Brad Scott unleashes

[Engimal]

He doesn't learn. The footy world is yelling "but he was going for the ball", but running through Joseph was another aim - even if it was secondary. 99% of AFL players get you can't do it ... why can't he?

Which is crazy, because 99% of players seem to be puzzled at the verdict.

 

[Blues_Man]

He is allowed to jump if the ball is in the air and in dispute whether it is a handball or kick.
The tribuneral said there was another alternative but to me that could only be waiting for joseph to get the ball.
And most of the footy world knows that shouldn't be how afl is played and that ziebell had every right to go for that ball.

End of discussion

You can't jump into a players head ...end of story

 

[KennyHunter9]

Which is crazy, because 99% of players seem to be puzzled at the verdict.

I look forward to you backing this one up ... or is it more hyperbole?

 

[Tas]

Please tell me how Joseph was to protect himself?

Same way Ziebell protected himself, put the arm up with elbow tucked in and be ready for oncoming impact, would guarantee you he would not have suffered concussion.

Have you fairies ever played footy? not sure why i need to tell you how to protect yourself in a game of footy.

 

[The Nostradamus]

You can't jump into a players head ...end of story

Incidental contact when going for the footy is allowed.

Everyone's point has been heard and we can all keep going around in circles.

 

[Tas]

You can't jump into a players head ...end of story

It wasn't a bump, he was contesting the ball. He hit him in the shoulder, it is arguable which incident caused his concussion as he passed a concussion test after the incident. He was in a collision with LT earlier.

Harbrow had a very similar incident to a Hawthorn player I believe, he had no case to answer.

 

[Engimal]

I look forward to you backing this one up ... or is it more hyperbole?

Please tell me you're joking? You haven't seen the plethora of messages left by players, coaches, media personalities and even neutral bloody fans, all bewildered by the decision? At the time, Jack Ziebell was trending on twitter, and you can be sure our dismal, tiny mob couldn't make that happen and I can assure you (or see for yourself https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/jack ziebell) that it was an overwhelming chorus of agreement that this was a shit decision.

 

[KennyHunter9]

Incidental contact when going for the footy is allowed.

Everyone's point has been heard and we can all keep going around in circles.

So, IF what he did was allowable under the rules, why did North, on the advice of their QC, fail to appeal to the Appeals Board?

You know the answer as well as I do.

The decision by the tribunal was a correct interpretation of the rules, and there was no grounds for appeal. North were not just being nice and compliant. They had nowhere to go. The decision was correct. It makes their outrage all the more absurd, and even quite comical.

 

[KennyHunter9]

Please tell me you're joking? You haven't seen the plethora of messages left by players, coaches, media personalities and even neutral bloody fans, all bewildered by the decision? At the time, Jack Ziebell was trending on twitter, and you can be sure our dismal, tiny mob couldn't make that happen and I can assure you (or see for yourself https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/jack ziebell) that it was an overwhelming chorus of agreement that this was a shit decision.

99% eh? Think you need a lesson in stats.

 

[The Nostradamus]

So, IF what he did was allowable under the rules, why did North, on the advice of their QC, fail to appeal to the Appeals Board?

You know the answer as well as I do.

The decision by the tribunal was a correct interpretation of the rules, and there was no grounds for appeal. North were not just being nice and compliant. They had nowhere to go. The decision was correct. It makes their outrage all the more absurd, and even quite comical.

I could go back and forth with you all night but I would rather spend my time doing something else so feel free to argue your point all night long by your lonesome if you want.
Enjoy your night mate

 

[telsor]

Well, if the North coach says something in support of one of his players, it must be true.

No way he'd be biased in any way.

 

[Engimal]

99% eh? Think you need a lesson in stats.

I don't think I do. I'll even demonstrate for you. Chris Judd is a 100% tool. See? Anyone can do it.

 

[scomac]

He is allowed to jump if the ball is in the air and in dispute whether it is a handball or kick.
The tribuneral said there was another alternative but to me that could only be waiting for joseph to get the ball.
And most of the footy world knows that shouldn't be how afl is played and that ziebell had every right to go for that ball.

End of discussion

I played for 20 years and that is not nor never was acceptable.

 

[KennyHunter9]

I could go back and forth with you all night but I would rather spend my time doing something else so feel free to argue your point all night long by your lonesome if you want.
Enjoy your night mate

Fine with me. You must know the secret reason they did not appeal.

