Contesting the striking charge...Jack Graham that is.

Remove this Banner Ad

Lol sounds like they hired him from the simpsons . “ Hello I’m Troy McClure “

giphy.gif
 
Same reason why that Irish bloke got 3 weeks for bitting. He didnt hurt anyone but some acts are just low while others are even lower.

Sometimes you gotta pay the price for the attack and not the outcome of the attack.
Bumps are a part of footy and if someone gets hurt if its fare and legal so be it.

Bighting is not a part of footy.
Elbowing people at the back of the heas is not a part of footy. No one got hurt but both are low acts and should be stamped out along with jumper punches and kneeing people in the back after they take a mark.
Foggarty needs to be rubbed out for this act hes done it a few times now.
You see this all the time though! Most commonly with making a player earn the mark.
Why don't we see all these reported?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

You see this all the time though! Most commonly with making a player earn the mark.
Why don't we see all these reported?
I dont think Jack was trying to spoil the ball though.
I do get your point but the ball wasnt anywhere near Zorkos head in this instance.
 
A deflected strike that slides up high is always classified as a "high" strike. We shouldn't have afforded a single second to arguing about where the forearm ended up. It was 100% irrelevant.

"Oh, but it didn't hit him high, it hit him in the arm"
"Doesn't matter, you're not contesting if it's high or to the body"
"Yeah but, the rain"

Should have put more emphasis on why a "stationary forearm" is not a "strike".

A "striking action" should be defined as an action where there is movement in the arm.

A punch is not a punch unless your fist is moving towards someone. A stationary arm with a clenched fist is not a punch.
A stationary forearm with no movement is not a strike.

Otherwise they should say that every time Dusty runs into someone with a stiff arm, it would technically be "striking" if no movement of the arm is required.

Right?
 
A deflected strike that slides up high is always classified as a "high" strike. We shouldn't have afforded a single second to arguing about where the forearm ended up. It was 100% irrelevant.

"Oh, but it didn't hit him high, it hit him in the arm"
"Doesn't matter, you're not contesting if it's high or to the body"
"Yeah but, the rain"

Should have put more emphasis on why a "stationary forearm" is not a "strike".

A "striking action" should be defined as an action where there is movement in the arm.

A punch is not a punch unless your fist is moving towards someone. A stationary arm with a clenched fist is not a punch.
A stationary forearm with no movement is not a strike.

Otherwise they should say that every time Dusty runs into someone with a stiff arm, it would technically be "striking" if no movement of the arm is required.

Right?
Dusty never Dont Argues anyone in the back of the head while they are running away from him.
 
The pressure shit was a laugh and destroyed their argument. Tovey should have advised them to save the 10k and stay home bc with that argument he was clutching at straws.
We had no chance of winning it from the start so in the end the whole thing looked stupid .It reminded me of the arguments the Moreland City Council put up at VCAT.

“Although the parking is adequate and complies it’s still a bit restrictive. “
I'll just agree to disagree. I don't actually think it was intentional. Late and careless yes. Think the pressure argument was relevant. 1st point of contact relevant. Once intentional got thrown out even though it was part of the charge there was no leg to stand on. He hit him. Finished.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'll just agree to disagree. I don't actually think it was intentional. Late and careless yes. Think the pressure argument was relevant. 1st point of contact relevant. Once intentional got thrown out even though it was part of the charge there was no leg to stand on. He hit him. Finished.
He missed the brief and gave another counter argument to the jury that pressure can still hurt. Poor imo.
 
He missed the brief and gave another counter argument to the jury that pressure can still hurt. Poor imo.
I actually thought he did well given he forced the chairman to advise the jury that intention played no part. It opens a Pandora's box and goes against the original charge of intentional.

Personally I'm ok with Graham getting a week but the Tribunal was a bit wacky.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Contesting the striking charge...Jack Graham that is.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top