Brad Scott unleashes

[KennyHunter9]

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

That's a different issue. Maybe they are. But they've been the same for a few years now - ever since the AFL decided to protect the head - so claims that this decision changes the game are simply hyperbole.

I think that the decision that really did confuse the issue was the one to let Maxwell off for his hit on McGinnity a few years back. The AFL were heading down a clear path - protecting the head - when that decision confused everyone.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I think that the decision that really did confuse the issue was the one to let Maxwell off for his hit on McGinnity a few years back. The AFL were heading down a clear path - protecting the head - when that decision confused everyone.

Collingwood exploited a loophole in the rules by claiming the head contact was accidental. The AFL was forced to alter the rules following that incident.

 

[KennyHunter9]

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.

Sorry to repeat ... but no error was made. Scott, Brayshaw, Petrie & Co are whinging, not pointing out any errors. If there was an error, North would have appealed.

Argue all you like about the rules, but they've been the same for a few years now.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There has never been a footballer who while he has eyes for the ball would even consider the vulnerability of another player, he would not know who it is and what possible outcome could occur if he continues to go hard at the football.
Anyone who thinks a player who is going for the ball needs to consider or even think about this has lost their marbles.
The object of the game is the ball, by being hell bent on achieving your object to get the ball you incidently or accidently run through a player or cause them harm is exactly that. Accidental!!!
To many of you guys are watching slow motion replays of incidents and genuinely believing the players have time to stand around, way up options and choose either A,B or C. I often wonder how many of some of you have actually ever played the game.
Things happen in a split second, our game is a game that is played in a 360 degree world where contact can come from anywhere at anytime by any number of others. In this game you can get hurt, no one wants anyone to get hurt but in this particular sport you could get hurt. You know this when you take the sport up as a child. Everytime you play it you accept the risk.
ACCIDENTAL CONTACT IS ACCIDENTAL!!!! As long as the ball is the sole objective of a player then know player should ever and has never had to worry about the out come of such accidental contact.
The AFL are so wrong with all this, they have no right to penalise accidental contact other than a free kick if the player is going for the ball.
Australian rules football is about getting the ball and the game needs to continue under the premise that we want you to do this.
AI have played and coached senior footy for 25 years and sometimes people get hurt, life sucks sometimes. But the day I ever have to instruct a player to be careful with their opponents is the day I walk away. Play another sport and even more follow another sport if you think tough hard focus at the ball is not your cup of tea. The outcome to your opponent should not be your concern and certainly should not be your responsibility if your sole focus is the ball.
If the majority of football supporters now think players have to think about their opponents then as someone said above, this once great game is not a shadow of the great game it once was.

 

[treefingers]

http://www.afl.com.au/Video/tabid/76/contentid/470850/Default.aspx

Don't know if this vid has been posted as well, but Scott pretty much calls AA 'sensitive'


I agree with Scott here...players and coaches should be allowed to say what they want imo, instead of being censored by the AFL at all costs

 

[mufassa]

Sorry to repeat ... but no error was made. Scott, Brayshaw, Petrie & Co are whinging, not pointing out any errors. If there was an error, North would have appealed.

Argue all you like about the rules, but they've been the same for a few years now.

So everyone that disagreed with the suspension is whinging? That is a lot of people. Must be something in it.

 

[JoondalupJ]

I

If you haven't seen it yet, I suggest you do: One of the best pressers you will see and No, it's not just because it's my club. Watch it for your self and see.



The media world is up and about on this:

FOX FOOTY ‏@FOXFOOTY
Highlights of Brad Scott's enthralling news conference - tonight on #AFL360 - LIVE @FOXFOOTY this evening

Jon Ralph ‏@RalphyHeraldSun
Too often clubs on the AFL drip too scared to criticise City Hall. Open discourse good for footy. Brad Scott fighting the fight

Mark Robinson ‏@Robbo_heraldsun
while Andy d is away clubs/players r firing bombs across the bow of the SS AFL ...AD would nuke them back.Wonder if AA will ‪

AFL News Wire ‏@AFLNewsWire
North Melbourne coach Brad Scott says Jack Ziebell's suspension strikes at football's core http://afl.to/P31hOs

Matt Thompson ‏@MattThompsonAFL
That was press conference of the year from Brad Scott. Stand by for full coverage on http://afl.com.au.

Swatta ‏@WayneSchwass
Asking @jackziebell to change his ways is like asking him to alter his DNA. Not going to happen. ‪#keepplayingithard‬&toughjack

Grant Thomas ‏@thomo_ninemsn
You can't applaud the spectacle & then denigrate the participants that deliver the intensity, courage & verve that underpins it.


