Brad Scott unleashes

[kaiserchief13]

That wasn't the intent though, the head contact was incidental.

Hence why it was assessed as negligent. Could've easily been reckless as well which would've given him an extra week I believe.

 

[THE MOEMAN]

Not tucking the arm and taking a blow to the ribs would be a higher risk I would've thought.
Not sure what some people wanted of Jack. To stop and wait for Joseph to get the ball? That's just not footy.

agree with this

 

[Ry009]

I agree entirely with his point, it was a 0 week incident that should never have even been raised let alone allowed to get this far. 4 weeks is a joke. Scott just handled it, as per usual, with a whinge instead of anything constructive..

Im confused, you agree it shouldn't have got weeks (which is open for discussion) and yet say he is whinging?

 

[Dickie Greenleaf]

Not tucking the arm and taking a blow to the ribs would be a higher risk I would've thought.

Not sure what some people wanted of Jack. To stop and wait for Joseph to get the ball? That's just not footy.

That's the implication. The AFL will come out and say that isn't the case, but as we have seen in the past, players are just so unsure about what is ok and what isn't these days. The game is quickly heading into basketball territory here.

 

[Mateyman]

He got a 2 week sentance.
+ 1 for loading +1 for contesting.

He didnt get the same as judd.

Judd's penalty was supposed to include loading and he basically contested whilst saying he put in a "guilty plea"

 

[juzzo]

Does Brad Scott have pommie heritage?

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Im confused, you agree it shouldn't have got weeks (which is open for discussion) and yet say he is whinging?

To quote Luke Darcy's evil twin, I didn't like the way he went about it. Smarter ways to criticise a decision, and even better to just leave it when you know there's rules about it. Answer the question, say you're disappointed, but I think he's gone into too much detail with the 'I lost sleep for the game' theatrics. Most coaches would say "I didn't like it, Jack didn't like it but that's all I've got to say" or something similar, and that's the right way to handle it.

There's a fair bit of politics in football, even if you hate the bloke you just played against you shake his hand and say good game. You can flog a team by 100 points in a grand final and the speech will still always start with 'credit to the opposition, they fought really hard all day, theyre a great side'. In an exampe like this, the way to handle it is to comment, make your position clear, but then move on, not take 6 minutes saying this decision is the downfall of the game.

 

[Underdog]

Im confused, you agree it shouldn't have got weeks (which is open for discussion) and yet say he is whinging?

Whining is not dependant on being right or wrong...

 

[L_W_P]

So we should let the opposition get the ball? that was the only other alternative.

He couldn't have stuck his arms up above his head and tried to punch the ball away like most players spoiling a contest?

 

[Bardo State]

That's the implication. The AFL will come out and say that isn't the case, but as we have seen in the past, players are just so unsure about what is ok and what isn't these days. The game is quickly heading into basketball territory here.

There have been two really worrying suspensions this year. Whitecross' and Ziebell's. Granted Whitey got off but the fact that he was given weeks by the MRP for STANDING UP was a bad sign.

Very confusing for players.

 

[Replica31]

Not tucking the arm and taking a blow to the ribs would be a higher risk I would've thought.

Not sure what some people wanted of Jack. To stop and wait for Joseph to get the ball? That's just not footy.

I was talking about the risk of suspension. Tucking the arm lowered the risk of injury to himself but put him in a situation where, under the current rules, any resulting contact to his opponents head would see him suspended. It's not some new rule. It's been this way for a while.

 

[Dickie Greenleaf]

Just on Brad Scott and the horde of North Melbourne serial whingers, if a rival coach had come out & made comments on this very issue, would it be considered whining?

 

[Husk]

Funny how he didn't whinge about the criminally biased umpiring in favour of his side last Friday night.

He probably felt Carlton and it's supporters had done enough crying for all concerned.

