Toump Ass
The Big Deal
- Jun 14, 2015
- 19,486
- 42,915
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Power
Looks like Brisbane are this week's winner of MRP CHOOK LOTTO, WHOOO!!!!!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Greene's was completely different IMO. Greene showed a complete lack of respect walking through an umpire.Ok so not guilty fair enough.
But this makes no sense ... "The AFL pushed for a two-game ban, arguing he'd intentionally pushed Gardner into the path of the umpire."
If you believe he intentionally pushed a player with such force into an umpire, then why only 2 weeks? Greene got 6 weeks for a light bump.
seriously need to split this fine three ways, the dogs player can play a third the umpire can play a third and hipwood pay a third, absolute accident and just general football defender v forward push and shove. umpire was half asleep.Sanity prevails. 2500 dollar fine. Still too much but acceptable.
What I expected.
Deserved weeks as a dog act but there was no rule against it.
Will be changed next season.
Not really. The rules state that it is a fine.Looks like Brisbane are this week's winner of MRP CHOOK LOTTO, WHOOO!!!!!
Is Hipwood supposed to vanish into thin air when Gardner runs into him? Guilty my ass, no more guilty then Gardner actually starting the whole thing, and the flog umpire for having no awareness.Lions star found guilty but free to play after blaming rival for ump contact at Tribunal
Lions star found guilty but free to play after blaming rival for ump contact at Tribunalwww.foxsports.com.au
The Tribunal deliberated for over 40 minutes before ultiamtely finding Hipwood did not show a high degree of carelessness, which they said was worthy of a $2500 fine but not a suspension.
“Viewed from certain angles this incident looks quite troubling, as it appears that Hipwood intended to push Gardner into the umpire,” Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson explained.
“However, on viewing the footage from behind the goals and hearing the evidence from Hipwood, the circumstances were very different to what they first seemed.
“It is now clear to us that Hipwood was simply running towards goal when his opponent, who was running beside him, deviated and all but stopped in Hipwood‘s path, blocking his run. Hipwood reacted by pushing his opponent, who collided with the umpire.
“However, we find that Hipwood ought to have been aware that an umpire was in close vicinity, as he and his opponent were running at speed, he ought to have been aware that the umpire was vulnerable to a high speed collision. In those circumstances, he breached his duty of care by forcefully pushing his opponent into the umpire.
“He did have an alternative, he need not have pushed his opponent. He did more than brace for contact. As a result, we find Hipwood was careless.
“It was however a reaction and not his action alone that caused the incident and we do not regard the level of carelessness as high. We do not propose to impose a suspension, we have in mind imposing a fine of $2,500.”
Given the Tribunal found a level of carelessness that was less than high, the AFL opted not to push for at least a one-match ban.
No it won’t, championWhat I expected.
Deserved weeks as a dog act but there was no rule against it.
Will be changed next season.
On the bolded, the wording of that quote would lead you to believe that tonight was the 1st time anyone in authority had a look at the behind the goals vision.... you would think that buffoon Christian would have looked at the behind the goals vision before referring it straight to the tribunal.“Viewed from certain angles this incident looks quite troubling, as it appears that Hipwood intended to push Gardner into the umpire,” Tribunal chairman Jeff Gleeson explained.
“However, on viewing the footage from behind the goals and hearing the evidence from Hipwood, the circumstances were very different to what they first seemed.
“It is now clear to us that Hipwood was simply running towards goal when his opponent, who was running beside him, deviated and all but stopped in Hipwood‘s path, blocking his run. Hipwood reacted by pushing his opponent, who collided with the umpire.
“However, we find that Hipwood ought to have been aware that an umpire was in close vicinity, as he and his opponent were running at speed, he ought to have been aware that the umpire was vulnerable to a high speed collision. In those circumstances, he breached his duty of care by forcefully pushing his opponent into the umpire.
“He did have an alternative, he need not have pushed his opponent. He did more than brace for contact. As a result, we find Hipwood was careless.
“It was however a reaction and not his action alone that caused the incident and we do not regard the level of carelessness as high. We do not propose to impose a suspension, we have in mind imposing a fine of $2,500.”
Given the Tribunal found a level of carelessness that was less than high, the AFL opted not to push for at least a one-match ban.
Your analysis does not match the report from the tribunal. Soz bro.
Just another example of Christian coming across as incompetentOn the bolded, the wording of that quote would lead you to believe that tonight was the 1st time anyone in authority had a look at the behind the goals vision.... you would think that buffoon Christian would have looked at the behind the goals vision before referring it straight to the tribunal.
No current season stats available