Do MALTHOUSE and BUCKLEY think we're STUPID ?

[Jaiboy]

If Rocca's sole intention was to 'shepherd', as Mick would have us believe, then he should have just put his long arms out and stopped Dempster from getting to the ball carrier.

Rocca had a choice. He chose to line him up, and he he got him in the head.

End of thread.

He DID try to sheppard, a bump is shepparding the ball

 

[beaser]

Lucky to get away with one, Rocca could have cleaned him up without getting him head high malthouse and buckley just having their usual sook

 

[MinerBoy]

IMO it was an honest attempt at a legitimate hip and shoulder. The problem for Rocca was that Dempster turned to chase Didak without knowing Rocca was there and took the collision earlier than Rocca was intending.

I personally think that it should be a free for high contact at the time and nothing more as Rocca has done everything he can to execute a bump within the laws of the game. However, sometimes circumstances conspire against even the most well meaning execution. In this case it was Dempsters lack of awareness that brought on the high contact. Not his fault of course, but no malice on Rocca's part either.

My opinion - high contact & free kick.

Tribunal - Who knows. Obviously a duty of care and head contact is frowned upon. However, if the player has done everything that can be expected to execute the bump properly then no suspension should eventuate, regardless of the injury. We do (I think) still play a contact sport and unfortunately there will still be unavoidable high contact at times.

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Funny segment on SEN this morning where Patrick Smith read out an article written by Malthouse last year saying any contact to the head - whether it is accidental or on prupose and no matter what the circumstances, should get an automatic 6 weeks.

Nice credibility there Mick.
Sometimes people should learn to keep their mouth shut.

Yeah, that was quite humorous.

Funny how MM's tune has now changed when one of his own is likely to be outed for an important game.

 

[crackers57]

If Rocca's sole intention was to 'shepherd', as Mick would have us believe, then he should have just put his long arms out and stopped Dempster from getting to the ball carrier.

Rocca had a choice. He chose to line him up, and he he got him in the head.

End of thread.

I guess this attitude is born from following a team that revels in uncontested footy.

.......or was your last foray into the game an Auskick session?

 

[hellfire]

Game is turning soft. That is all.

 

[crackers57]

Funny segment on SEN this morning where Patrick Smith read out an article written by Malthouse last year saying any contact to the head - whether it is accidental or on prupose and no matter what the circumstances, should get an automatic 6 weeks.

Nice credibility there Mick.
Sometimes people should learn to keep their mouth shut.

I think you will find that the actual context of the article was on the back of Mark Williams' call, last year, for the the bump on the guy with his head over the ball to be outlawed (as it consequently was).

Perhaps an actual link to that article might sort that out.

 

[Aker39]

I think you will find that the actual context of the article was on the back of Mark Williams' call, last year, for the the bump on the guy with his head over the ball to be outlawed (as it consequently was).

Perhaps an actual link to that article might sort that out.

You may struggle to find a link.

I'm not sure if I've been looking in the wrong area, but I have never been able to find any articles written by Mick Malthouse on The Australian's website.

 

[1Percenter]

IMO it was an honest attempt at a legitimate hip and shoulder. The problem for Rocca was that Dempster turned to chase Didak without knowing Rocca was there and took the collision earlier than Rocca was intending.

I personally think that it should be a free for high contact at the time and nothing more as Rocca has done everything he can to execute a bump within the laws of the game. However, sometimes circumstances conspire against even the most well meaning execution. In this case it was Dempsters lack of awareness that brought on the high contact. Not his fault of course, but no malice on Rocca's part either.

My opinion - high contact & free kick.

Tribunal - Who knows. Obviously a duty of care and head contact is frowned upon. However, if the player has done everything that can be expected to execute the bump properly then no suspension should eventuate, regardless of the injury. We do (I think) still play a contact sport and unfortunately there will still be unavoidable high contact at times.

Spot on Good to see someone on here who knows what they're talking about

 

[JohnD]

I think you will find that the actual context of the article was on the back of Mark Williams' call, last year, for the the bump on the guy with his head over the ball to be outlawed (as it consequently was).

Perhaps an actual link to that article might sort that out.

It'd certainly be more convenient for Malthouse and Collingwood if his remarks could be placed in that sort of context. Unfortunately, they weren't:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...2-2722,00.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=105468

Instead, now he just looks like a hypocrit.

