Exactly what I saw.Originally Posted by liz
TBH, I didn't see the actual contact, but Hanners sort of hovered over him and appeared to ask him if he was OK or apologising, with no other players really in the vicinity. I just assumed they'd come into contact.
Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09
He apologised so it was OK....
Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon!
I think that the new Monte Carlo system they are using for the MRP is working really well
You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby Ziegler
IMHO the umpire was to blame in the instance involving Hanners. When the ball is in play, the onus should be on the umps to keep out of the way of the players. In the case of Fyfe it was at a stoppage, where the umps must be given access to exit the contest after restarting play
I'm on the Chandwagon!!!
If you cannot compete for the premiership, it's better to be young and exciting than middle-aged and dowdy.
I got the impression that the umpire was saying to Hanners "Play on, play on" .
Three cheers for the umps, MRP or whoever decides, for not collaring us this week.
Why put yourself through that game again?
Occupational hazards:
- animal psychic Amanda de WarrenI don't eat animals since discovering this ability. I used to. But one day the lamb I was eating came through to me and ever since then I haven't been able to eat meat.
A shiny medal
In fairness to the umpires, we want them to be keeping their eye on the play, not looking over their shoulders to see who's behind them.
Can someone explain this to me?
Now, by and large I think part of the reason for Hall's frustrations over the years has a lot to do with poor umpiring, both decisions against him and non-decisions for him, and no doubt he was provoked the other day but . . .
He made a conscious decision to put a bloke in a choke hold, vice like, around the neck - a very dangerous thing to do if you are taking a pure view of things given the potential for something to go seriously wrong if the neck is wrenched the wrong way . . . and he got a fine.
Mummy, on the other hand, tackled a bloke hard, but fair. The relative technical danger of the two acts is not comparable.
If the AFL is as concerned about the protection of players as it says it is, where is the relative logic in the two sets of punishment?
The MRP has just told the entire competition you can't tackle blokes vigorously, but you can try to strangle them to sleep. Odd
'Delicious' is a fun word to say
It's not odd, it's some kind of bad joke.
-
My thoughts exactly, whilst I thought the headlock was obviously out of line (particuarly with how long it went on for) I didn't want to see Barry get suspended for it; considering Mummy's suspension, and particuarly that the same body (the MRP) initially said he deserved 3 weeks, I'm completely blown away by it.
I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time
I don't think they treated Hall leniently, and I don't see the headlock as a choke hold. I'm aware of what Thompson said about passing out, but why would you believe anything he said after the way he acted? For more detail I've posted a link to Greg Baum's Age article in the Hall Watch thread.
On the other hand I think the reaction to Mummy's tackle was way disproportionate, and I agree with the posters who have said the law needs revising, or to be made more specific. Mummy's penalty was preposterous in the light of the inaction to the bump on Rohan.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks