MRP / Trib. AFL Round 18 findings - Scott Thompson's hit on Johnson at the opening bounce

[vealesy]

You forgotten your own words, "Johnson came flying through, Thompson braced for the impact." in other words Johnson initiated the contact according to you; and Vealsey say's much the same thing.



Same here, not sure how this applies to the case in question though, because Thompson certainly wasn't "standing still watching the ball' in this instance.

He certainly was more than johnson.

 

[maxy87]

Agree to disagree. In my eyes, anyone who bumps they way Thompson did does not deserve weeks. People who think he should have been rubbed out are the reason the game is becoming softer. Next players will be getting rubbed out for aggressive tackles that incidently hurt the opposition... oh.

Sour grapes about your mate Tex Walker, much?

For what it's worth, I'm fairly agnostic toward the MRP ruling for the Thompson incident

 

[Partridge]

You forgotten your own words, "Johnson came flying through, Thompson braced for the impact." in other words Johnson initiated the contact according to you; and Vealsey say's much the same thing.

Bullshit - I said no such thing. I also said it wasn't anyone's fault. Not "in other words" either, in very precise words:

No one said Johnson initiated contact. Thompson might have been moving (haven't seen it since Saturday) but I strongly dispute he lined him up. It was just one of those things. It wasn't anyone's fault.

There you go. Not only did I not say Johnson initiated the contact, I said the exact opposite. Care to twist the above phrase around now?

 

[RichardMarx]

Sour grapes about your mate Tex Walker, much?

For what it's worth, I'm fairly agnostic toward the MRP ruling for the Thompson incident

Sour grapes? Kinda. I just think the whole sling tackle issue is a bit of a joke (Jack Trengove last year was a disgrace), but that's a whole new issue. IMO the MRP should take intent into account above all else - accidents are part of footy. Good luck for the rest of the year - if anyone from Victoria is to win it, I'd like it to be you guys!

 

[Cattery]

Bullshit - I said no such thing. I also said it wasn't anyone's fault. Not "in other words" either, in very precise words:

"Bullshit" that along with rubbish/garbage seem to be your favourite words for starting a sentence where anyone disagrees with you.

And there's nothing like a bit of selective quoting to try backing ones argument I guess.

There you go. Not only did I not say Johnson initiated the contact, I said the exact opposite. Care to twist the above phrase around now?

Yep, that's what you said "in that post" but that's not the one I replied to, which was Post#241 .........

Lined him up? He barely moved. How can you line someone up by standing still?

Johnson came flying through, Thompson braced for the impact. He's allowed to do that. I don't particularly care about other decisions and how stupid they have been (Ziebell's for instance), they got this one 100% correct.

Johnson flying through into Thompson who was either "barely moving" or "standing still" in your words, therefore contact was initiated by Johnson.
So there's no twisting of phrases, no bullshit, just your own words.

The fact that you've backflipped on those words in later posts doesn't alter the fact that what I said was correct in relation to your original statement.

 

[Partridge]

Yep, that's what you said "in that post" but that's not the one I replied to, which was Post#241 .........

The fact that you've backflipped on those words in later posts doesn't alter the fact that what I said was correct in relation to your original statement.

I haven't backflipped on anything. Didn't realise it was a court of law. Furthermore, I'm happy to disagree with supporters, there are plenty of subjects on just this board I disagree with plenty of people on. Hasn't been an issue previously.

Lined him up? He barely moved. How can you line someone up by standing still?

Johnson came flying through, Thompson braced for the impact. He's allowed to do that. I don't particularly care about other decisions and how stupid they have been (Ziebell's for instance), they got this one 100% correct.

Please explain where in the above post - #241 - I said Johnson initiated contact. I've already said I haven't seen it since Saturday and humbly apologise for not being able to mentally recall every millisecond of action. Johnson was moving one way, much faster than Thompson, I've got no doubt about that. Neither intended to collide with the other, I'm reasonably confident about that too. "Initiating contact" to me would mean one or both players intentially bumped the other guy, this I very much doubt. But that's just me.

 

[maxy87]

Sour grapes? Kinda. I just think the whole sling tackle issue is a bit of a joke (Jack Trengove last year was a disgrace), but that's a whole new issue. IMO the MRP should take intent into account above all else - accidents are part of footy. Good luck for the rest of the year - if anyone from Victoria is to win it, I'd like it to be you guys!

Fair enough. I reckon Walkers antics were far more dangerous than Thompsons anyhow as theres no place for slings/spears etc in footy but anyway, could've seen the Thompson decision go either way. Looked bad initially but I don't think there was much recklessness let alone intent so I can see why it was dropped. Others may disagree but whatever..

Thanks for the well wishes..likewise to you, though I don't often get well wishes from my mates that are Crows fans haha. Love a win over the Crowies and a healthy, robust rivalry exists put it that way