Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 106

Thread: Tribunal news from weekend's game - Thomas and Ted

  1. #37

    I think I'm going mad

    As annoyed as I was last week, am I starting to see the consistency here, within the limitations of the AFL's criteria.

    Sliding in is a no-no and deemed at least negligent.

    You can only get reported if you make contact with another player, ie "no impact" is not suspendable, hence Surjan not being reported.

    It is worse if you contact the head - notwithstanding that this particular impact snapped a bone.

    The medical reports are used to help determine the severity and location of impact. Presumably "grass abrasions" came up last week as part of the medical report but were not actually part of this impact assessment.

    I suspect Thomas will argue that the impact is lower than severe. I can't bring myself to watch the footage, even skipped over it when watching the replay, but I have read suggestions that Rohan had rolled his ankle just prior to the contact in which case this might fly.

  2. #38
    X-Tremist
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,013
    Yeah if he can argue he didn't contact the leg he might get off. It's slightly unclear what happened, if his body collected Rohan's body and the injury was from Rohan's shifting centre of gravity, he might have a case.

  3. #39
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,055
    I think the grading of the contact as severe is wrong, regardless of whether there were contributory factors to the severity of the injury. Had Thomas slid in from a distance at greater speed, maybe. But though I think there was a sliding motion, he wasn't travelling that quickly when (if) he made contact with Rohan's ankle.

    The AFL360 discussion hinted at the fact there is another camera angle of the incident that the AFL used to assess the incident. If there is, I don't believe it has been shown. All we've seen is the standard C7 footage. If I understood them correctly, it sounds like this footage might show a clearer view of the collision between foot and ankle.

  4. #40
    Formerly 'BBB' Triple B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,999
    Quote Originally Posted by R-1 View Post
    Yeah if he can argue he didn't contact the leg he might get off. It's slightly unclear what happened, if his body collected Rohan's body and the injury was from Rohan's shifting centre of gravity, he might have a case.

    It's not the least bit unclear. He planted his foot straight into Rohans leg, just above the ankle. I doubt he did it deliberately, but it's clear what happened.

    If they go in with a defence that he didnt contact the leg, he's a million to 1 to get off and they should add a couple for a stupid defence....
    Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

  5. #41
    X-Tremist
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,013
    Fair enough! I couldn't tell but it should be pretty obvious to Lindsay if he did or didn't.

  6. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by goswannie14 View Post
    Barry Hall punched someone a few years ago, the guy played the next week and Hall got 8 weeks. Something just doesn't seem to add up with that.

    I know it is the action that is judged, not the result, but I just don't like that so much emphasis is put on a punch, but not on a reckless action.
    Actually, Staker was out for at least a week, I think it was two in the end.

  7. #43
    Proud Tragic Swan Primmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    On the Move!
    Posts
    5,956
    Also Hall was/is a boxer of some note. If it was TDL or LRT throwing punch, who had no previous "form" or oomph, then it would not have been as scrutinised. With Hall, with his heavyweight boxing b ackground, and reputation, then it was a shocker (and me a onceuponatime Hall fan).
    If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhood

  8. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood View Post
    I don't think Thomas or Goodes deserve to be suspended, but if Goodes went then so must Thomas. Simple as that.
    Just as Paul Roos said OTC last night. The AFL set the precedent with their dvd guidelines and Goodes' s suspension. Let us see what consistency is shown tonight.

  9. #45
    X-Tremist
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    1,013
    Another possible arguement is that Thomas fell instead of deliberately going to ground legs out towards Rohan. If that flies, he should get off.

  10. #46
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    14,177
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    The AFL360 discussion hinted at the fact there is another camera angle of the incident that the AFL used to assess the incident. If there is, I don't believe it has been shown. All we've seen is the standard C7 footage. If I understood them correctly, it sounds like this footage might show a clearer view of the collision between foot and ankle.
    Two different angles of the incident starting from about 1:55, I think the first one in particular doesn't look very good for Thomas. He was clearly at the ball before Rohan and really had no need to slide if he had just wanted to pick up the ball.


  11. #47
    Does it look to anyone like Gaz may have gotten his foot stuck in the turf at just the moment the contact happened? You'd normally expect to slide with the contact rather than have the foot planted and immobile I'd have thought.
    Today's a draft of your epitaph

  12. #48
    On the Rookie List
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Port Macquarie
    Posts
    237
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I think the grading of the contact as severe is wrong, regardless of whether there were contributory factors to the severity of the injury. Had Thomas slid in from a distance at greater speed, maybe. But though I think there was a sliding motion, he wasn't travelling that quickly when (if) he made contact with Rohan's ankle.

    The AFL360 discussion hinted at the fact there is another camera angle of the incident that the AFL used to assess the incident. If there is, I don't believe it has been shown. All we've seen is the standard C7 footage. If I understood them correctly, it sounds like this footage might show a clearer view of the collision between foot and ankle.
    How would you judge the severity of the contact if not based on the outcome?

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO