David King has mentioned on all his platforms he does not care about Stewart all he is worried about is Prestia
Printable View
Chris Scott has rat cunning, I'll begrudgingly give him that. He read the play and framed the 'good bloke having a bad moment' narrative, which the morons in the media dutifully gobbled up.
The way the media has fawned over Scott and Stewart has been nauseating this week. They alternate between boot-licking sycophant mode and click-bait faux-outrage mode. Just an all-round grubby profession devoid of any personal pride.
I've really switched off, well further than I already had the past year or so.
What comes out of ex-players mouths for the most part is drivel, and like the Canberra Press pack the non-ex-player media folks are either running an agenda to curry favour with the government of the day (the AFL), or swing between mindless fluff pieces or salacious click bait.
Jason Bennett is pretty good imo. He's been MC at a couple of Charles Sutton medals he's a consummate pro and doesn't get sucked into the nauseating fart sniffing that goes on with the ex-players.
Need more of his type. Get the English guy from the VFL call on the weekend he was great!
There is a fair focus in the media at the moment for a send off rule.
If Richmond had won that game would it have so much vigor behind it?
Pass on the send off rule.
How many times in the past few years would we have needed it? 3 to 5 at most.
My concern is once it is in, umpires (whoever) may start dishing it out more often that it is needed.
Having a 2 card system would also be a recipe for an epic CF.
Send off rule would be over interpreted and ruin games, just like every other rule carrying a harsh penalty.
How about instead folding the “standard” 12-day concussion protocol on top of any suspension for an incident where the player is concussed? Seems to me to be total bullshit that Preuss can play this week but English can’t, for example.
Yet no annoyance about only 4 weeks for Stewart.
On one hand the act he did was so heinous and horrible that he should have been sent off immediately and Geelong made to play a player short, on the other it's only worth less than 20% of a finals season.
I don't know why (aside from cOnTEnT) there is a discussion over red cards when any kind of genuinely dangerous or malicious act in the AFL generally gets under penalised by the tribunal.
And then there is the matter of what earns a red card and how badly the AFL can stuff up the interpretation. Stewarts was technically in play (I mean grey area enough) so for those arguing it's only for clear off the ball incidents does that mean the incident that is the catalyst for change doesn't even qualify? Where is the hypothetical poorly interpreted line?
I'm not against the intention of the change I just don't want to see the execution massacred again when the real solution is to just really penalise these guys at the tribunal imo.