Moloney contests 2 week offer

Remove this Banner Ad

IMO If Moloney wanted to hit him, he would. Bartel wasn't doing much to get out of the way because he had tripped. I think Moloney turned his body in order to avoid major contact with Bartel's head, and therefore only made minimal contact to his shoulder.
 
why are people saying bartel's head was over the ball? the ball was a few metre's away. his head was down, yes. but not over the ball.

bartel tripped and fell. and if anyone says otherwise I'm coming for kneecaps.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

rick James said:
why are people saying bartel's head was over the ball? the ball was a few metre's away. his head was down, yes. but not over the ball.

bartel tripped and fell. and if anyone says otherwise I'm coming for kneecaps.

You can't say Bartel wasn't trying to pick up the ball with his head down. Whether or not he tripped isn't really the issue. His head was down and Moloney's initial intent (it appears) is to make solid contact. The fact that contact was minimal won't see him get off, but may mitigate what would have been a hefty holiday had Bartel NOT tripped.
 
catempire said:
You can't say Bartel wasn't trying to pick up the ball with his head down. Whether or not he tripped isn't really the issue. His head was down and Moloney's initial intent (it appears) is to make solid contact. The fact that contact was minimal won't see him get off, but may mitigate what would have been a hefty holiday had Bartel NOT tripped.

Actually if Moloney stayed where he was Bartel liekly would have made more contact than he did. Also Moploney ah dno intent visibly showing, considering he does not appear to actually see Bartel teh whole time.

Anyone remember the incident with wanganeen a couple of years back where he cleverly, and deliberately, didn't see his opponent who he flattened, and subsequently didn't get reported?
 
rick James said:
why are people saying bartel's head was over the ball? the ball was a few metre's away. his head was down, yes. but not over the ball.

So why didn't Moloney pick the ball up then?

Why didn't he even bend over? He ran straight passed the ball with his hip facing Bartel's head. :confused:

...Because if Bartel's head wasn't over the ball, then Moloney was a hell of a long way away from it aswell!...So what was his motive?

That's some great defensive logic! :eek:
 
Good news

Wil surely get off

How it got this far in the first place is beyond me

Last I heard, you cant get suspended for missing a bloke that slides udner you
 
MrChristo said:
So why didn't Moloney pick the ball up then?

Why didn't he even bend over? He ran straight passed the ball with his hip facing Bartel's head. :confused:

...Because if Bartel's head wasn't over the ball, then Moloney was a hell of a long way away from it aswell!...So what was his motive?

That's some great defensive logic! :eek:

yep, his hip faced his head... and missed it... and bartel cannoned into the ground... about a metre or two away from teh ball... moloney saw it was going to get tom another geelong player.. so he attempted to lay a shephard... realised bartel was already going to ground and attempted to pull up.. and made no contact...

Bartel is injured cause he fell over. simple as that.
 
rick James said:
Bartel is injured cause he fell over. simple as that.

So his case is that Bartel deliberately smashed his head into the ground with Moloney having nothing to do with it?
 
rick James said:
yep, his hip faced his head... and missed it... and bartel cannoned into the ground... about a metre or two away from teh ball... moloney saw it was going to get tom another geelong player.. so he attempted to lay a shephard... realised bartel was already going to ground and attempted to pull up.. and made no contact...

Bartel is injured cause he fell over. simple as that.

If that's his defence, he's in trouble. The incident was categorised as 'medium' contact (whatever that is) so there would need to be proof that no contact was made. There's no doubt that Bartel's head hit the ground but that won't even come into it. It's all about whether Moloney made contact and whether it was negligent.
 
McBain said:
anyone recall the Pickett incident ??
fact of the matter is the guy had his head over the ball and Moloney tried to smash him.
jeez, if he had of collected Bartel properly i reckon he would fair dinkum get 8 weeks.
just lucky the contact was minimal.

if if if if if if....

if my sister has b@lls she'd be my brother.....
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Yze_Magic said:
Last I heard, you cant get suspended for missing a bloke that slides udner you

And the last I heard you know absolutely nothing.
There are ways of being suspended for "attempting", there are rules to say so.
Before you shoot your under educated mouth off, read the rules. The afl has picture books out now.



Personally dont think he should go. Can be argued he tried to avoid contact.
The way and angle Bartels head hit the ground is what caused the damage. Its a possibility he would have been better off taking the moloney hit.
 
The main damage to Bartel was probably done by his head hitting the ground. I also think Bartel was out before he hit the turf, because he made no attempt to break his fall, so I think the initial hit was not as 'minimal' as it looks on tape.

Moloney was always going for the man. 2 weeks well deserved.
 
Rodion said:
The main damage to Bartel was probably done by his head hitting the ground. I also think Bartel was out before he hit the turf, because he made no attempt to break his fall, so I think the initial hit was not as 'minimal' as it looks on tape.

Moloney was always going for the man. 2 weeks well deserved.

how could he make an attempt to break his fall when the time from when he supposidly hit Moloney to his head hitting the ground was what? 1/4 of a second?
 
Its a joke, and I'll quote demon_adi's call "The AFL is becomming the new commedy festival".

Great call.
 
RodgerFox said:
I actually think Moloney has been very, very important to Melbourne this year.

It is such a luxury in modern football to have a midfielder with grunt, who can kick from his own defensive 50, to inside his forward 50.

I'm still amazed that Geelong chose him as the one to make way for Ottens.

Whether or not losing him will be enough to sway the result on Sunday, I'm not sure. But I wouldn't want to lose him for too long against some full strength contenders later in the year.

geelong have a truck load of players that are the same if not better than moloney. to win a preimership u need a forward which is something that they did not posses at the time ottens came up. gaining ottens gave thier forward line structure
 
Just listening to 3AW.Graham Bond said that he can still get done for rough play even if didn't contact him.If the player is injured avoiding the potential rough play then that is enough for a guilty verdict.
I simply can't believe this rubbish.(Not Bond just what a player can be guilty of)
 
melbournemartin said:
how could he make an attempt to break his fall when the time from when he supposidly hit Moloney to his head hitting the ground was what? 1/4 of a second?

Try it. You'd be surprised how quickly self defense can kick in.
 
Barry Schneider said:
Just listening to 3AW.Graham Bond said that he can still get done for rough play even if didn't contact him.If the player is injured avoiding the potential rough play then that is enough for a guilty verdict.
I simply can't believe this rubbish.(Not Bond just what a player can be guilty of)

Did you also hear the interview with Bartel? Said he thought he would have put out his hands to prevent the fall, if he had been expecting his head to hit the ground?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Moloney contests 2 week offer

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top