Drew Petrie tweets

Remove this Banner Ad

Wonderdog said:
Ziebell jumped off the ground 'cos the ball was in the air. He didn't "bump" Joseph in footy terms 'cos a bump implies intent. He collided with Joseph whilst going for and getting the ball. If the decision is taken to its logical conclusion any time a player goes for a ball and hits another player's head, even accidently, he must be suspended. Ziebell''s only other alternative was to let Joseph win the ball and then tackle him. The fact that he left the ground is irrelevant. It is only reelvant if you leave the ground with the prime aim of engaging in physical contact with an opponent, ie bump them. Ziebell did not do that.
Click to expand...
if he didn't plan on body contact why did he turn himself and brace for contact?
 
Diesel1993 said:
no, just those that follow a team that sells it's own jumper and location out and yet still keeps hope lol - it's called INSANITY. it's actually in the nth club song as to why you have had no success. 'Just for recreations sake, to pass the time away' - And Brayshaw has the audacity to ridicule the Adelaide FC.
Click to expand...

656298-carlton-039-s-1997-m-amp-m-jumper.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sivart said:
if he didn't plan on body contact why did he turn himself and brace for contact?
Click to expand...
In his evidence he said that he turned at the last moment to protect himself. Look at the video he leaves himself pretty open. The prime intent was to get a ball that was in the air so he jumoped up to get it. Pretty simple really.
 
Either players should be allowed on Twitter and be able to voice their opinions or they shouldn't be allowed on at all.

Drew will no doubt get a fine for making a fair comment.
 
Rightly or wrongly, he has done a Hird and knowningly got himself a fine for criticsing an arm of the AFL.

Ziebull bumped, it hit the head so he has to go under the current rules. Just think 1 match was adequate which would have increased to 2 with his bad record.

The bump is being removed form the game as the chance of error and punishment for the execution of the bump is becoming too great.

Players are instinctive yet are being told to think their way through every situation.
 
Pevers-Legend said:
Rightly or wrongly, he has done a Hird and knowningly got himself a fine for criticsing an arm of the AFL.

Ziebull bumped, it hit the head so he has to go under the current rules. Just think 1 match was adequate which would have increased to 2 with his bad record.

The bump is being removed form the game as the chance of error and punishment for the execution of the bump is becoming too great.

Players are instinctive yet are being told to think their way through every situation.
Click to expand...


Sorry mate. Have a look at the tape. It is pretty well established that if a player elects to bump and makes contact with an opponent's head its a suspension. It is also established that if you leave the ground to bump and make high contact a suspension will follow. I have no problems with this. Ziebell did neither of these. He jumped above an opponent to get a looped handball and made incidental contact. The Tribunal admitted as much. He didn't elect to bump. He got to the ball first cos he got slightly higher. There should have been no case to answer or any player that makes incidental contact when jumping for a high ball should be similarly suspended.
 
Jay C said:
Good on Petrie, so sick of players who don't voice their opinion because the AFL tells them to STFU.
Click to expand...
Technically he can't tweet his opion, but I'de love to see a player "writing" it out in sheep shit out the front of AFL house...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Wonderdog said:
Sorry mate. Have a look at the tape. It is pretty well established that if a player elects to bump and makes contact with an opponent's head its a suspension. It is also established that if you leave the ground to bump and make high contact a suspension will follow. I have no problems with this. Ziebell did neither of these. He jumped above an opponent to get a looped handball and made incidental contact. The Tribunal admitted as much. He didn't elect to bump. He got to the ball first cos he got slightly higher. There should have been no case to answer or any player that makes incidental contact when jumping for a high ball should be similarly suspended.
Click to expand...
Yeah nah, he left the ground, hit him in the head with his shoulder. He is gone every time under the current rules. Incidental or not, AFL states duty of care and Ziebull failed which is why 1 week would have sufficed.

I don't like the rules the way they are, just commenting on them that they are correctly applied here (not the sanction though).
 
I just looked at that bump about 3 times. Ziebell's right arm never leaves the side of his body, yet he turns that side of his body to the ball.

If he had visions of contesting the ball - why didn't he have his hand out to punch it like Harbow did on Lewis.

He punches the ball, he doesn't get suspended
 
What would happen if a club say North Melbourne, actually just said f*ck the AFL and there suspension and just put Zeibell in the team and he plays? I know it would never happen, but f*ck me it would be so awesome.
 
Dumpstar said:
What would happen if a club say North Melbourne, actually just said f*ck the AFL and there suspension and just put Zeibell in the team and he plays? I know it would never happen, but f*ck me it would be so awesome.
Click to expand...
I would expect that the umpire would be instructed not to start the game until Ziebell had left the field.
And then the Roos would be handed the mother of all fines plus possibly more. e.g loss of points.
 
Pie eyed said:
Technically he can't tweet his opion, but I'de love to see a player "writing" it out in sheep shit out the front of AFL house...
Click to expand...

Who'd have guessed. A Collingwood supporter who thinks writing in sheep shit is a literary highlight.
 
Pevers-Legend said:
They would lose the match for one.
Click to expand...

Yeah I could imagine they would absolutely cop it.

Rod Stroker said:
I would expect that the umpire would be instructed not to start the game until Ziebell had left the field.
And then the Roos would be handed the mother of all fines plus possibly more. e.g loss of points.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that. Hypothetical - lets say Richmond and North were both out of finals contention. Imagine if they got together and said 'ok we're chucking Zeibell on the ground' the clubs organised their own umpire and they just started playing. I'd love something like that to happen one day.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Drew Petrie tweets

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top