Hoping Lions can do us a huge favour tonight
Hoping Lions can do us a huge favour tonight
I think it's outright bullying. In the end, the discussions around why Goodes was being booed became tiresome. It didn't matter. Regardless it was a sustained attack on a player just going about his business.
I wonder if those who joined in (and who booed Ablett today or Franklin earlier this season) have thought about how they'd like it if a group of people gathered around them in their workplace and booed them for an extended period.
While I don't like any form of booing, I agree it's a bit different if it's in response to the game itself. The booing of Ablett today most certainly wasn't.
I don't think it's clear from the vision (that I've seen) whether there was head high contact. If there wasn't, I don't think it follows that he needs to be punished just because someone got injured. Bumping in itself isn't a reportable offence. A late bump would normally warrant a free kick but no more than that.
Remember that Franklin managed to knock out Hamling in the Freo game with a rotating elbow in a tackle but it was a legitimate football act, despite the injury.
Collingwood home against Lions unfortunately and Giants can't win a trick injury wise. Josh Kelly concussed, Sam Reid hamstrung (gee, where have I heard that before?) and Heath Shaw seems to have done his left knee. They won tonight but will hobble into the finals......
Doesn’t this just fall under the same category as any bump where damage is done to the head or neck? If you elect to bump an opponent (and no other option is reasonable) you will face sanction if the outcome results in an injury above the shoulders.
I haven’t looked at the rule book, but there have been instances in the past where players have been knocked out from the impact with the ground (not the bump itself) and that has been the ruling (as well as the directive by the AFL, from my understanding).
I thought there was obvious head contact. Luke Darcy, as usual, tried to play it down and not mention the high contact.
Screen Shot 2018-08-12 at 7.51.53 AM.png
"Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017
I don't believe that is the rule when it comes to bumps. In particular, if there is an "accidental" head clash arising from a bump, players are now mostly given the benefit of the doubt (eg Hawthorn's Burton earlier this year), though the MRO does have the discretion to charge them if the head clash was inevitable or highly likely as a result of choosing to bump (which I'd argue the Burton contact was).
They did change this a couple of years ago. For a while, players were held accountable for head clashes that arose during a bump.
I can't recall a player ever being cited for a legal bump where the player hurt his head on the ground.
I'm with Rogue Swan in that I think there might have been high contact directly in the bump but at the real-time speed and grainy footage I've seen, it's hard to be sure. Christian would have had access to better footage before laying his charge. That said, I am surprised it has been deemed serious enough to go straight to the tribunal. It wasn't like it was full-flush head contact. Most of the contact was to the body.
Bookmarks