Cameron Ling ‏@CameronLing
Let's not let the Judd decision overshadow the fact the Ziebell suspension is one of the worst decisions in AFL history! Attacking the ball!

More from the following:

Steven Quartermain
Matthew Richardson
Mick Warner
Grant Thomas
Robert Shaw
James Brayshaw
Eddie McGuire
Wayne Schwass
David King
Cameron Mooney
Daniel Harford
Gerard Whateley
Mark Robinson
Damian Barrett
Cameron Ling
Andrew Maher
Rohan Connolly
Mark Fine

I know what he said and he was correct. Legal fear of being sued is making the AFL change the game into basketball. The north player was airborne he couldn,t stop , his eyes were on the ball he was going for the ball nothing else when, collision was imminent his eyes flashed at his opponant.
It was accidental and that can not, let alone should not, be an offence.
It was not malicious, this is or should be a turning point for the AFL. It probably won,t be because they are blind beaurocrats.
This issue delves deeply into what the fans expect from their teams and what the players take into account in regeard to consideration of their own safety.
In other words , "want to play this game there are risks". The head will be protected at all times but no free kick was awarded? But the head WILL be protected and should be at all times . Accidents are just that though accidents.
We don,t call road traffic crashes accidents if someone is doing the wrong thing its called a collision or a crash NOT AN ACCIDENT! Two footballers going for the ball and the BALL is the main word here then it is an accident .
Four weeks for doing what your paid to do is a nonsense. These politically correct fools like Anderson and others who run OUR game need a wake up call.
This footy of OURS is entertainment, when the game is played hard and fairly and someone is hurt and AFL social scientists stuff up a player for four weeks they had better start looking at something really serious here that maybe they are overlooking. Their customers, you and me, all of us that pay for memberships or pay for gate fees to get into a game , or pay monstrous prices for pies and hot dog and beer inside the grounds as a captive audience , then have to sit back and watch a game with a player they want in , out because he did an "eye on the ball" collision that was accidental. That is what the AFL should be LOOKING at. Because if they turn this game into what its not , they may actually start having less punters LOOKING!

When I see a player give space and hold his arms up in the air instead of running straight at an opponant and tackling I cringe. I don,t like that , its not Australian Rules Football.
I like man on man, I like shoot outs , goals make the crowd roar , if a young man does not want to play at that level and face that kind of hardness , don,t play the game at all. All snipers need kicking out of the game completely. Fair hard players is what I pay to see, not bullshit and crappy confusing rules.
The game is too fast hence the bloody injury lists a mile long.And handball that doesn,t exist, the AFL can get stuffed if they don,t change things back a bit.
We are in dire straights with how the game is played now . We used to have a unique sport like nothing else in the world , now we don,t . I could go on about the details but people out there know what I mean . I can walk away from TV footy thats crap. And I pay yes I pay foxfooty to watch , when I consider my money is being wasted I will give that the bullet too. How may others think like this.
This is not an older blokes whinging, my sons don,t like a lot of the aspects of the game now when you only see real footy in September sometimes not even that if you enjoy the rugby grand finals of Sydney and the eagles a few years ago. But they were tough and hard, lots of dodgy umpy calls there too, because of congestion. My eldest boy in Melbourne barely goes to footy now if at all.
This is what we need , we need Dimitriou Anderson and crowd removed , because the game doesn,t look like footy in lots of cases and its growing.
So don,t worry North Melbourne the rest of us are pissed off too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[smasha]

Ask Richmond players who get penalised for breathing.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

So everyone that disagreed with the suspension is whinging? That is a lot of people. Must be something in it.

Yes the rules are wrong as they are not in the spirit of the game.

But that is not what you are arguing about.

You are whinging becasue he was technically in the wrong, but you don't wnat to see that because of all the emotional bullshit of this sorry story.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Also, why is the fact he is airborn get consistnetly overlooked by North supporters.

Is it becasue you know why he was gone, it is for this reason. Once you leave the ground and hip and shoulder someone in the head you are gone.

This is not 1992 or 2002, its 2012 and in 2012, players get rubbed out for instinct and accidental contact, but either you get smarter or you just enjoy the view from th3e stands.

 

[smasha]

Here is a question.
Would this suspension get so worked over and talked about if North were playing GWS this week and not Richmond?

The media on SEN the next morning said he would go for it and said he needs to get that out of his game.

Then they saw the fixture and did a U-Turn.

Emotions do strange things.

 

[Wonderdog]

That's a different issue. Maybe they are. But they've been the same for a few years now - ever since the AFL decided to protect the head - so claims that this decision changes the game are simply hyperbole.

I think that the decision that really did confuse the issue was the one to let Maxwell off for his hit on McGinnity a few years back. The AFL were heading down a clear path - protecting the head - when that decision confused everyone.

