Didak: No case to answer

[eddiesmith]

gee i dunno, maybe the fact that he was knocked out might indicate it was high impact.

plus IMO, it was reckless rather than negligent, as he really did line him up

and it was 62 points before his appeal failed and he lost the 25% reduction

He laid a fair bump that was only slightly high because Scotland slipped, you are an idiot if you think otherwise

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Some of eddiesmith's excuses in this thread rival his weak efforts on the cricket board. Some people don't know when to shut up.

 

[GoBackToVFL]

He laid a fair bump that was only slightly high because Scotland slipped, you are an idiot if you think otherwise

ok lets see if the charge is dropped or not and then who the idiot is at 4pm tomorrow eh? which one of us will be bumping this thread? i'm quietly confident it will be me

 

[eddiesmith]

ok lets see if the charge is dropped or not and then who the idiot is at 4pm tomorrow eh? which one of us will be bumping this thread? i'm quietly confident it will be me

I fully expect him to get a week or 2 because the tribunal is incompetent but he will not get the 5 weeks you are praying for

As for ODN, I guess you fully support all your fellow Carlton fans lack of knowledge about the rules of the game?

 

[Winterstick]

these guys cant see past their so called hatred for collingwood

 

[eddiesmith]

Some of eddiesmith's excuses in this thread rival his weak efforts on the cricket board. Some people don't know when to shut up.

Actually perhaps you can tell what I have said that is wrong

Did Heath Scotland not slip and therefore cause the contact to be high?
Did Alan Didak actually jump off the ground?
Did Alan Didak not make contact with the top of his shoulder to Scotlands chin?
Was the damage not done by the ground instead of Didak making any contact with Scotlands nose?

Please enlighten us to what magical new vision you have seen that says otherwise

Or perhaps you believe jumping off the ground attempting to take someones head off whilst they are not anywhere near the ball is not as bad a fair front on bump on the ball carrier

 

[mediumsizered]

these guys cant see past their so called hatred for collingwood

I have never hated Collingwood. They have always amused me. Premature celebrations in 1970, choking in '77, sooking about Wayne Harmes' effort in '79. Being crushed by a then record margin in 1980. Playing Peter Moore with a dodgy hamstring in '81. Getting so close and coming up short in '02 and of course Rhyce Shaw's effort in '03. All very amusing. They make September amusing for everyone. How could anyone hate them?

 

[GoBackToVFL]

remove the word fair and you'll be on the right track.

jumping off the ground makes it deliberate = 3points

otherwise its negligent = 2 points

still reportable, still around 3 weeks for didak

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As for ODN, I guess you fully support all your fellow Carlton fans lack of knowledge about the rules of the game?

Guessing is your strong suit eddie. Pity you are wrong most of the time.

I love this one:

So if a player runs hard for the ball and someone slips into their elbow then they should get reported?

Scotland should be reported for headbutting Didak I reckon.

 

[eddiesmith]

remove the word fair and you'll be on the right track.

jumping off the ground makes it deliberate = 3points

otherwise its negligent = 2 points

still reportable, still around 3 weeks for didak

Negligent is 1 point and it is that at worst, not reckless because Scotland slipped but it should be ruled unavoidable head high contact and thrown out

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Or perhaps you believe jumping off the ground attempting to take someones head off whilst they are not anywhere near the ball is not as bad a fair front on bump on the ball carrier

Perhaps you believe fairies live at the bottom of your garden? What the hell has this got to do with anything?

Look I understand you are desperately hoping Didak gets off and searching for the best possible explanation of the incident, but lets not get too fanciful with your responses.

 

[eddiesmith]

Perhaps you believe fairies live at the bottom of your garden? What the hell has this got to do with anything?

Look I understand you are desperately hoping Didak gets off and searching for the best possible explanation of the incident, but lets not get too fanciful with your responses.

If Gia jumping off the ground and flattening someone without the ball is fair then why should a front on bump on the ball carrier where he doesnt leave the ground and high contact is because of Scotland slipping be worth 5 weeks?

