MRP / Trib. Parker cleaning a bloke up in the magoos

[spudmaster]

You know that the picture is 2D but the real world isn't yeah?

[flat-earthers dislike this]

 

[boncer34]

Trouble is your nonceness doesn’t get the fact Parker was travelling at less than a metre per sec. before he ‘hit’ the other guy.

Actual evidence submitted tonight.

I suggest you invest in some duct tape and gag yourself until you read/hear the triibunal report.

Speed = distance?

 

[SuperMal]

Your brand of lunacy is definitely more entertaining I'll give you that.

It still doesn’t compete with your version of sanity.

 

[HTPunter]

Good thing he’s not a bad guy, he’s just someone who chooses to bump someone who by that time was outside the play and had no reason to expect contact. Hard enough that the “whiplash” of his head was enough to fracture a cheekbone. But he is a good guy!

So many Swans fans talking about Smiths awareness - don’t know if you’ve heard, but you’re not South Melbourne & it’s not the 80s, you don’t have to expect off the ball head knocks anymore.

 

[boncer34]

Go sway idiot.

Says the guy arguing speed = distance.

 

[SuperMal]

Good thing he’s not a bad guy, he’s just someone who chooses to bump someone who by that time was outside the play and had no reason to expect contact. Hard enough that the “whiplash” of his head was enough to fracture a cheekbone. But he is a good guy!

So many Swans fans talking about Smiths awareness - don’t know if you’ve heard, but you’re not South Melbourne & it’s not the 80s, you don’t have to expect off the ball head knocks anymore.

So a sheperd off the ball at 4 metres doesnt happen anymore in the AFL.

Righto…we’ll remember you said that.

 

[HTPunter]

AFL in off season: any more head high bumps, even if Maynard like in play, are gonna be punished

Swans fans when their player is punished for a head high bump resulting in a severe head injury:

 

[jannissary]

Don’t argue withh me - argue with Whateley and Robinson - they both agree he showed no awareness.

But you’d know more?

i'd do either, someone being a person in the media grants them no validity in their opinions.

i still don't understand how exactly it's josh smith's fault that luke parker bumped him. i've played and watched enough football to know that some people simply won't always be expecting contact, especially by someone who's a good bloke.

good blokes don't pull acts like that. keep your victim blaming to yourself

 

[Maddo11]

Bit unusual for Horse to actually answer that sort of question, but I don't think he's said anything out of line. "Tried to block, head clash, we'll see what happens"

 

[HTPunter]

So a sheperd off the ball at 4 metres doesnt happen anymore in the AFL.

Righto…we’ll remember you said that.

A head high shepherd doesn’t happen

A shepherd that fractures a cheekbone doesn’t happen

A shepherd when the player might be 4m off the ball, but has about 5 players more in play (the 2 running ahead, Parker who elected to not go the ball, plus the 2 players travelling to meet the ball from the 50) does not happen

6 weeks for a reason ya fool

 

[Maddo11]

Have you read the Swans fan page on FB?

Also 3 weeks is incredibly different to 6, any Swans fan claiming 3 weeks (I.e less than Wright) was clearly delusional and clearly thought it wasn’t as bad as Wright hope that clarifies things for you!

Who the **** reads Facebook comments. If you do I really don't think you've got anything of value to add

 

[boncer34]

Not me…a physicist at the tribunal - but I guess you no more?

Hey look everyone, we have a mechanical physicist on BF!

Uh what? He said Parker was moving slowly. He didn't say you can't be 10 metres away if you move slowly.

 

[.Shotties.]

Yes because he's aware the distance in a 2D photo can be greater due to depth. And you clearly aren't.

Yes, it can also be less. Given that the ball is moving towards the goal rather than the boundary it's more likely moving closer to the camera. Parker and the player bumper were on the camera side of the ball.

So again, I ask why not take this up with the original poster?

 

[SuperMal]

i'd do either, someone being a person in the media grants them no validity in their opinions.

i still don't understand how exactly it's josh smith's fault that luke parker bumped him. i've played and watched enough football to know that some people simply won't always be expecting contact, especially by someone who's a good bloke.

good blokes don't pull acts like that. keep your victim blaming to yourself

No you do understand - you just don’t want to because you are ‘integrity deficient’

Yours is the argument of a sad purist. Someone who doesn’t accept accidents happen.

You were burning witches 400 years ago. Enjoy your reputation.

 

[HairyO]

6 weeks - VFL clearly want to send a message - to all players who stop to a walk and the other guy smashes his face into them.

I’ll tell you what this is - the difference between AFL and VFL awareness. Blind Freddy destroys his face because he’s not expecting contact.

There are a pile of mitigations for Parker’s actions - None for the seriously self-enhanced VFL judiciary.

Swans will appeal….and win.

Parker went at him. He is lucky it wasnt more.

 

[SuperMal]

Uh what? He said Parker was moving slowly. He didn't say you can't be 10 metres away if you move slowly.

Put the bottle down and go away. The tribunal accepted he was hardly moving at POC - do some reading, if you can.

 

[boncer34]

Yes, it can also be less. Given that the ball is moving towards the goal rather than the boundary it's more likely moving closer to the camera rather than further away.

So again, I ask why not take this up with the original poster?

Because, again, he wasn't the one who looked at a 2D photo and measured based on the flat line. You did.

 

[SuperMal]

Parker went at him. He is lucky it wasnt more.

And you’re simplistic summaries are hardly convincing.

 

[SuperMal]

Here’s a pic of the time of contact - ball is in front of the umpire, definitely more than 10m away

Disproved by the tribunal - they accepted 4 metres.

 

[ReidBetweenTheLines]

Well at least you get a bigger suspension for breaking a blokes cheekbone than you do for calling someone gay..

 

[.Shotties.]

Because, again, he wasn't the one who looked at a 2D photo and measured based on the flat line. You did.

...He clearly did. The only reference points he used were the umpire and the players, nothing else.

 

[boncer34]

...He clearly did. The only reference points he used were the umpire and the players, nothing else.

He also said the ball. 3 points of reference.

 

[boncer34]

Not my argument - and the Tribunal accepted it - so speaking of MORONS.

At no stage tonight did the tribunal accept speed = distance.

 

[.Shotties.]

He also said the ball. 3 points of reference.

No, he said he was probably more than 10 metres from the ball, using the umpire as the reference point from Parker. There's nothing that refers to or accounts for depth. God damn, man, just admit that saying the ball was definitely more 10 metres away at the point of contact was a whiff and move on.

 

[boncer34]

Notes on cars? No no he hangs out in Facebook comment sections

Remember when you were telling us nobody believes there was nothing in it?