I think you are a little confused. The Ziebell ruling changes the game because previously the 'sacrosant head' policy has only been aplied to bumping/tackling situations and not to contested ball siutations. It is applied where a player has an opportunity to tackle but elects to bump and collects the head. Ziebell went for a contested ball. He jumped in the air 'cos the ball was the air and arrived simulataneously as Joseph. The tribunal agreed that he had eyes only for the ball, therefore any contact was incidental. Last year for example Douglass from the Crows went for a contested ball and Macmillan from North went for the same ball. Both players had eyes on the ball, Doglass arrived fractionally sooner, and Macmillan finished up with a fracured jaw. There were no complaints from North or the generla footy community despite the severity of the injury cos it was unintentional and part of a contested ball situation. If the Ziebell ruling is now applied Dougalss should be suspended for that act. That's the change.

 

[Tas]

Also, why is the fact he is airborn get consistnetly overlooked by North supporters.

Is it becasue you know why he was gone, it is for this reason. Once you leave the ground and hip and shoulder someone in the head you are gone.

This is not 1992 or 2002, its 2012 and in 2012, players get rubbed out for instinct and accidental contact, but either you get smarter or you just enjoy the view from th3e stands.

Jumping off the ground is not an offence, only if you choose to not contest the ball and bump and hit someone high. The handball was a hospital handball with a high trajectory, it is a very similar arc to a kick. If you want to get to a lolipop kick before your opponent you also have to sometimes jump off the ground to meet the ball at a higher point in the arc.

People who keep quoting the rule book need to go back to the rule book and find anywhere it says you can't jump for a contest. The bumping rule is very specific about what you can and can't do.

Because the tribunal were happy he was contesting the ball you have to totally disregard the bumping rules.

 

[Wonderdog]

Also, why is the fact he is airborn get consistnetly overlooked by North supporters.

Is it becasue you know why he was gone, it is for this reason. Once you leave the ground and hip and shoulder someone in the head you are gone.

This is not 1992 or 2002, its 2012 and in 2012, players get rubbed out for instinct and accidental contact, but either you get smarter or you just enjoy the view from th3e stands.

You are allowed to leave the gound to contest a high ball. You are not allowed to delIiver a bump to a player's head that has the ball. Ziebell did not bump a player with the ball, the ball was in dispute. The leaving the ground call is irrelevant in a contested ball situation. Players jump to get contested balls in the air all the time.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

I think you are a little confused. The Ziebell ruling changes the game because previously the 'sacrosant head' policy has only been aplied to bumping/tackling situations and not to contested ball siutations. It is applied where a player has an opportunity to tackle but elects to bump and collects the head. Ziebell went for a contested ball. He jumped in the air 'cos the ball was the air and arrived simulataneously as Joseph. The tribunal agreed that he had eyes only for the ball, therefore any contact was incidental. Last year for example Douglass from the Crows went for a contested ball and Macmillan from North went for the same ball. Both players had eyes on the ball, Doglass arrived fractionally sooner, and Macmillan finished up with a fracured jaw. There were no complaints from North or the generla footy community despite the severity of the injury cos it was unintentional and part of a contested ball situation. If the Ziebell ruling is now applied Dougalss should be suspended for that act. That's the change.

His SHOULDER HIT HIS HEAD!!! That is a BUMP. Accidental or not. These are the rules for 2012!!!!!

How fecking dumb are you North supporters. I mean, I know you have a persecution complex by default, but this is a joke.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Jumping off the ground is not an offence, only if you choose to not contest the ball and bump and hit someone high. The handball was a hospital handball with a high trajectory, it is a very similar arc to a kick. If you want to get to a lolipop kick before your opponent you also have to sometimes jump off the ground to meet the ball at a higher point in the arc.

People who keep quoting the rule book need to go back to the rule book and find anywhere it says you can't jump for a contest. The bumping rule is very specific about what you can and can't do.

Because the tribunal were happy he was contesting the ball you have to totally disregard the bumping rules.

So if you contest a ball this means you cannot be bumping?

News to me.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

You are allowed to leave the gound to contest a high ball. You are not allowed to delIiver a bump to a player's head that has the ball. Ziebell did not bump a player with the ball, the ball was in dispute. The leaving the ground call is irrelevant in a contested ball situation. Players jump to get contested balls in the air all the time.

Ha ha, so becasue he didn't have the ball, are you saying you can hit him in the head. Awesome logic if true.

 

[KennyHunter9]

So everyone that disagreed with the suspension is whinging? That is a lot of people. Must be something in it.

I am surprised people are getting so confused.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. (As is everyone who has not bothered to provide an opinion).

