MRP / Trib. Holeman and Plowman both Given 2 Weeks WTF

[Gethelred]

I LOVE the way Carlton fans have never gotten over that hit.

Our captain SMASHED your captain into oblivion in a fair contest for the ball.

I never get tired of watching of it. It sums up everything I loved about Luke Hodge. I feel a bit sorry for poor Murphy though..
But would ya look at the way he approached that contest? Gawd almighty..

Thanks for posting

And I love the way you've just demonstrated you knew precisely what you're doing with this bullshit.

Your captain was not suspended for a fair footy action, in contest for the ball. Our player smashed your highly prized import, whilst going for a chest mark, and didn't even get him in the head. One would think, given your own inability to argue in good faith, that the reverberations from that knock are still smarting, given how offended you were about it.

O'Meara got in the way, and he paid the price for not protecting himself.

 

[carlton_99]

The main difference is Hodge never took his eye off the footy.
He went in hard and low - poleaxed Murphy - and won the ball! All in the same action. True briliance and toughness in equal doses.

Plowman was put to the test, but he elected to take his eye off the ball and braced for the collision
He turned side on and bumped O'Meara. No effort was made to mark or spoil.

Just pull your head of out of your Carlton arse for one second and imagine that was McKay trying to mark the ball and some hack defender ran in and bumped him in the head. Would you be saying the same thing? I don't think you would...

"Didn't even get him in the head..."

Are you blind, or something?

And I bet you would be singing this same tune if it was Jiath, Sicily or Scrimshaw in the same position as Plowman? I bet you didn't even think it was a reportable incident at the time - utterly bemusing decisions this week from Christian

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

The main difference is Hodge never took his eye off the footy.
He went in hard and low - poleaxed Murphy - and won the ball! All in the same action. True brilliance and toughness in equal doses.

Plowman was put to the test, but he elected to take his eye off the ball and he braced for the collision
He turned side on and bumped O'Meara. No effort was made to mark or spoil.

Just pull your head of out of your Carlton arse for one second and imagine that was McKay trying to mark the ball and some hack defender ran in and bumped him in the head. Would you be saying the same thing? I don't think you would...

"Didn't even get him in the head..."

Are you blind, or something?

Omeara needs to harden up. Most players get up and keep playing after simple marking contests. Plowman had no issue.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Correct decision according to the rules - head is sacrosanct. When you pin an arm you become responsible for the opponents head - you have a duty of care not to drive them head first into the non-protected side and cause concussion. The correct technique is to bring the player in a downward motion or roll them to the free arm side so they can brace and avoid having their head smashed into the turf. Rioli was a specialist of chase down tackles and bringing the player down without forward motion and endangering the head.

 

[Gethelred]

The main difference is Hodge never took his eye off the footy.
He went in hard and low - poleaxed Murphy - and won the ball! All in the same action. True brilliance and toughness in equal doses.

Plowman was put to the test, but he elected to take his eye off the ball and he braced for the collision
He turned side on and bumped O'Meara. No effort was made to mark or spoil.

Just pull your head of out of your Carlton arse for one second and imagine that was McKay trying to mark the ball and some hack defender ran in and bumped him in the head. Would you be saying the same thing? I don't think you would...

"Didn't even get him in the head..."

Are you blind, or something?

Uh-huh.

Are you this full of shit in your actual life, or do you keep your dribbling solely on here?

 

[Back One Out]

And I bet you would be singing this same tune if it was Jiath, Sicily or Scrimshaw in the same position as Plowman? I bet you didn't even think it was a reportable incident at the time - utterly bemusing decisions this week from Christian

Actually... I posted this in the match thread either before or not long after the final siren..

Autopsy - AFL 2021 Round 10 - Blues v Hawks Sat May 22nd 1:45pm EST (MCG)

Yay diving under the doona again..shattered and bewildered ata chance gone missing ... the true embarrassment should have it wiggly toes and muscled arms and legs as well as that thing called a brain being used... it is hard it is shit not gonna get nothing for the next five years... time to...

www.bigfooty.com

To that point, nobody else had said a thing about about this incident apart from the usual commentary cliches of "Courage from both players!!!"

You'll notice my main concern is why we didn't get a free kick. Not a potential report. But that's because I don't really give a stuff about reports and suspensions. I generally laugh at AFL fans who get bent out of shape over their players being hurt and wishing suspensions on rival players.

