Brad Scott unleashes

[underthestars]

Here's the current rule for high bumps sourced from the 2012 tribunal handbook. It's really quite straightforward and most of the arguments around Ziebell protecting himself, touching the ball first etc. are irrelevant. The only real question under the rules is whether he had a realistic alternative way to contest the ball.

On the rules you've shown there's no argument he's guilty. With his history he should've taken the 3 weeks.
Still don't like how soft it's all getting.
And yes, North whinge a lot. Contributed to Goddard's two weeks by having a cry. Bit Hypocritical.

 

[Quinz]

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.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused, the AFL is trying to slow the game down.The coaches are to blame for it speeding up.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[AlibiMonday]

I've swayed both ways on this for the last couple of days, but for me there's a major component that everyone seems to be missing. JZ absolutely played the ball, but he did it in a manner that was designed to play the player as well. Joseph was opened up, running with the flight of the ball. JZ had the benefit of seeing both targets (ball and Joseph) in sight and chose to optimise the impact whereby it clearly poleaxed the vulnerable Joseph. There has to be some onus on protecting someone who can't see the oncoming traffic. This means also Harbrow should have been suspended for his hit on Lewis.

So yes, he played the ball, but lets not forget, he also played the player.

What's also forgotten is that if JZ hadn't targeted Riewoldt, this would have been 2 weeks only at best, which is fair. It's because of his record and the challenge that it's blown out to 4. I have no argument with this suspension.

 

[gPhonque]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused, the AFL is trying to slow the game down.The coaches are to blame for it speeding up.

New to football are you?

The AFL spent the best part of the 90's and 00's tweaking rules constantly in order to speed up the game, eliminate dead spots, and keep the spectacle flowing constantly.

It is only the last year or two that they have started going back the other way.

As I said in another thread: is there another sporting competition in the world as badly run as the AFL?

Every rule they change creates new problems... that they then create/change more rules in order to fix... which creates new problems... and around and around we go.

Welcome to the AFL! (and this is all while claiming that we have "the best game in the world!... so that's why we have to change it every year!")

My favourite one?

The whole concept that "the head is sacrosanct." Well, of course it is! It always has been! But what happens when you take it to the absolute extremes that the AFL and the umpires have?

You end up with players risking serious injury in order to draw ANY kind of head-high contact, and thus a free kick.

You know what else it led to? (in combination with the "must get the ball out if you dive on it" rule?)

Players sliding into contests so that they couldn't give away head high free kicks when attacking the loose ball, and could also get the handball away. (and also perhaps draw some head-high contact themselves!)

But then what happened?

Gary Rohan got his leg snapped.

Quick! We can't have that! Time for more knee-jerk rules on top of broken rules!

So we of course now have the whole sliding rule/interpretation and the associated problems we've seen this year. Another grey area. Yay. (although to be fair, I think this rule may actually work out in time)

It all makes me laugh, but it's actually quite sad how dumb the AFL are.

Too many cooks... and too many people trying to justify their pay cheques.


Sorry... got a bit off topic there... although it's all related at the same time.


But you know what the saddest thing out of all this is?

I don't think we have the best game in the world anymore.

 

[clark_the_messiah]

Carlton fans are the dumbest I have ever seen

They have embarrassed themselves beyond belief this week with their deluded and insanely biased comments on the Judd and Ziebell cases

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused, the AFL is trying to slow the game down.The coaches are to blame for it speeding up.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Nice 1984 reference, wonder why the nickname "Ministry of Truth" has never caught on for AFL house?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

New to football are you?

My reaction to your post can best be summed up in picture form.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused, the AFL is trying to slow the game down.The coaches are to blame for it speeding up.

Yep, coaches have a lot to answer for, and yet they continue to escape blame.

 

[juzzo]

I've swayed both ways on this for the last couple of days, but for me there's a major component that everyone seems to be missing. JZ absolute played the ball, but he did it in a manner that was designed to play the player as well. Joseph was opened up, running with the flight of the ball. JZ had the benefit of seeing both targets (ball and Joseph) in sight and chose to optimise the impact whereby it clearly poleaxe the vulnerable player. There has to be some onus on protecting someone who can't see the oncoming traffic. This means also Harbrow should have been suspended for his hit on Lewis.

So yes, he played the ball, but lets not forget, he also played the player.

What's also forgotten is that if JZ hadn't targeted Riewoldt, this would have been 2 weeks only at best, which is fair. It's because of his record and the challenge that it's blown out to 4. I have no argument with this suspension.

Fantastic unbiased post. I have very similar thoughts, I don't think you can say he 100% played the ball given the way he tucked his elbow in. Does he have the right to protect himself if it means hurting an opponent?

 

[Quivorir]

This was argued earlier in the year and there wasnt a peep. As ive said a few times now, the indignant outrage from North fans about this (especially the OP) is staggering when they were riding for Goodes to be suspended earlier in the year when the tribunal finding was the same (ie: satisfied his intention was the ball, but that he should have taken some other, undefined action) because it suited them to have Goodes out for the week.

