Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats (Read 22062 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #77 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
If the AFL is fair dinkum about cracking down on punches, then Zach has to be rubbed out.
Agree, the swinging fist in the tackle has gone on for too long and needs the same treatment as the jumper punch in terms of weeks.
Jack Silvagni would be sore, that's a nasty injury when you are not expecting a hit there and are not able to cover up and brace yourself. Is that a professional tackle or a cheap snipe to use the fist?

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #79 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
Nothing in it, he was just "pressuring" him.
Cornes the knob said its in the act of tackling. With a clenched fist Kane you moron.
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #80 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
Agree, the swinging fist in the tackle has gone on for too long and needs the same treatment as the jumper punch in terms of weeks.
Jack Silvagni would be sore, that's a nasty injury when you are not expecting a hit there and are not able to cover up and brace yourself. Is that a professional tackle or a cheap snipe to use the fist?

Yep, he wasn't close enough to tackle and wasn't close enough to punch the ball before Jack kicked it. Just dumb and clumsy.

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #81 –
Quote from: madbluboy – on
If the free kick was from before Saad "played on" then it had to have been in the goal square which means he was less than 9 metres from the goal line. The penalty brought Essendon to the centre of the ground which is 85 metres from the goal line so the penalty was a minimum of 76 metres. Of course Saad was well outside of the goal square when the free was paid.

I believe the rule states that the 50m penalty is from the mark so the new mark should be 70m (or 69m) from the goal line.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #82 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Any talk of Weitering or Simpson being back line generals or holding the back line together are premature at best, erroneous at worst. The difference Docherty makes to that back 6 could be spotted from the moon. Those bloody knees cost Bolton his job.

Yes and no......and no.

Weitering and Simpson have both been in (are in) the leadership group and do well down back.
Of course the addition of Docherty adds another layer to it.
Boltons job (not that you bring him up in every post) was his to lose.....and he lost it. Remember i was in his corner right up until the week before he was sacked. It was inevitable.

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #83 –
Quote from: DJC – on
I believe the rule states that the 50m penalty is from the mark so the new mark should be 70m (or 69m) from the goal line.

It was actually the second worst decision of the night.

The worst was the 50 against McGovern who was no where near giving away a 50. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #84 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
It was actually the second worst decision of the night.

The worst was the 50 against McGovern who was no where near giving away a 50. 

True Thry, that was a bizarre decision.  I guess Eddie’s penalty had the potential to change the result and that makes it significant.  Of course, if Cuningham had slotted his shot for goal, we wouldn’t be moaning about the 50  ::)
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #85 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
Cornes the knob said its in the act of tackling. With a clenched fist Kane you moron.

Interestingly, the one person who stood up for Silvagni and condemned the Merrett tackle was Matthew Lloyd!!!

.....and Merrett gets 1 week!!!

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #86 –
Quote from: Lods – on
1 week

https://www.afl.com.au/news/458941/match-review-bomber-eagle-offered-one-game-bans

Pathetic!  If you clench your fist and punch an opponent, it’s not “careless”  >:(

I like how the AFL makes a song and dance about eliminating punches but doesn’t follow through with penalties that will deter offenders.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #88 –
Quote from: townsendcalling – on
Interestingly, the one person who stood up for Silvagni and condemned the Merrett tackle was Matthew Lloyd!!!

.....and Merrett gets 1 week!!!
Matthew Lloyd's anti Carlton stance changed when brother Brad was appointed at the club, since then it's been nothing but positives.

Re: Post Game Passion: AFL 2020 Rd 4: Carlton vs. the Drug Cheats

Reply #89 –
Quote from: townsendcalling – on
Interestingly, the one person who stood up for Silvagni and condemned the Merrett tackle was Matthew Lloyd!!!

.....and Merrett gets 1 week!!!

Absolutely flabbergasted that Merrett only gets 1 week.

Schofield gets a week for a headbutt - intentional... the victim plays on, Silvagni is out for the game and probably two more - a cost of 3 games.

And for those who argue that Merrett's was careless conduct and not intentional I say, unmitigated bullsh1t. He intended for his fist to hit Silvagni's body, and it did, and it damaged his body to the extent that Silvagni suffered and will lose games.

Put another way, had Greene done what Merrett did, what would be the punishment?

This matter should go further, but that would require Gil having a pair.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17