Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 86

Thread: #AFL Round 21 Weekly Discussion Thread

  1. #25
    Hoping Lions can do us a huge favour tonight

  2. #26
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    I really dislike it too, especially when it’s part of a campaign against a player. It feels like a form of bullying.
    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.

  3. #27
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Buddy has been audibly booed in a few games (notably the North game a few weeks ago) and Ablett was today. It's such an ugly sound, and I really have no idea what drives people to do it.
    The booing (and abuse) of Buddy was very clear in the Bombers game. Someone even threw something on the ground when he having a shot from the boundary (I checked the replay, but the cameras panned as he kicked) - it looked like a mandarin peel from my vantage point.

  4. #28
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Blood Fever View Post
    It was late and I thought his shoulder made contact with his head. Probably a misjudgement in terms of where he wanted to get him but he chose to make contact and must pay for the consequences. 4 weeks in my book but probably not necessary to refer it to Tribunal. Bit of an over reaction after Gaff incident.
    Yes, these thoughts sort of reflect mine. He should be suspended, despite no head high contact, the lateness and resulting injury requires punishment but I thought the MRO could have settled this one.....agree that it's a post Gaff over reaction.

  5. #29
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    Hoping Lions can do us a huge favour tonight
    They're doing ok so far, 5 minutes into the third they're right in it at 5 pts down. They were nearly 3 goals up approaching half time but Magpies got three late ones.

  6. #30
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,395
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    Yes, these thoughts sort of reflect mine. He should be suspended, despite no head high contact, the lateness and resulting injury requires punishment but I thought the MRO could have settled this one.....agree that it's a post Gaff over reaction.
    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.

  7. #31
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,178
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    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.
    I've already said I don't believe there was high contact but that contact was unnecessarily late and risky and I'll add, avoidable......so suspension required but tribunal hearing unnecessary.

  8. #32
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,178
    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......

  9. #33
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,395
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    I've already said I don't believe there was high contact but that contact was unnecessarily late and risky and I'll add, avoidable......so suspension required but tribunal hearing unnecessary.
    But for what reportable offence? (I know the answer has to be "rough conduct" because it wasn't a strike, but being late doesn't make it suspendable as far as I understand the rules).

  10. #34
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    But for what reportable offence? (I know the answer has to be "rough conduct" because it wasn't a strike, but being late doesn't make it suspendable as far as I understand the rules).
    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).

  11. #35
    McVeigh for Brownlow Site Admin RogueSwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Coffs Harbour - home of Swans summer camp
    Posts
    4,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Blood Fever View Post
    It was late and I thought his shoulder made contact with his head...
    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

  12. #36
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Matty10 View Post
    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 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.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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