I dont even remember what incident your talking about, so I won't comment.

 

[mufassa]

I don't like whichever Scott that is, but he's spot on.

Would like to see the other Coaches come out and support him.

They have started too. Hardwick has started the ball rolling.

Also no fine will be issued - end of the day he is just telling like it is - well like most level headed football followers would agree - present trolls excluded.

 

[mufassa]

The most adept post. Brad Scott is a master whinger.
North seem to be always whinging.

You do know you are whinging about us whinging?

 

[Public Enemy No1]

I've swayed both ways on this for the last couple of days, but for me there's a major component that everyone seems to be missing. JZ absolute played the ball, but he did it in a manner that was designed to play the player as well. Joseph was opened up, running with the flight of the ball. JZ had the benefit of seeing both targets (ball and Joseph) in sight and chose to optimise the impact whereby it clearly poleaxed the vulnerable Joseph. There has to be some onus on protecting someone who can't see the oncoming traffic. This means also Harbrow should have been suspended for his hit on Lewis.

So yes, he played the ball, but lets not forget, he also played the player.

What's also forgotten is that if JZ hadn't targeted Riewoldt, this would have been 2 weeks only at best, which is fair. It's because of his record and the challenge that it's blown out to 4. I have no argument with this suspension.

Exactly.. There is no doubt that JZ knew a player was coming from the opposite direction. It was a slow 'loopy' handball.
It was not a 'split second decision'. It was a calculated attempt to attack the ball..yes! but also to optimise his impact on the on coming player.

4 weeks is excessive agreed but 0 weeks as some are suggesting is naive.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

What's also forgotten is that if JZ hadn't targeted Riewoldt, this would have been 2 weeks only at best, which is fair. It's because of his record and the challenge that it's blown out to 4. I have no argument with this suspension.

Forgotten? It's been mentioned a million times.

Even two weeks would have been two weeks too many.

 

[greennick]

Forgotten? It's been mentioned a million times.

Even two weeks would have been two weeks too many.

Nah, for the reasons well put by Alibi a little higher, he deserves to get suspended. He went in and maximised the hurt he could have on Joseph, which minimised the chance of actually getting the ball.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Nah, for the reasons well put by Alibi a little higher, he deserves to get suspended. He went in and maximised the hurt he could have on Joseph, which minimised the chance of actually getting the ball.

Will agree to disagree. Surprised this is even still going to be honest, no one is going to change their views.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Yeah, worrying signs for the game...

...mainly in the seemingly now accepted practice of the penalty fitting the injury, rather than the 'crime'.

Rioli takes mark of the century this weekend and his knee cracks Maxwell's cheekbone on the way up in the process, and his full body weight lands on Heath Shaw at an awkward angle on the ground, dislocating Heath's shoulder.

How many weeks??

zero. Because it's a marking contest.

 

[00Stinger]

Ziebells suspension is no sadder day for the AFL than the Scott brothers both flying up to poach Boak midway through the season to their clubs.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Ziebells suspension is no sadder day for the AFL than the Scott brothers both flying up to poach Boak midway through the season to their clubs.

He came to us, in Melbourne. But thanks for your input. It would be terrible to try to build your team by recruiting guys who are ready to leave their clubs - imagine how disruptive it would be, especially if you paid them a ludicrous amount of money.

 

[Waynesworld]

Ziebells suspension is no sadder day for the AFL than the Scott brothers both flying up to poach Boak midway through the season to their clubs.

No sadder than that post.....I think that everyone reading this thread is now just a bit dumber for having seen it.

 

[GreatBradScott]

He came to us, in Melbourne. But thanks for your input. It would be terrible to try to build your team by recruiting guys who are ready to leave their clubs - imagine how disruptive it would be, especially if you paid them a ludicrous amount of money.

Mitch Clark says Hi.

 

[Andrew Mc]

zero. Because it's a marking contest.

And seeing he took the mark of the year, he actually played for the ball (not just contested it by trying to clean up his opponent in a high, rough fashion).

 

[Galileo9]

You do know you are whinging about us whinging?

not really, we are just pointing it out.

 

[Barkly St End]

The only criterion should be if the player has eyes only for the ball and runs straight at it, in particular, if the ball is in the air in a 50/50 contest.

If a player has his head over the ball at ground level, it's different, because both the ball and the player's head are completely in vision, and it's not really a 50/50 contest anymore, the player with his head over the ball (and by extension, being first to it), has right of way, the onus is on the second player to dislodge the ball without high impact (or getting into his back, etc).

Admittedly, it gets very complicated when two players arrive at the ball at ground level almost instantaneously.

 

[mufassa]

not really, we are just pointing it out.

Just like Scott is pointing it out the tribunal made an error. You are either both pointing something out or both whinging. Take your pick.