That's my real interest in this Plowman case. It's the cognitive dissonance which AFL followers have over marking contest collisions compared to ground level contest collisions. For some reason, we wanna give protection to players who go for the ball and have both left and right feet on the ground and can dodge and weave and swerve to avoid the bump... Yet for some reason we don't wanna give any protection to players who go for a mark, but get cleaned up by opponents who aren't watching the ball, but elect to jump & bump them in the head.

Carlton fans are defending Plowman, saying he has every right to protect himself. But you can make that same argument about every player who was suspended for bumping an opponent in the head.

"I took my eye off the ball and turned side on and bumped them in the head because I was just protecting myself"

Carlton might elect to challenge this 2 match ban... and who knows how the tribunal will see it? It's Chooklotto.
Wouldn't surprise me if they beat the charge and Plowman gets off.

But I still think I'm right. I think there's a double standard in our game.
Players who have their eyes on the ball and try to mark deserve MORE protection than players charging in after a loose ball.
If the AFL are serious about concussions, then why would they allow head high bumps in marking contests?

 

[Back One Out]

Uh-huh.

Are you this full of sh*t in your actual life, or do you keep your dribbling solely on here?

Geez mate... If you don't wish to discuss this stuff, then move on

Nobody is forcing to read & post here and be a dick.. That's your choice.

 

[Gethelred]

Actually... I posted this in the match thread before the final siren

Autopsy - AFL 2021 Round 10 - Blues v Hawks Sat May 22nd 1:45pm EST (MCG)

Yay diving under the doona again..shattered and bewildered ata chance gone missing ... the true embarrassment should have it wiggly toes and muscled arms and legs as well as that thing called a brain being used... it is hard it is shit not gonna get nothing for the next five years... time to...

www.bigfooty.com

To that point, nobody else had said a thing about about it apart from the usual commentary cliches of "Courage from both players!!!"

You'll notice my main concern is why we didn't get a free kick. Not a potential report. But that's because I don't really give a stuff about reports and suspensions. I generally laugh at AFL fans who get bent out of shape over their players being hurt and wishing suspensions on rival players.

That's my real interest in this Plowman case. It's the cognitive dissonance which AFL followers have over marking contest collisions compared to ground level contest collisions. For some reason, we wanna give protection to players who go for the ball and have both left and right feet on the ground and can dodge and weave and swerve to avoid the bump... But for some reason we don't wanna give any protection to players who fly for a mark and get cleaned up by opponents who aren't watching the ball, but electing to bump in mid air.

Carlton fans are defending Plowman and staying he has every right to protect himself. But you can make that same argument about every player who was suspended for bumping an opponent in the head.

"I took my eye off the ball and turned side on and bumped them in the head because I was just protecting myself"

Carlton might elect to challenge this 2 match ban... and who knows how the tribunal will see it? It's Chooklotto.
Wouldn't surprise me if they beat the charge and Plowman gets off.

But I still think I'm right. I think there's a double standard in our game.
Players who have their eyes on the ball and try to mark deserve MORE protection than players charging in after a loose ball.
If the AFL are serious about concussions, then why would they allow bumps (and resultant head clashes) in marking contests?

I think you're right, and would be right here, but - and I repeat, seeing as you didn't get it the first time due to being too busy yelling about something else - that Plowman was trying to mark the ball on his chest and braced for contact he knew was coming. There is a reason the umpire right there didn't pay the free; there wasn't one to pay. It was a fair contest for the mark, which neither of them took, and the ball is touching both players at more or less the same time as it occurred.

Your argument about 'I was protecting myself' is just as irrelevant, seeing as Plowman didn't get him in the head, was going for the ball, and successfully touched the ball.

So, in the end, you've shoehorned a personal belief into a situation in which it doesn't apply.

Geez mate... If you don't wish to discuss this stuff, then move on

Nobody is forcing to read & post here and be a dick.. That's your choice.

Someone's a bit touchy.

Perhaps you should cease dribbling, if you dislike it being pointed out.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

What did he think was going to happen? Pinned arm - ball already gone - head completely exposed - forward momentum towards unprotected side... Lucky to not get 3 weeks

 

[cznsnowy91]

The main difference is Hodge never took his eye off the footy.
He went in hard and low - poleaxed Murphy - and won the ball! All in the same action. True brilliance and toughness in equal doses.