It was a free kick for too high and thats it, if he jumped into him then it would be a different story

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

If Gia jumping off the ground and flattening someone without the ball is fair then why should a front on bump on the ball carrier where he doesnt leave the ground and high contact is because of Scotland slipping be worth 5 weeks?

It was a free kick for too high and thats it, if he jumped into him then it would be a different story

Scotland did NOT slip. He was running sideways with the ball, saw Didak coming, slowed up so Didak would overrun him and Didak got him on the way through. There was no slip. Just saw it again on the news and taped it so I could watch it several times.

No slip Eddie, you will have to go on without that defence.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

I have never hated Collingwood. They have always amused me. Premature celebrations in 1970, choking in '77, sooking about Wayne Harmes' effort in '79. Being crushed by a then record margin in 1980. Playing Peter Moore with a dodgy hamstring in '81. Getting so close and coming up short in '02 and of course Rhyce Shaw's effort in '03. All very amusing. They make September amusing for everyone. How could anyone hate them?

Go those Wooden Spoons.

What is it? 3 in 5 years

 

[bresker]

If Gia jumping off the ground and flattening someone without the ball is fair then why should a front on bump on the ball carrier where he doesnt leave the ground and high contact is because of Scotland slipping be worth 5 weeks?

It was a free kick for too high and thats it, if he jumped into him then it would be a different story

Gia jumped shoulder to shoulder with a bigger opponent to avoid getting flattened. The damage done to Kosi was from a clash of heads.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Might as well say it here CC, not as though you can say it on the Blues board. The collective IQ on the board just went up further.

 

[eddiesmith]

Scotland did NOT slip. He was running sideways with the ball, saw Didak coming, slowed up so Didak would overrun him and Didak got him on the way through. There was no slip. Just saw it again on the news and taped it so I could watch it several times.

No slip Eddie, you will have to go on without that defence.

He was not standing at normal height when contact was made, if he didnt slip his knees were slightly bent, either way Didak would not have expected to make contact with Scotlands head and he did not aim for the head but rather the chest area and surely the fact Scotland wasnt standing straight would go in Didaks favour

 

[doppleganger]

Jamie Charmans was the exact same and might have been worse.

http://www.thesundaymail.com.au/extras/lionsjune3/jamiecharmanandanthonyroccaclash.html

bahahah

see that grim has got it completely wrong again!!

yep charman made no contact to the head!!

hilarious

 

[PHX]

It was still charging. If Didak was after the ball he wouldve tackled.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

He was not standing at normal height when contact was made, if he didnt slip his knees were slightly bent, either way Didak would not have expected to make contact with Scotlands head and he did not aim for the head but rather the chest area and surely the fact Scotland wasnt standing straight would go in Didaks favour

So you have conceded the no slip part? I at least thought you were making these assertions based on what you saw, not it appears that you only see what you want to see.

 

[doppleganger]

It was still charging. If Didak was after the ball he wouldve tackled.

wasn't reported for charging, so im afraid that ur mistaken

 

[giantroo]

It was a stunning hit, but if the match review panel want to be consistant, he'd have to get one or possibly two (I don't know about his past record).

Did Medhurst's hit on Houlihan earlier in the season get anything? They were pretty much similar.

Didak had a bad record at the tribunal from the past. Won't get off. Has had two reports from before for tripping and somthing else. Not sure what it was.

 

[PHX]

wasn't reported for charging, so im afraid that ur mistaken

Thats my interpretation anyway. Charging and Rough play are all of the same these days so it doesnt really matter.

Wasnt a hell of alot different to Wiggins and Delidio last week where he got one week but this time it finished much worse.

Wiggins got 1.

 

[doppleganger]

Thats my interpretation anyway. Charging and Rough play are all of the same these days so it doesnt really matter.

Wasnt a hell of alot different to Wiggins and Delidio last week where he got one week but this time it finished much worse.

Wiggins got 1.

i reckon that there is a big difference between the two, charging they would have struggled to get across the line, ie would mean outlawing the hip & shoulder.......rough play can mean anything

 

[HKW1]

to me it was very similar to the guerra bump which i thought was fair.

but really why didn't didak just lay a tackle, he did not need to wipe him out. it is 50/50 didak is not a saint and that will do him no favours