Tiger_Of_Old
THE_GUN:"Why don't you use your reg acc"7/9/24
im not even sure if the 1st contact was to Bartel,s head.It appeared 1st contact was just below his neck and the major cause was when Bartel,s chin hit the turf.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...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!
rick James said:Bartel is injured cause he fell over. simple as that.
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.
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.
Yze_Magic said:Last I heard, you cant get suspended for missing a bloke that slides udner you
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.
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.
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?
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)