Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 13 to 18 of 18

Thread: SAM IS OK !!!!

  1. #13
    Carpe Noctem CureTheSane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Knoxfield, Victoria
    Posts
    4,946
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    So, by the Tribunal's odd reckoning, when Sam Mitchell punches somebody in the head, is he exercising an appropriate level of 'duty of care', because he doesn't punch his opponents hard enough to be suspended?
    Yeah, this.
    If the AFL is set on making the game the kind of sport mums want their kids to play, it's hard to reconcile how the degree of force a fist to the face defines the penalty.
    Then accidental, or 'lack of duty of care' incidents appear to be more frowned upon.
    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

  2. #14
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,312
    Quote Originally Posted by mcs View Post
    As always its one set of rules for some, another for others. Look at Gibson on the weekend - and just wait for super sniping Wees and Poos to reappear in September...
    Sometimes I think it is wise to take off the tin foil hat, look at the AFL guidelines set down for the MRP to administer, and to consider the reasons those guidelines have been put in place. And to look at replays of incidents objectively (whatever our feelings might be about the players/clubs involved).

    There is no doubt that both Sloane and Gibson were trying to punch the ball away from the opposition player who was about to take a mark (in itself a perfectly legitimate action). That is what the MRP said about Sloane by classifying his incident as 'careless' and not 'intentional'. The umpire also implicitly judged Gibson's action to be careless by awarding a free kick against him (with which the MRP agreed).

    However there is no comparison about the degree of carelessness involved in the two incidents.

    Sloane arrived very late with his fist nowhere near the ball, consequently punching Ebert in the side of the face hurting him so badly he had to leave the field. Gibson also arrived late but with his fist firmly aimed at the ball, with the consequence (as the MRP said) that he 'made grazing contact with his forearm to the side of Greenwood’s head'. The video clearly shows it was incidental forearm contact and that is reinforced by the fact that Greenwood was able to get up and take his kick.

    These were both accidents but with significant differences in the degree of culpability. The AFL does have a duty of care to have rules & guidelines which discourage players from actions which endanger other players, particularly actions which result in head injuries - however well intended the players taking those actions may have been in trying to simply win the footy.

  3. #15
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    2,855
    Quote Originally Posted by mcs View Post
    As always its one set of rules for some, another for others. Look at Gibson on the weekend - and just wait for super sniping Wees and Poos to reappear in September...
    .....and their sniping umpire mates. I worry about Saturday, in that the AFL would like for nothing more than the Giants to be victorious......"great for footy in NSW" yada yada yada......Please let it be umpired fairly!

  4. #16
    Senior Player Zlatorog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rhodes, NSW
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    .....and their sniping umpire mates. I worry about Saturday, in that the AFL would like for nothing more than the Giants to be victorious......"great for footy in NSW" yada yada yada......Please let it be umpired fairly!
    I think AFL have already achieved their goal to have GWS in the finals. Tempering with that by playing favourites against the Swans in Sydney would definitely backfire. It could be great for footy from Melbourne perspective, but Sydneysiders might react differently.

  5. #17
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    2,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Zlatorog View Post
    I think AFL have already achieved their goal to have GWS in the finals. Tempering with that by playing favourites against the Swans in Sydney would definitely backfire. It could be great for footy from Melbourne perspective, but Sydneysiders might react differently.
    You make a good and valid point. I'll remove my tin foil hat and relax.

  6. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Sometimes I think it is wise to take off the tin foil hat, look at the AFL guidelines set down for the MRP to administer, and to consider the reasons those guidelines have been put in place. And to look at replays of incidents objectively (whatever our feelings might be about the players/clubs involved).

    There is no doubt that both Sloane and Gibson were trying to punch the ball away from the opposition player who was about to take a mark (in itself a perfectly legitimate action). That is what the MRP said about Sloane by classifying his incident as 'careless' and not 'intentional'. The umpire also implicitly judged Gibson's action to be careless by awarding a free kick against him (with which the MRP agreed).

    However there is no comparison about the degree of carelessness involved in the two incidents.

    Sloane arrived very late with his fist nowhere near the ball, consequently punching Ebert in the side of the face hurting him so badly he had to leave the field. Gibson also arrived late but with his fist firmly aimed at the ball, with the consequence (as the MRP said) that he 'made grazing contact with his forearm to the side of Greenwood’s head'. The video clearly shows it was incidental forearm contact and that is reinforced by the fact that Greenwood was able to get up and take his kick.

    These were both accidents but with significant differences in the degree of culpability. The AFL does have a duty of care to have rules & guidelines which discourage players from actions which endanger other players, particularly actions which result in head injuries - however well intended the players taking those actions may have been in trying to simply win the footy.
    Onya Meg! Enough with the conspiracies and one eyed paranoia. (I can't bear to jump on board Christopher Pyne's faddish reinvigoration of the 'tin foil hat'. It was ok when he said it. It's just everyone else who had never used the expression before copying him that is irksome.)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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