 

[Replica31]

You let survival instincts kick in, brace for impact, raise your arm to defend yourself. Players are not protecting themselves these days because they can get cheap high free kicks out of it.

If you are running headlong towards other players then why in gods name would you just sit there and make no effort to protect yourself from the impact. Joseph has the right to attack the contest if his eyes are on the ball. Ziebell has the right to attack the contest if his eyes are on the ball.

They got the umpire in and showed him the vision again and he said at best he would have given Joseph a free kick for high contact. MRP got a medical report that Joseph suffered delayed concussion and Ziebell was guilty irrespective of the rules. This other option shit does not exist for contesting marks, doesn't exist for contesting the ball, it only exists for bumping, where you make no effort to go for the ball.

High bumps are against the rules whether you are contesting the ball or not and it's been this way for a a few years now. Read the rulebook. Joseph is under no obligation to raise his arms to protect his head from an oncoming player jumping into him illegally. The responsibility lies with the player who initiates the contact to not get his opponent in the head.

 

[KennyHunter9]

I don't think I do. I'll even demonstrate for you. Chris Judd is a 100% tool. See? Anyone can do it.

Wow, that was a quick retreat.

So your claim that 99% of players are puzzled by the verdict is based on three tweets and the same amount of interviews? I think you've got that slightly mixed up: less than 1% of players are puzzled by the verdict.

 

[gPhonque]

Please tell me how Joseph was to protect himself?

Well, here's a method you suggested 2 minutes earlier:

I still don't get why you think it is appropriate for him to be able to jump and brace himself, leaving Joseph with no option but to take a hit to the head or duck out of the way.

You've continually posted rubbish in every thread on this topic, but that's hilarious.

Do you even know what you're posting? It seems not. I mean, you suggest a way that Joseph could have protected himself in one post, and then in the very next post in the thread, you ask "how Joseph was to protect himself?"

Hilarious.

That said, you've made a wonderfully relevant point, even though you didn't mean it. Why didn't Joseph duck out of the way? And since, as you've suggested, he made no effort to protect himself when he could have, then why is all the blame (and the 4 week suspension) being put on Ziebell?

Many people have also said "HE TUCKED IN HIS ELBOW AND BUMPED HIM SO HE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED!" Newsflash kids - That's what players are supposed to do. Have you people only been watching football for 5 minutes? Perhaps people would prefer if Ziebell had thrown the elbow out and really cleaned him up? (ala footy 20 years ago?)


I just don't understand how ANY football lover can not agree with everything Brad Scott said in that interview. At one point, I was wondering if he had read my post earlier when he said that this is the "very heart" of the game we're talking about here. And it is. Whether people want to admit this or not, a large part of the excitement of our game stems from the fact that it is (or at least was) an almost full contact sport where players could get killed at any moment. If we remove that part of the game, then what do we have?

Do we want to see players wearing padding and helmets?

Or do we want to retain that sense of danger? The thing that made our game great for over 100 years?

I know which I'd prefer.

Why can't we all come together on this? Let's put all club allegiances aside just for a minute and look at the bigger picture - our game is being destroyed right before our eyes by the Rules Committee, the MRP, and now the tribunal.

Ziebell did EXACTLY what every supporter WANTS their players to do: ATTACK the contest, and in particular THE BALL, as HARD as they can.

Yes - it's unfortunate that Joseph was hit in the head. (if he WAS actually hit in the head...)

But that's all.

It wasn't deliberate.

Both players had eyes on the ball.

Accidents happen.

We're seriously getting into "touch football" territory here, and it's a real worry.

And anybody who suggests that Ziebell should have "waited for Joseph to take possession and then tackled him" is missing the entire point of what our game is - and has always - been about. It's quite sad actually that anybody would suggest that. Is that what our game has come to? Being polite to one another? Try not to hurt anybody?

**** that - as Allan Jeans said regarding Grand Final day: (one of my favourite quotes)

"It's murder day on that day."

THAT is what our game is about. NOT being nice and polite and considerate.


Perhaps people would prefer to see this scenario: (read in poncey English accent for full effect)

Ziebell: "Oooh, excuse me there Mr Joseph - are you going to take possession of that?"

Joseph: "Oh, I was thinking I might actually."

Ziebell: "But I think I want it more than you do. What do you say?"

Joseph: "Ooh, I don't know. We're in a bit of a pickle here, aren't we old chap?"

Ziebell: "Shall we toss a coin Sir?"

Joseph: "I'd rather not. I think I was first in line."

