Roar Rookie
Joined May 2013
3.1k
Views
2
Published
8
Comments
Published
Comments
James Kelly failed to refute a two-match ban for rough conduct against Brendon Goddard’s head, and Joel Selwood sums it all up with a…
Has anyone seen the advertisement on Fox Footy, where Jason Dunstall drops a bag of cement off a multi-story building down on to Alastair…
I understand that everyone else can see the footage,I guess I just have an opposing opinion to ‘everyone’. The fundamentals of Aussie Rules is entirely ‘rough’, tackling is the main tactic to achieve possession and it’s the roughest way to do so. If Goddard couldn’t even recall contact to his face then that’s saying something, literally.
And yes, I understand there’s footage. But, I’m sure anyone can recall the amount of times we’ve heard the footage is ‘inconclusive’ when a goal was referred to the vision at hand. I know the suspension has been passed, but I still think it’s interesting to notice that ‘rough’ conduct occurs throughout every match and doesn’t result in injury (i.e high contact within a tackle results in a free kick) yet this bump, that was not even felt at the time it was committed, warrants a punishment?
Is mourning the death of the bump overreacting?
He also stated the contact was not – forceful enough – to remember at the time. If the contact Goddard received during the game is not forceful enough to even be felt, it’s odd that it’s considered rough conduct.
Is mourning the death of the bump overreacting?
Goddard revealed to the MRP on monday night that Kelly didn’t make contact with his head. Does that mean you’re saying his hit was fine and in turn saying the MRP made the wrong decision in punishing him with a two-week ban?
Is mourning the death of the bump overreacting?
Collingwood will always be one of the stronger sides in the league, based on their game-play style and ability to move the ball swiftly under pressure.
Their ‘not up to scratch’ performances are coming from a lack lustre line up of players who have failed to maintain the structure they once had (last year). To keep up with the major finals contenders of this year, they need to reassess their game plans and re-unite as a team. There’s a lack of cohesion between their players and in turn, absence of team-work and support within matches.
Could Collingwood miss the AFL finals?
I’m not sure what the exact rule for excluding women from elite AFL game-play is, but I know that Sal Rees (an acclaimed Victorian Women’s Football League player) tried out for the 1995 AFL draft and she was the first woman to try out. This caused great controversy and the AFL draft was later amended to disallow women from taking part.
Considering women aren’t allowed to take part in the draft, accordingly there was to be no women taking part in an AFL match let alone participate within an AFL team.
I’m glad you’re interested in the issue even if you don’t follow AFL!
Women breaking into the world of AFL
Exactly! Look if the women can’t compete to the standard they want then that’s that. Rejecting those who do not meet the elite standard is definitely a part of the competition that makes sport. But let them have a go at least. Equality involves all genders, in all sports with appropriate gratification for all individuals.
Women breaking into the world of AFL
It’s definitely one of those topics where people push it to the corner so it doesn’t interrupt the enjoyment of footy.
But I think it’s good to keep in mind that a portion of sexism does exist.
Very true, the parallel with the netball league is a good reference to look at. Just like AFL, there’s a dominant gender.
Although the introduction of a women’s elite league may not be as successful as the men’s, it’s a massive leap forward in the right direction.
Thanks for your reply.
Women breaking into the world of AFL
Obviously it’s not inconclusive to the MRP. But this article and comments say it is. Ok you can think it’s mad TomC but it’s basics. The footage is inconclusive because we disagree, relying solely on footage is ignorant of the other information available. Goddard’s initial statement means something even if you don’t think it does.
Is mourning the death of the bump overreacting?