Plowman was put to the test, but he elected to take his eye off the ball and he braced for the collision
He turned side on and bumped O'Meara. No effort was made to mark or spoil.

Just pull your head of out of your Carlton arse for one second and imagine that was McKay trying to mark the ball and some hack defender ran in and bumped him in the head. Would you be saying the same thing? I don't think you would...

"Didn't even get him in the head..."

Are you blind, or something?

Hodgey is a legend of the game, completely fearless, and that video is a cracking contest! The Carlton bloke who went full steam and at the last milisecond braced for contact was a cracking contest as well. I don't think you can blame him for protecting himself in the last split second, he was going for the ball then realised he was about to collide with O meara and braced, for me that's just football and I'd hate for that to be discouraged. Definitely shouldn't be suspended.

 

[Back One Out]

I don't think you can blame [Plowman] for protecting himself in the last split second, he was going for the ball then realised he was about to collide with O meara and braced, for me that's just football

If you watch the replay again, Plowman has already taken his eye off the ball, turned side on and braced for impact and then he leaps into the air in the last split second, thereby guaranteeing illegitimate high contact with O'Meara

You can't allow that. He's not going for the ball in that moment. He's playing the man.

How's it any different to players who get suspended for bumping an opponent in the head when they're going in for the hard ball? They make a split second decision (out of self-preservation) to tuck up, brace for the impact and bump the guy instead of just keeping their eye on the footy and trying to win the hard ball.

The AFL have been suspending players for that exact thing for the past 10 years

But when it comes to marking contests we give no protection to the player who keeps his eye on the ball. For some odd reason, we allow his opponent to take his eye off the ball (out of self preservation) and crunch him and then we all applaud everyone for their courage, while some poor bastard gets stretchered off, misses a week through concussion and slurs like Jono Brown post-retirement

I'd hate for that to be discouraged. Definitely shouldn't be suspended.

I disagree that this type of play should be encouraged. I think it opens the door for cheap shots. Players should be encouraged to make the ball their sole objective in contests like that. Imagine if Plowman had kept his eye on the ball and smashed into O'Meara, but managed to hold onto the mark. Wouldn't that have been something? But instead he turned side-on, took his eye off the ball, ruined what could've been a great contest and concussed a bloke in the process.

 

[sprockets]

Wonder if you thought the same about Astbury in Round 1 when he elbowed Plowman in the head and got cleared...?

Haha yeah because that has everything to do with Plowman ironing out O'Meara. Plowman should have got a fine x2 for not only acting when Astbury brushed him with the back of his arm, he should have also been fined for way over-acting. That was a disgrace.

 

[Kernafides]

If you watch the replay again, Plowman has already taken his eye off the ball, turned side on and braced for impact and then he leaps into the air in the last split second, thereby guaranteeing illegitimate high contact with O'Meara

You can't allow that. He's not going for the ball in that moment. He's playing the man.

How's it any different to players who get suspended for bumping an opponent in the head when they're going in for the hard ball? They make a split second decision (out of self-preservation) to tuck up, brace for the impact and bump the guy instead of just keeping their eye on the footy and trying to win the hard ball.

The AFL have been suspending players for that exact thing for the past 10 years

But when it comes to marking contests we give no protection to the player who keeps his eye on the ball. For some odd reason, we allow his opponent to take his eye off the ball (out of self preservation) and crunch him and then we all applaud everyone for their courage, while some poor bastard gets stretchered off, misses a week through concussion and slurs like Jono Brown post-retirement


I disagree that this type of play should be encouraged. I think it opens the door for cheap shots. Players should be encouraged to make the ball their sole objective in contests like that. Imagine if Plowman had kept his eye on the ball and smashed into O'Meara, but managed to hold onto the mark. Wouldn't that have been something? But instead he turned side-on, took his eye off the ball, ruined what could've been a great contest and concussed a bloke in the process.

Leaps into the air?? Hahahahaha...might want to watch it again sober

 

[SandyToes]

ball already gone

Except Holman was paid a free because Duncan was still in possession



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[SandyToes]

Should also be noted that Duncan is partially culpable because he could have dropped the ball and put his free arm out to protect his fall but he chose to try for a correct disposal with the ensuing consequences
It’s not the tackling players responsibility to dispose of the ball


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Hawk_francais]

Tom Mitchell deserves one week for the hospital pass to O’Meara, and Michael Christian deserves a medal for his worst ever decision in the case of Holman. That one is just a piss-take SURELY.