Ziebell: "Oh ok, go on then good chap. I might tackle you when you get it though... just letting you know!"


If you people (you know who you are) don't want to see a hard contact sport, then go and watch something else. Seriously. Go and watch something where players don't collide, where nobody gets hurt, and where players have to ask permission before they take possession of the ball.

But don't **** up our game.

 

[B-Rock]

Well, here's a method you suggested 2 minutes earlier:



You've continually posted rubbish in every thread on this topic, but that's hilarious.

Do you even know what you're posting? It seems not. I mean, you suggest a way that Joseph could have protected himself in one post, and then in the very next post in the thread, you ask "how Joseph was to protect himself?"

Hilarious.

That said, you've made a wonderfully relevant point, even though you didn't mean it. Why didn't Joseph duck out of the way? And since, as you've suggested, he made no effort to protect himself when he could have, then why is all the blame (and the 4 week suspension) being put on Ziebell?

Many people have also said "HE TUCKED IN HIS ELBOW AND BUMPED HIM SO HE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED!" Newsflash kids - That's what players are supposed to do. Have you people only been watching football for 5 minutes? Perhaps people would prefer if Ziebell had thrown the elbow out and really cleaned him up? (ala footy 20 years ago?)


I just don't understand how ANY football lover can not agree with everything Brad Scott said in that interview. At one point, I was wondering if he had read my post earlier when he said that this is the "very heart" of the game we're talking about here. And it is. Whether people want to admit this or not, a large part of the excitement of our game stems from the fact that it is (or at least was) an almost full contact sport where players could get killed at any moment. If we remove that part of the game, then what do we have?

Do we want to see players wearing padding and helmets?

Or do we want to retain that sense of danger? The thing that made our game great for over 100 years?

I know which I'd prefer.

Why can't we all come together on this? Let's put all club allegiances aside just for a minute and look at the bigger picture - our game is being destroyed right before our eyes by the Rules Committee, the MRP, and now the tribunal.

Ziebell did EXACTLY what every supporter WANTS their players to do: ATTACK the contest, and in particular THE BALL, as HARD as they can.

Yes - it's unfortunate that Joseph was hit in the head. (if he WAS actually hit in the head...)

But that's all.

It wasn't deliberate.

Both players had eyes on the ball.

Accidents happen.

We're seriously getting into "touch football" territory here, and it's a real worry.

And anybody who suggests that Ziebell should have "waited for Joseph to take possession and then tackled him" is missing the entire point of what our game is - and has always - been about. It's quite sad actually that anybody would suggest that. Is that what our game has come to? Being polite to one another? Try not to hurt anybody?

**** that - as Allan Jeans said regarding Grand Final day: (one of my favourite quotes)

"It's murder day on that day."

THAT is what our game is about. NOT being nice and polite and considerate.


Perhaps people would prefer to see this scenario: (read in poncey English accent for full effect)

Ziebell: "Oooh, excuse me there Mr Joseph - are you going to take possession of that?"

Joseph: "Oh, I was thinking I might actually."

Ziebell: "But I think I want it more than you do. What do you say?"

Joseph: "Ooh, I don't know. We're in a bit of a pickle here, aren't we old chap?"

Ziebell: "Shall we toss a coin Sir?"

Joseph: "I'd rather not. I think I was first in line."

Ziebell: "Oh ok, go on then good chap. I might tackle you when you get it though... just letting you know!"


If you people (you know who you are) don't want to see a hard contact sport, then go and watch something else. Seriously. Go and watch something where players don't collide, where nobody gets hurt, and where players have to ask permission before they take possession of the ball.

But don't **** up our game.

Quality post.

I notice that this entire thread is made up of Carlton supporters evaluating with one eye and West Coast supporters still bitter about Scott attacking them for ducking for frees weeks ago.

Too many posts on BigFooty are so obviously affected by petty personal biases and agendas that don't actually have anything to do with the issues themselves.

Yawn.

 

[clark_the_messiah]

Brad Scott won a lot of fans today.

I now love that guy.

 

[greennick]

Same way Ziebell protected himself, put the arm up with elbow tucked in and be ready for oncoming impact, would guarantee you he would not have suffered concussion.

Have you fairies ever played footy? not sure why i need to tell you how to protect yourself in a game of footy.

