Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 292

Thread: Changes for the Prelim Final v Fremantle

  1. #25
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    I think that the action leading to the bump (ie legitimate shepherd vs late bump of playing who has disposed of the ball) might have an impact on whether something is graded as negligent or reckless. But Buddy's came back as negligent, so there is no room to move downwards in comparison. It will come down to the grading of medium vs low impact, I suspect. I haven't watched a replay yet. Did Casboult stay down / go off?

  2. #26
    Captain of the Side Captain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Northern Beaches
    Posts
    3,556
    Teddy should be ok. I think it's inconclusive that he actually hit him in the head.

  3. #27
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    If Big Richards is suspended, Little Richard can take his place:

    Little_Richard_Time_Life_Getty_Images_Ralph_Morse_1971.jpg

  4. #28
    Formerly 'BBB' Triple B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,999
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Did Casboult stay down / go off?
    He laid down pretty motionless for about 5 secs. He then got up on his haunches before pushing the trainer away and continuing.

    He was quite obviously shaken up, but didn't appear to hold his face in any way. It doesn't look real good the way these things are adjudicated these days, but the game has definitely become soft if a good hard shepherd, a legal and legitimate tactic, costs you playing in a PF.
    Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

  5. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple B View Post
    Running past the ball is irrelevant in shepherding situations.

    It's almost a requirement, is it not?
    I agree. There is a clear paradox it seems to me that a player who bumps when the person has the ball gets told they had the choice of bumping or tackling and therefore lives with the consequences of the bump.

    For players who are shepherding it seems the only alternative is to push the player, but as anyone who has tried to push a person running into the person who is running straight at them knows that can be a recipe for broken wrists etc.

    I don't like the rule, although I am generally sympathetic to protecting the head as anyone who has seen the impact on NFL players from head injuries would be, but I think he is in trouble, and I can't see the advantage of arguing that the person he bumped didn't have the ball.

  6. #30
    Regular in the Side MightyBloods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    532
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple B View Post
    Running past the ball is irrelevant in shepherding situations.

    It's almost a requirement, is it not?
    Exactly, thats how you shepherd by running towards the opposing player. It's different to Franklin as Franklin had a choice to tackle as Mal had the ball. You can't tackle in a shepherd as you give a free kick away. I've also slowed the vision on Richards and I fail to see his shoulder hitting the head. I see it as shoulder on shoulder and the impact of the shepherd rocked the blue.

  7. #31
    On the Rookie List BillyRayCypress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,379
    The main contact was on his body and to me it looked like he knocked the wind out of him.

    Ted didn't raise his arm before or during contact nor did he leave the ground. Without being biased, it may be deemed late but not like the Buddy or the hit by Chapman on Friday night. Chapman's hit nearly gave the Dockers player whiplash.

    I think it will be based on how they classify it and Ted's record.

    Another point is that both Buddy and Chapman's hits were immediately reported whereas this wasn't. Franklins shoulder made contact to the head because he was so much taller than Mal.
    Nothing like a good light bulb moment.

  8. #32
    Teddy will only get a reprimand with an early plea. The contact will get adjudged as low impact since he could continue playing and reckless since it was a legitimate bump. The Buddy bump was also low impact.

  9. #33
    Senior Player sharp9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cust, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt80 View Post

    I thought the Richards bump was a good Shepard within 5 metres of the ball, while Frankin and Chapman were late shots on the ball carrier. That's a big difference!
    Sorry, are you nuts? It's not a "GOOD" bump if you put the point of your shoulder into someone's jaw. Chapman was not late, either. Buddy was and was very lucky to only get a week. Should have been Reckless not Negligent.

    If Teddy or Chapman get rated "low" rather then "medium" impact then they might get off with good behaviour. High contact and Negligent is a given.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain View Post
    Teddy should be ok. I think it's inconclusive that he actually hit him in the head.
    Er....no.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple B View Post

    but the game has definitely become soft if a good hard shepherd, a legal and legitimate tactic, costs you playing in a PF.
    IT'S NOT LEGAL TO BUMP IN THE HEAD....WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?????

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob2120 View Post
    Teddy will only get a reprimand with an early plea. The contact will get adjudged as low impact since he could continue playing and reckless since it was a legitimate bump. The Buddy bump was also low impact.
    Sorry, wrong there, Buddy bump medium....reprimand if rated low....same for Chapman unless he has carry over points.
    "I'll acknowledge there are more talented teams in the competition but I won't acknowledge that there is a better team in the competition" Paul Roos March 2005

  10. #34
    Formerly 'BBB' Triple B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,999
    Quote Originally Posted by sharp9 View Post
    IT'S NOT LEGAL TO BUMP IN THE HEAD....WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?????
    We people aren't as convinced as you that Teddy got him in the head, but feel free to shout at people and call them 'nuts'. You make a compelling case..
    Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

  11. #35
    Senior Player ernie koala's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    northern beaches
    Posts
    3,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple B View Post
    Running past the ball is irrelevant in shepherding situations.

    It's almost a requirement, is it not?
    Your right...but...The relevance of running past the ball is that it shows intent.

    If it is deemed that he hit him in the head, then due to intent it would most likely be graded as reckless. Which even with low impact is 2 weeks...down to 1 with an early plea.

    I think his best hope is that the contact is either deemed not sufficient to warrant a sanction. Or that he is deemed to have hit him in the upper body and not the head.

    I have my fingers crossed but after looking again at the footage, I reckon he's in trouble .
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

  12. #36
    On the Rookie List
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Paradise City
    Posts
    607
    I just commented about this in the wrong thread, but the gist of it is this: It is entirely possible that the MRP will judge based on how it LOOKED. It was not the same as Buddy's or Chapman's, but thanks to the talented and wonderful team at Channel 7, they put all 3 freeze frames of the bumps next to each other and said "yep, they certainly look the same". So the ignorant of the football public will be baying for blood, and the MRP might give it to them. Expect the MRP to suddenly have an epic epiphany with a newfound 'consistency', which will ironically be totally inconsistent. The MRP will suddenly care about how their decision looks to the public.

Page 3 of 25 FirstFirst 123456713 ... 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