Lights burning late at the AFL tonight

[Enrico_Misso]

... as the insipid scum perspire their way through various strategies to brief the MRP to do the right thing and protect the integrity of the Brownlow.

They managed to get Dusty off with a decision that was inconsistent with the Webster precedent the week before.
Now they have another big fish to save.

- Low impact?
- Arms weren't actually pinned?
- Concussion was from an earlier incident?
- Unintentional?
- No second movement?

Perhaps they will summon in the Barry Hall "In the play" Task Force from 12 years ago to rework their magic.
Have to find a way to get their beloved Brownlow boy off.

[Jacks Back]

This one rule for some s*** has to stop. If the person leading the brownlow is ineligible then so be it. Or just take the fairest aspect off the wording and who gives a continental if players are suspended - they can't get any votes for the games they are out.

[mr six o'clock]

They'll use the Chewbacca defense.

[desertsaint]

This one rule for some s*** has to stop. If the person leading the brownlow is ineligible then so be it. Or just take the fairest aspect off the wording and who gives a continental if players are suspended - they can't get any votes for the games they are out.

it's for the 'fairest and best', not the other way round. the afl would do well to remember that. but i won't hold my breath.

[Joffa Burns]

Not sure what the charge against him would be?

Amazing a free kick was not awarded, he dragged Kruger down welll after the ball was knocked clear or disposed of.

[carn_sainter]

The charge would be whatever Koby Stevens was suspended for. The MRP is like the umpires though (unique to AFL) in that they basically change the rules or emphasis on rules as the weeks pass. It's insane. No other sporting comp in the world has such a dynamic set of rules. The AFL loves it because it creates scandal and controversy, both of which engender consumption.

[Ellaandjohn]

Really important considering our result. Looking for other things to blame


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ace]

... as the insipid scum perspire their way through various strategies to brief the MRP to do the right thing and protect the integrity of the Brownlow.

They managed to get Dusty off with a decision that was inconsistent with the Webster precedent the week before.
Now they have another big fish to save.

- Low impact?
- Arms weren't actually pinned?
- Concussion was from an earlier incident?
- Unintentional?
- No second movement?

Perhaps they will summon in the Barry Hall "In the play" Task Force from 12 years ago to rework their magic.
Have to find a way to get their beloved Brownlow boy off.

You forgot
The ball had gone.
Tackle still went ahead.

[ace]

The decision has been made.
Penalty will be a fine.
He will be convicted but of what charge.
Can we make the excuse that he was unaware the ball was elsewhere when he drove Kreuzer into the ground.
False, but that brings the intent down to unintentional.
Impact, well the ground was softer than normal.
The roof had been open earlier in the week when it rained.
What ? did not happen. We have lost the records. Then lose them like Doc Reid.
Head, well it was Kreuzer's fault his head hit the ground - we are still working on that.
Inconclusive video we are still working on that too. Technical difficulty.
Maybe can use only visible from one angle that could be misleading.
How about we can't find any imprint in the ground surface.
How can we use the fact that the umpire did not see it.
Yeah did not see it because the ball was elsewhere.
How do we stop Carlton protesting.
Maybe we let them pay Chris Judd an extra million.
A bit late for that but you get where we are heading.
Carlton can be bought off.

[fugazi]

You can put your house on in him getting off

The MRP is a joke

[older saint]

MRP will receive a memo Monday am.

The tackle on Cruz will be deemed to be in one motion , not 2 and therefore not meeting the definition on the sling tackle requiring 2 movements. Therefore no charge will be laid.

Any reference to Kobe Stevens or others will be "The panel felt that Dangerfield tackled Kruzer in one motion and was unaware the ball was dislodged . It is unfortunate he got concussion but the panel assesses the tackle first before any consequences - which did not constitute a sling tackle."

Defintion - WE DONT WANT A RUNAWAY BROWNLOW WINNER AND WE MANAGED TO GET DUSTY OFF LAST WEEK SO WE NEED TO DO THE SAME FOR DANGER"

[saintbob]

I disagree, Danger wouldn't have know the ball spilled out in fact he appealed for the free kick straight away thinking he'd got him cold with the ball.

Won't even be fined

[saintsRrising]

Danger has been offered ONE MATCH SUSPENSION by the MRP!!!!!!!!!

[remboy]

I disagree, Danger wouldn't have know the ball spilled out in fact he appealed for the free kick straight away thinking he'd got him cold with the ball.

Won't even be fined

That's not good enough as far as I'm concerned. The duty of care lies with the tackler. Otherwise players could tackle with their eyes closed and say they didn't know the ball had come out. And it doesn't matter. Either way, he's pinned his arms, tackled him to the ground and the player has been concussed as a result.

[IanRush]

... as the insipid scum perspire their way through various strategies to brief the MRP to do the right thing and protect the integrity of the Brownlow.

They managed to get Dusty off with a decision that was inconsistent with the Webster precedent the week before.
Now they have another big fish to save.

- Low impact?
- Arms weren't actually pinned?
- Concussion was from an earlier incident?
- Unintentional?
- No second movement?

Perhaps they will summon in the Barry Hall "In the play" Task Force from 12 years ago to rework their magic.
Have to find a way to get their beloved Brownlow boy off.

Brownlow favourites and late season Tribunals of said Brownlow Favourites... always a good guide for betting markets to act and change betting odds.