LOL, so instead of going for the ball, he should put his arm bent up next to his head like this:

There is no way to protect yourself from someone coming head high at you when you're trying to get the ball. Short of ducking. The only thing that helps it in a genuine marking contest is that nobody comes in to a marking contest with their shoulder dropped. It is not a good way to go for a mark. Or try and intercept a handball that has gone over someone's head.

 

[greennick]

Well, here's a method you suggested 2 minutes earlier:



You've continually posted rubbish in every thread on this topic, but that's hilarious.

Do you even know what you're posting? It seems not. I mean, you suggest a way that Joseph could have protected himself in one post, and then in the very next post in the thread, you ask "how Joseph was to protect himself?"

Hilarious.

That said, you've made a wonderfully relevant point, even though you didn't mean it. Why didn't Joseph duck out of the way? And since, as you've suggested, he made no effort to protect himself when he could have, then why is all the blame (and the 4 week suspension) being put on Ziebell?

Many people have also said "HE TUCKED IN HIS ELBOW AND BUMPED HIM SO HE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED!" Newsflash kids - That's what players are supposed to do. Have you people only been watching football for 5 minutes? Perhaps people would prefer if Ziebell had thrown the elbow out and really cleaned him up? (ala footy 20 years ago?)


I just don't understand how ANY football lover can not agree with everything Brad Scott said in that interview. At one point, I was wondering if he had read my post earlier when he said that this is the "very heart" of the game we're talking about here. And it is. Whether people want to admit this or not, a large part of the excitement of our game stems from the fact that it is (or at least was) an almost full contact sport where players could get killed at any moment. If we remove that part of the game, then what do we have?

Do we want to see players wearing padding and helmets?

Or do we want to retain that sense of danger? The thing that made our game great for over 100 years?

I know which I'd prefer.

Why can't we all come together on this? Let's put all club allegiances aside just for a minute and look at the bigger picture - our game is being destroyed right before our eyes by the Rules Committee, the MRP, and now the tribunal.

Ziebell did EXACTLY what every supporter WANTS their players to do: ATTACK the contest, and in particular THE BALL, as HARD as they can.

Yes - it's unfortunate that Joseph was hit in the head. (if he WAS actually hit in the head...)

But that's all.

It wasn't deliberate.

Both players had eyes on the ball.

Accidents happen.

Are you serious?? You say don't **** up the game and then you say Joseph should have ducked out of the way?? Did you not realise that I was JOKING when I said "did you expect him to duck out of the way"? Why does Joseph have to duck out of the way of an oncoming player?? It is the responsibility of the player coming through. Not Joseph trying to get he ball. Why the hell should he have to squib because of Ziebell's actions??

This was not an accidental collision. Ziebell saw Joseph, attempted to jump and get the ball, failed, smashed Joseph in the head with his arm in a bumping position, and knocked him out of the game (didn't play second half). The only conceivable accident was the collision to the head, every action prior was purposely taken, with little regard for what would happen to Joseph.

With the rules they are now, every player will be suspended for this, so you better get over it or find a way to change the AFL's mind, which you won't, because even though they whinge about it, most players don't want to get knocked out. If it does change, then don't come whinging when it is your player getting knocked out. We all know how much you lot whinged about Cotchin's behaviour a couple of years ago.

There is still plenty of opportunity for hard hits at fair contests. But it isn't fair to do what Ziebell did. It had two outcomes, either Joseph squibbing or getting smashed. Nothing tough about that, no matter how great the collisions look at the time.

 

[greennick]

Because if he didn't brace himself he could have Still caused damage to Joseph and also himself

How was he going to get the ball with his arm pinned to his side? Since, after all, he had only eyes for the ball and was going for that.

Didn't seem to make much of an attempt, did he?

 

[laminex]

Haha wow I'm really not very good at this.

EDIT: Wait the second part of my post wasn't referring to yours at all, I was referring to the thread in general.

lol i give up, i am lost and concede to you my friend.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Rubbish. The advice of the QC was not to challenge. Why? Because the rules were correctly applied. The Appeals Board hears appeals. They are distinct from the rules of the games committee.

You missed the point. Perhaps the rules are flawed. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Matera92]

The ridiculous irony of this whole situation is that the AFL has spent years trying to increase the speed of the game, yet they expect players to 'consider their options' during a contest that takes place in a split second. I mean..seriously?

When I play footy and I don't go into a pack, or crash a marking contest while thinking 'jeez I hope that bloke is protecting himself'. I don't care what the other guy is doing, only that I'm making my best attempt to get the ball.

It's like asking an F1 driver to use indicators.