Except that North have a different role: as the club of the player concerned, they can back up their opinion with action: appealing. But they haven't. Their rhetoric is empty:

1. They are complaining the game has changed - as if the rules have suddenly changed - but they have not. The AFL has been seeking to protect the head for years now.

2. So are they complaining that the rules have been wrongly interpreted? Apparently not, since they are not appealing.

Must be something in it? Yes - it's called a story. And in case you didn't know, the AFL media are desperate for them. Too many journalists, not enough news.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Jumping off the ground is not an offence, only if you choose to not contest the ball and bump and hit someone high. The handball was a hospital handball with a high trajectory, it is a very similar arc to a kick. If you want to get to a lolipop kick before your opponent you also have to sometimes jump off the ground to meet the ball at a higher point in the arc.

People who keep quoting the rule book need to go back to the rule book and find anywhere it says you can't jump for a contest. The bumping rule is very specific about what you can and can't do.

Because the tribunal were happy he was contesting the ball you have to totally disregard the bumping rules.

Tas, you are one of the far more senisble posters around here that I read, but you need to take your blinkers off.

If you are arguing this is against the spirirt of the game, fine. But if you are arguning the rules as they currenlty stand, you are wrong.

I personally don't like the rules as they are telling players to think more and be less instinctive, which is the exact opposite to how most would play the game.

But in this case, the right call was made, perhaps the punishment too high originally by 1 week, but correct nonetheless.

 

[GreatBradScott]

Here is a question.
Would this suspension get so worked over and talked about if North were playing GWS this week and not Richmond?

The media on SEN the next morning said he would go for it and said he needs to get that out of his game.

Then they saw the fixture and did a U-Turn.

Emotions do strange things.

Uhh.... Martin gets suspended for the Melbourne and Gold Coast games, and then suddenly returns against North. Interesting.

 

[Wonderdog]

Sor

His SHOULDER HIT HIS HEAD!!! That is a BUMP. Accidental or not. These are the rules for 2012!!!!!

How fecking dumb are you North supporters. I mean, I know you have a persecution complex by default, but this is a joke.

Sorry it is about the language of the game. "Bump" as it is used in footy implies intent, you deliver a bump, that is the intent, to hit the other player. For example a "shirt front" bump is when a player deliberatly bumps the front of an opposition player. It is not when a player accidentally colldes with the front of an opposition player when both are going for ball. One is a bump ie intent the other is a collision. Ther are many incidental collisions in the game that are not bumps. Previously they have been seen by the game as incidental collision (not bumps) and therefore have not been penalised regardless of any high contact.

 

[Wonderdog]

Ha ha, so becasue he didn't have the ball, are you saying you can hit him in the head. Awesome logic if true.

No he can't deliberately hit him in the head. But untill this ruling he has been able to go for the ball, with eyes only on the ball (as agreed by the Tribunal) and any injuries caused by the resultant collision have been seen as incidental and accidental. It is about intent. There was no intention to bump just to get the ball.

 

[LT Smash]

His SHOULDER HIT HIS HEAD!!! That is a BUMP. Accidental or not. These are the rules for 2012!!!!!

How fecking dumb are you North supporters. I mean, I know you have a persecution complex by default, but this is a joke.

Just out of interest Pevers, when do you believe it is okay to accidentally or incidentally make head high contact with another player?

 

[Pevers-Legend]

No he can't deliberately hit him in the head. But untill this ruling he has been able to go for the ball, with eyes only on the ball (as agreed by the Tribunal) and any injuries caused by the resultant collision have been seen as incidental and accidental. It is about intent. There was no intention to bump just to get the ball.

How do you go for a ball if your arm is tucked away to bump. Either he has a strange way of grabbing the ball, or he braced for impact, which meant he bumped him at the same time he was trying to go for the ball i.e. was caught in 2 minds.

Which is why the tribunal said waht it did. It didn't say his sole focus was the man or the ball.

I am more mad at the fact he cops an extra week for challenging it. Such a dictatorial way handing out punishments. Imagine if our courts were like that.

He's your whack. Don't like it, challenge it, but if you do and we are right, have an extra year in jail for annoying us.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Just out of interest Pevers, when do you believe it is okay to accidentally or incidentally make head high contact with another player?

Fair question. I think accidental contact is fine, and many suspensions this year should have just been warnings.

The only issue with Ziebull incident for mine was he left the ground and intentionally or not, tucked his arm in (although I suspect my brain is being reprogrammed to think that is not ok when 5 years ago I wouldn't have batted an eyelid, such is becoming accustomised to new rules).

However, had he stuck his knee out and done the same damage with both hands going for the ball, for me that is classic hurt them and earnt it play. Something that footy is all about.

I was never a dirty player, but if you could make a contest and hurt someone in the process of fairly contesting, then you did it. That is what makes it a brutal, but fair game.