 

[ManInWhite]

Holman incident illustrates why it was getting too hard for Hayden Kennedy to continue in his role. Legal tackle applied and free kick given but MRP decides other way round. Naturally people will then ask was the free kick correct? Answer should be yes but downward pressure from Hocking means they have to say it was a free kick error just to keep it consistent with MRP. Don't blame him for not staying around when there is too much interference from people who don't know what they're doing...

 

[BlueDay]

If Plowman bumped O'Meara like that in a 50/50 contest for a ground ball, he would be suspended for committing to a head high bump and concussing an opponent. Nobody would argue about it. Everyone would accept the decision. So why do people think it's okay for Plowman to do it in a marking contest?

Please watch the footage again and explain to me the moment Plowman tried to mark the ball or spoil the ball.
He did neither. He ran into that contest, turned his body side-on and elected to bump a wide-open opponent.

Weak.

Thank god the MRO has FINALLY decided to protect players who keep their eye on the ball and punish those who don't.
Now if we can just get the umpires to wake up to themselves.... How the hell did O'Meara not even get a free kick?
Imagine if every defender just elected to smash into Harry McKay every time he led for the ball and tried to mark it.

Oh man, there's some clueless Blues fans out there. I never realised until this weekend just how many f**kin' one-eyed idiots they have in their ranks.

I'm sure you would have had the same opinion all those times that Hodge or the sniper Lewis took out Carlton players over the last decade. Usually well after the ball was gone. Enjoy the next decade plus of mediocrity, it couldn't have happened to a nicer club. Carlton will appeal and Plowman will be free to play.

 

[teknodeejay]

I LOVE the way Carlton fans have never gotten over that hit.

Our captain SMASHED your captain into oblivion in a "fair" contest for the ball [smirk] and look who won the footy!!
I never get tired of watching of it. It sums up everything I loved about Luke Hodge. I feel a bit sorry for poor Murphy though..
But would ya look at the way he approached that contest? Gawd almighty..

From memory that was the turning point of the match.
The Blues led by 3 or 4 goals - Enter the ninja - and the Hawks win by 3 or 4 goals

Good stuff. Thanks for posting

applauds and cheers his team player smashing opponent in fair contest for footy

Wants opposition player suspended for smashing his teams player in fair contest for footy

yeah you’re unbiased

 

[BlueDay]

Uh-huh.

Bang on, high and might Hawks supporters that can't remember recent history!

 

[teknodeejay]

If you watch the replay again, Plowman has already taken his eye off the ball, turned side on and braced for impact and then he leaps into the air in the last split second, thereby guaranteeing illegitimate high contact with O'Meara

You can't allow that. He's not going for the ball in that moment. He's playing the man.

How's it any different to players who get suspended for bumping an opponent in the head when they're going in for the hard ball? They make a split second decision (out of self-preservation) to tuck up, brace for the impact and bump the guy instead of just keeping their eye on the footy and trying to win the hard ball.

The AFL have been suspending players for that exact thing for the past 10 years

But when it comes to marking contests we give no protection to the player who keeps his eye on the ball. For some odd reason, we allow his opponent to take his eye off the ball (out of self preservation) and crunch him and then we all applaud everyone for their courage, while some poor bastard gets stretchered off, misses a week through concussion and slurs like Jono Brown post-retirement


I disagree that this type of play should be encouraged. I think it opens the door for cheap shots. Players should be encouraged to make the ball their sole objective in contests like that. Imagine if Plowman had kept his eye on the ball and smashed into O'Meara, but managed to hold onto the mark. Wouldn't that have been something? But instead he turned side-on, took his eye off the ball, ruined what could've been a great contest and concussed a bloke in the process.

its not Plowman’s fault O’Meara is made of glass

 

[Some Idiot]

Personally think Plowman was going for the footy but I can see a possibility that he was going the man. I would prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt in this instance.

Holman tackle was just bad luck, he didn't sling, or even really pin the arms that much.

 

[DamoESP]

Unlike some of the nuffies in this thread, look like Carlton agree that its not worthy of suspension and are looking to challenge

Blues poised to challenge two-week ban for crucial defender

Blues poised to challenge two-week ban for crucial defender

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Whiskers]

How long until the powers that be realise Christian is completely incompetent?
I feel like I have to say this every week.

 

[calman]

earlier this season, with nothing out of the MRO they inconsistent and incompetant
same action