Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 292

Thread: Changes for the Prelim Final v Fremantle

  1. #37
    Unfortunately the media have already decided Richards cant get off, the fact he ran a few steps to lay the bump doesnt help as even if his intentions were harmless it seemed to slip high.

    Out :Richards,Tippett,Mitchell
    In:LRT,Towers,Lamb

    I know once again people will say you cant debut someone in a final but Towers has earnt his chance and being mature age i believe he will be more than up for it. And for those that week in and week out say you have to go like for like sorry but your wrong, players already in the team can be shuffled you see.
    Last edited by On-Baller; 15th September 2013 at 05:42 PM.

  2. #38
    Senior Player sharp9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cust, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,500
    Quote Originally Posted by ernie koala View Post
    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.
    Sorry but this is just not true....the grading between Reckless and Negligent is to do with whether a player makes an action in which he should reasonably expect to make high contact...or whether it was a normal bump with accidental high contact. Buddy was late (for example) which is the same as running past the ball in terms of intent. In all of these examples there is no contest that the AIM of the contact was a bump. The "running past the player" argument is only when someone tries to argue they were playing the ball.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triple B View Post
    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..
    Yes I do (make a compelling case)....sometimes people need to be shouted at to wake them up. There are still fans out there who do not understand that bumping in the head is illegal and that contact hard enough to be considered "low impact" rather than just a free kick WILL result in suspension or points. My shouting was a considered option to draw attention. Seems to have worked ;-)

    The replay is very clear that there was contact to the head. If you can watch that not see head contact the I think epithet "nuts" is a) Fair and b) Mild enough to be well within the bounds of banter between people barracking for the same team

    A possibly valid argument might be "There was so much body contact that I'm hoping the head contact part of it will be considered not hard enough to constitute a report." But even if the contact is deemed "Low" rather than "Medium" it would still only be a reprimand for Teddy. Traditionalists and Hawkers were all screaming that Malceski's hit was only Low not Medium....so we'll see if Leigh Mathews et al go after Teddy in the way hey DID NOT go after Buddy.
    "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

  3. #39
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple B View Post
    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..
    Shouting aside you might like to get a pair of glasses. I have looked at the incident and the top Teddy's shoulder clearly hits Casboult's jaw. It wasn't deliberate just an accident but they are hot on any head high hits this year. If they are playing the same rules as during the H & A games he will get a week. If they play by finals rules he will get a reprimand.

    LRT was VERY good in the NEAFL GF. So was Deano.

    In; Benny if fit if not Lambchop, LRT or Xav, Deano or Timbo.

    BJ was ok but I don't think did enough to be considered. Pity Robbo & Lloydy are not on the Seniors list as they were smoking hot today. So was Tony A.
    Last edited by wolftone57; 15th September 2013 at 07:48 PM.

  4. #40
    On the Rookie List BillyRayCypress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by wolftone57 View Post
    Pity Robbo & Lloydy are not on the Seniors list as they were smoking hot today. So was Tony A.
    They were playing Belconnen and hardly any comparison to Fremantle.

    Triple B has a pair of Elton John Rocket Man glasses so I trust what he says.
    Nothing like a good light bulb moment.

  5. #41
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by BillyRayCypress View Post
    They were playing Belconnen and hardly any comparison to Fremantle.

    Triple B has a pair of Elton John Rocket Man glasses so I trust what he says.
    Sorry BillyRay but I have seen the incident in slo mo on quite a few occasions now. I watched AFL Game Day and they looked at the Teddy incident and Chappy's incident. They seemed to think there wasn't much difference except the Port player was hurt for a while. they seemed to think because both players basically got up and carried on then there is little to answer for in a finals situation. But the vision did show that both players hit high. In slow motion it is really obvious.

  6. #42
    Captain of the Side Captain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Northern Beaches
    Posts
    3,556
    Quote Originally Posted by wolftone57 View Post
    Sorry BillyRay but I have seen the incident in slo mo on quite a few occasions now. I watched AFL Game Day and they looked at the Teddy incident and Chappy's incident. They seemed to think there wasn't much difference except the Port player was hurt for a while. they seemed to think because both players basically got up and carried on then there is little to answer for in a finals situation. But the vision did show that both players hit high. In slow motion it is really obvious.
    Maybe you have special powers and also see things that others don't?

    Watching the bump on slow motion is like watching a goal review. Too hard to definitively tell.

  7. #43
    What a year 2005 SSFC/CFC
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    931
    On Richards interestingly Channel 7 had him in trouble the 3AW team saw no problem Saturday night. At most a week and off with a guilty plea.
    Sports do not build character. They reveal it....Heywood Broun

    I always turn to the sports pages first, which record people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures......Earl Warren

  8. #44
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast NSW, Costa Lantana
    Posts
    6,889
    The Age has an article titled "Cats sweat on Chapman", but it covers Ted as well. There is a box in the print edition that didn't make it into the online edition. It reads as follows:
    REPORTS' PREDICTIONS
    Reported: Paul Chapman (Geel) rough conduct to Robbie Gray (PA). Reckless, low impact, hihi contact. 225 points (2 matches); 168.75 points with guity plea (1 match)
    Ted Richards (Syd) rough conduct to Levi Casboult (Carl). Negligent, low impact, high contact. 125 points (1 match); 93.75 with guilty plea (reprimand).
    That's how I saw it. Chapman left the ground, Ted didn't; seems to make a difference with the panel.
    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)

  9. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by dimelb View Post
    The Age has an article titled "Cats sweat on Chapman", but it covers Ted as well. There is a box in the print edition that didn't make it into the online edition. It reads as follows:
    REPORTS' PREDICTIONS
    Reported: Paul Chapman (Geel) rough conduct to Robbie Gray (PA). Reckless, low impact, hihi contact. 225 points (2 matches); 168.75 points with guity plea (1 match)
    Ted Richards (Syd) rough conduct to Levi Casboult (Carl). Negligent, low impact, high contact. 125 points (1 match); 93.75 with guilty plea (reprimand).
    That's how I saw it. Chapman left the ground, Ted didn't; seems to make a difference with the panel.
    I saw them the same way. If he's not graded that way I'd imagine that the Swans will contest the grading and then accept the reprimand if they are successful in getting the grading changed.
    Today's a draft of your epitaph

  10. #46
    scott names the planets stellation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    peaches eaten, trousers rolled
    Posts
    9,693
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by dimelb View Post
    The Age has an article titled "Cats sweat on Chapman", but it covers Ted as well. There is a box in the print edition that didn't make it into the online edition. It reads as follows:
    REPORTS' PREDICTIONS
    Reported: Paul Chapman (Geel) rough conduct to Robbie Gray (PA). Reckless, low impact, hihi contact. 225 points (2 matches); 168.75 points with guity plea (1 match)
    Ted Richards (Syd) rough conduct to Levi Casboult (Carl). Negligent, low impact, high contact. 125 points (1 match); 93.75 with guilty plea (reprimand).
    That's how I saw it. Chapman left the ground, Ted didn't; seems to make a difference with the panel.
    I agree that leaving the ground makes a fair difference (and is presumably in that reporter's eyes the difference between negligent and reckless).
    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

  11. #47
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    2,440
    Another key difference between Teddy and Franklin/Chapman is that he was sheparding while the other 2 actually dumped the bloke after he kicked

  12. #48
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    15,929
    Quote Originally Posted by caj23 View Post
    Another key difference between Teddy and Franklin/Chapman is that he was sheparding while the other 2 actually dumped the bloke after he kicked
    Buddy's charge was classed as negligent rather than reckless so it seems that that wasn't a consideration

Page 4 of 25 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... 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