is being killed off year by year. I really couldn’t give a damn if AFL dies. I actually hope it does after what Andrew Wilkie has revealed in Federal Parliament.

[BenDoolan]

4 weeks was too heavy. But that's what the AFL asked,

2-3 would have been about right.

What's the point of pleading guilty if you don't get a sentence reduction?

Should have been zero weeks, plain and simple.

If Wright was “careless” in his approach, then Cunningham was also. The blame can’t be all on Wright.

To suggest (as these f***-wits have done), he had “time” to do something different when he was the target of the kick… ran hard to get to the point of marking it… with eyes on the ball… and then suddenly realise at the last second someone was about to collide with him… and a natural reaction would be to brace for contact… is pure bullshit to call it “careless”. Absolute f****** joke.

So, let’s paint this picture… what if Wright did exactly the same thing… but it was Gresham who went in to take the mark instead of Cunningham… would the AFL seek to suspend Wright? Serious question. Would they? If not, why not??

I’d rather listen to the likes of Wayne Carey and Jono Brown, who would have more of a clue, than any f***-wit assigning blame on Wright in that scenario.

My enthusiasm and passion for this game is being killed off year by year. I really couldn’t give a damn if AFL dies. I actually hope it does after what Andrew Wilkie has revealed in Federal Parliament.

Blimey,I had no idea of Wilkie's accusations,when I had a Sling at Swans elsewhere!Maybe I shouldn't have withdrawn my original statement?

I'll have to check the ABC,as nearly everything else is paywalled.Is this why the Sydney Chairman got a whole bunch of stuff off his chest,before the Shit hit the fan,with Wilkie's Claims?

This is all clubs. It’s the AFL process which they are not denying.

We’ll see how this plays out.

But to me, they are colluding to avoid testing on game day when these illicit substances are deemed performance enhancing.

Doesn’t look good - despite they’re argument to justify it.

[F111]

The counter argument, deemed a waste of breathe by the tribunal..

St Kilda great Leigh Montagna was opposed to a harsh sanction for the key-position goalkicker, citing his opinion that contact between Wright and Cunningham was “inevitable”.

“I think (four weeks is) too harsh for a player I saw instinctively brace at the very last second when contact was inevitable,” he argued on Fox Footy’s First Crack on Sunday.

“The fear is now, if this is going to be four weeks, let’s not be surprised if players start pulling out of contests. Because that would be the smarter option and be called soft than it is to miss a month of football and really hurt a team’s chances of trying to win games.

“It just doesn’t sit easy with me when you watch it in slow-motion to say ‘he had other options’. We know how fast the game is. They’re coming at each other a million miles an hour and it’s instinctive.

The biomechanics that mattered to me (I'm an expert now after listening to the commentary ) was that Wright twisted and turned during and after the contact. You don't do that if you're crunching a player. The approach to the contest must happen. If he had stopped, propped and allowed Cunningham to mark, he'd be getting it from the football world as "soft" and the coach wouldn't be happy with a "soft edge". He couldn't win and this'll change the game substantially. Can't bump, can't have 2 feet off the ground, can backhand an oppo player to the face though.

Fill the space in front of Wright, block his lead, stop his run, take the hit, illicit previous scenarios and he just won't know what to do. The effect on the other leading forwards will be interesting knowing that 4 weeks is the standard now.

[s'dreams]

It has been moving towards the outcome, rather than the action, determining the penalty for a few years now.

Cunningham was knocked out, stretchered off and immediately subbed out. So Tribunal and big penalty.

On the same weekend, Toby Greene raised his leg to fend off an opponent while he marked. I seem to recall that there was a Toby Green rule adopted by the AFL to specifically prevent this,

Greene wasn't even looked at or cited.

But had his opponent suffered an injury, you know who would have got a holiday.

[grassy1]

4 weeks was too heavy. But that's what the AFL asked,

2-3 would have been about right.

What's the point of pleading guilty if you don't get a sentence reduction?

Should have been zero weeks, plain and simple.

If Wright was “careless” in his approach, then Cunningham was also. The blame can’t be all on Wright.

To suggest (as these f***-wits have done), he had “time” to do something different when he was the target of the kick… ran hard to get to the point of marking it… with eyes on the ball… and then suddenly realise at the last second someone was about to collide with him… and a natural reaction would be to brace for contact… is pure bullshit to call it “careless”. Absolute f****** joke.

So, let’s paint this picture… what if Wright did exactly the same thing… but it was Gresham who went in to take the mark instead of Cunningham… would the AFL seek to suspend Wright? Serious question. Would they? If not, why not??

I’d rather listen to the likes of Wayne Carey and Jono Brown, who would have more of a clue, than any f***-wit assigning blame on Wright in that scenario.

My enthusiasm and passion for this game is being killed off year by year. I really couldn’t give a damn if AFL dies. I actually hope it does after what Andrew Wilkie has revealed in Federal Parliament.

Blimey,I had no idea of Wilkie's accusations,when I had a Sling at Swans elsewhere!Maybe I shouldn't have withdrawn my original statement?

I'll have to check the ABC,as nearly everything else is paywalled.Is this why the Sydney Chairman got a whole bunch of stuff off his chest,before the Shit hit the fan,with Wilkie's Claims?

This is all clubs. It’s the AFL process which they are not denying.

We’ll see how this plays out.

But to me, they are colluding to avoid testing on game day when these illicit substances are deemed performance enhancing.

Doesn’t look good - despite they’re argument to justify it.

Yeah,......how will it play out,as I asked on F111's thread?

[s'dreams]

WADA/SIA can test athletes who are on the sick list ... but unless the player has been named in the team and it is after 11.59pm the night before a competition in which an athlete is scheduled to compete ... they cannot test for cocaine or other recreational drugs... only performance enhancing drugs.

https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what- ... -use-sport

The AFL may get a please explain in a Federal Parliament committee hearing, but my hunch is nothing will happen.

[grassy1]

WADA/SIA can test athletes who are on the sick list ... but unless the player has been named in the team and it is after 11.59pm the night before a competition in which an athlete is scheduled to compete ... they cannot test for cocaine or other recreational drugs... only performance enhancing drugs.

https://www.sportintegrity.gov.au/what- ... -use-sport

The AFL may get a please explain in a Federal Parliament committee hearing, but my hunch is nothing will happen.

Parliament has refused to table Wilkie's claims.I guess that meant the Major Parties,rather than the Independents.Too many Pollies amongst the Big Boys,with their fingers in the Corporate Box Pies,methinks!

[desmondo]

WADA /SIA = Same Incompetant Assholes.