 

[C.O.G.]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/06/09/1659649.htm

Malthouse urges crack down on dangerous tackles

Posted Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:06pm AEST
Updated Fri Jun 9, 2006 4:10pm AEST
Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse says tougher penalties for head-on contact would help stamp out dangerous collisions in the AFL.
The Magpies' Blake Caracella is recovering from a fractured neck after a collision with the Lions' Tim Notting last weekend.
The match review panel later cleared Notting of any wrongdoing.
But Malthouse says the AFL should follow the lead of the rugby codes and crack down on dangerous tackles.
"I reckon if you have a head-on contact, in some of the instances we see, they're six to eight weeks to 12 weeks. Now they're starting to get it right, we dabble with one and two weeks," he said.

 

[JohnD]

Amid constant debate over what constitutes a fair bump, Malthouse said any contact above the shoulders should be strictly outlawed - front-on bumps included - and that the AFL should not mince penalties when dealing with offenders.

"We've got to eliminate the process of any thought that we bump him to the head, we've got to eliminate that," Malthouse said.

"And sometimes the only way you can eliminate that is through severe penalties, both financial and games (suspended), or a combination of both."

A year is a long time huh?

 

[peternorth]

heard about that on SEN, raised by everyones favourite patrick smith. you could sense smith's glee in bringing this up

 

[JohnD]

[quote="Malthouse']Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse has called on the AFL to follow the lead of rugby league and union and crack down on heavy contact to the heads of opponents.

Malthouse believes the AFL should slap offenders with six-game suspensions, similar to the penalties handed out by the NRL and SANZAR.
[/quote]

Geez, I agree with Mick. Who'd have thunk it?

 

[JohnD]

Malthouse called for severe penalties to be automatic for head-high contact.

He wrote in The Australian in June: "The tribunal's rules would include a specific section dealing with collisions or bumps to the head. Whether the offence is accidental, negligent or dangerous, there would be no scope for leniency."

Speaks a lot of sense, does Mick.

 

[quinnstar]

If Barry Hall can get off for punching someone in the guts and getting a goal as a result than we are well within our rights to think his contact is nothing.

Swan supporters should stick to having NFI as it comes naturally. I guess they are just upset that they are our bitches.

Oh yeah.. time to get off the band wagon now. And another thing... before my soy latte chai gets cold..

Sydney lost to the better side.. but you guys lost to the worst side of '07 last week.. Not lose... destroyed..

 

[PowerForGood]

I'm changing my mind on this one now, I think Rocca should cop a suspension.

Reason 1) One question to ask here is "Would you be happy to see just a free-kick continue to paid for that if star players were on the receiving end each week?" I would say no.

Reason 2) I think that because it is the "star" Anthony Rocca cleaning up "only" Sean Dempster, I (and the public in general) am treating it differently that if it were the reverse.

Reason 3) One other aspect against Pebbles' in this is that he has past history in "controversial" shepherds, one that comes to mind was the elbow on Brendon Lade in the '03 prelim final, a couple of others have been noted in other threads.

 

[crackers57]

It'd certainly be more convenient for Malthouse and Collingwood if his remarks could be placed in that sort of context. Unfortunately, they weren't:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...2-2722,00.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=105468

Instead, now he just looks like a hypocrit.

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending Mick and I guess I am to a degree, he does refer and number of times in the article to "head on"/"front on" tackle/bump.
....and sorry it was on the back of the Caracella incident not the Williams call. but I still think his main reference was to the bump when a player has his head over the ball (also the Williams thing)

 

[quinnstar]

Umm... so what's happened to the Pies supporters now?

But then again.. a year is a long time for anyone of Collingwood to remember right???

But hey.. they're Collingwood. The most successful team in the 'VFL'..

 

[PottSie2]

I guess this attitude is born from following a team that revels in uncontested footy.

.......or was your last foray into the game an Auskick session?

Yeah, I guess it was the uncontested footy in 1982 that got me barracking for Hawthorn and allowed me to enjoy the best decade in footy a fan could ever enjoy ... but then you wouldn't know anything about that.

 

[crackers57]

Umm... so what's happened to the Pies supporters now?

But then again.. a year is a long time for anyone of Collingwood to remember right???

But hey.. they're Collingwood. The most successful team in the 'VFL'..

read above

 

[Benno From Berwick]

What is the defence? Oh we're from collingwood and deserve to get off.

Please give me a break. Arrogance of this club is unquestionable. He hit him in the head. Too dumb for his own good Rocca. Dumb as they come.

 

[Angry Dragon]

Collingwood are arrogant and think they're above the rules. News at 11.

 

[crackers57]

What is the defence? Oh we're from collingwood and deserve to get off.

Please give me a break. Arrogance of this club is unquestionable. He hit him in the head. Too dumb for his own good Rocca. Dumb as they come.

And of course no other club's supporters would try to find a defence to support their player?
Please give me a break

 

[sosos]

Classic Malthouse. Getting distracted again.