 

[Ry009]

To quote Luke Darcy's evil twin, I didn't like the way he went about it. Smarter ways to criticise a decision, and even better to just leave it when you know there's rules about it. Answer the question, say you're disappointed, but I think he's gone into too much detail with the 'I lost sleep for the game' theatrics. Most coaches would say "I didn't like it, Jack didn't like it but that's all I've got to say" or something similar, and that's the right way to handle it.

There's a fair bit of politics in football, even if you hate the bloke you just played against you shake his hand and say good game. You can flog a team by 100 points in a grand final and the speech will still always start with 'credit to the opposition, they fought really hard all day, theyre a great side'. In an exampe like this, the way to handle it is to comment, make your position clear, but then move on, not take 6 minutes saying this decision is the downfall of the game.

Was asked a question and answered it by strongly defending his player. I think the issue is big enough to discuss at length, also the incident/issue had nothing to with the result - not sure about your example.

If the club went on with it past this weekend I would be disappointed though. But they won't.

 

[MrChristo]

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??


Corey Enright sees Gumbleton in front of him, consciously thinks to himself, "This guy has a history of leg miscle injuries...I think I'll take him on". Gumbleton subsequently pulls a hamstring in the chase, is out for 4 weeks and possibly career over.

Penalty?

Fact is that everyone knows (although the AFL doesn't want mothers to admit) that when 100kg men running at 30-40 kph hit each other, there will be injuries from time to time.
A fact that every boy knows when he takes up the game.

You could argue that they get paid accordingly...but that may be a slight tangent.

 

[fairdinkum]

Nobody can critisise the tribunal's decision for this. If you have a problem with it it's the rules committee you should be angry at. The fact is if you hit a player in the head and you had an alternative you will be rubbed out. No ifs, no buts.

Oh, hai.

 

[ziad]

Just on Brad Scott and the horde of North Melbourne serial whingers, if a rival coach had come out & made comments on this very issue, would it be considered whining?

Only Scott(2) and that hawk spud would. others have class

 

[Bardo State]

I was talking about the risk of suspension. Tucking the arm lowered the risk of injury to himself but put him in a situation where, under the current rules, any resulting contact to his opponents head would see him suspended. It's not some new rule. It's been this way for a while.

Do you think that it was the right interpretation though? He essentially had three options.

A) Go for the ball and brace for any incidental contact
B) Go for the ball, not brace and open himself up to serious injury without really decreasing the risk of opposition injury drastically
C) Not go for the ball

I know which option I would want a Hawthorn player to take. Ridiculous to suggest you would want any player to do anything but what Ziebell did.

 

[Dickie Greenleaf]

Only Scott(2) and that hawk spud would. others have class

So no answer then.

ok.

 

[Oneiros]

West Coast supporters don't hold grudges, not at all.

 

[Joshen]

hey mouth go thru my posts and point out where said anything about NTH, my post was meant as a joke you sook. Why do you feel so god dam soory for yourself all the time, this is a big problem with NTH. tom many oh you did this to me type crap.

grow up kid.

Aside from the fact that this is near impossible to read I thought your previous post was serious. Sorry my mistake, sarcasm doesn't come across very well online.

I don't see how people are complaining about what he said. He is speaking what he feels is wrong with the game, to dismiss it as whining is childish.

 

[scomac]

I dont get how people believe that Ziebells effort was courageous .
Point 1 shit Handpass, 2 Joseph wide open 3 Ziebell jumps in the air with leading Knee 4 Takes a ball player out.
He took the easy option and Brad Scott is defending that FFS!

 

[Forward Press]

Brad Scott sure loves to whinge.

Am I the only one that thinks AFL coaches should just harden up and get the f*** on with it?

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I think the thing is, as soon as he leap off the ground he was in trouble. You hit the head these days and you leave yourself open to the MRP, and despite the MRP, the umpire and the tribunal, all admitting he was going for the ball, the fact he was off the ground and hit the head, means he was always going to be in trouble.

I actually just heard Brad Scott speaking, thought he was brilliant. Composed, rational, calm. Loved it

4 weeks is far far too much for that incident.

 

[mellowyellow]

anything that gets andy d's knickers in a knot gets my tick of approval