![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/brisbane.png)
Hollow Knight
Imperfect vessel
- May 3, 2005
- 96,993
- 108,237
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
Compare this to other 4 week incidents (e.g. Tom Stewarts hit on Prestia which was miles worse), this is a crazy outcome.
A bizarre comparison. One was off the ball to begin within.
I don’t agree.I think you're getting confused between not learning something and criticising it. I hope it was therapeutic for you to summarise the rule, but what I'm criticising is this (helpfully summarised): "'Whether he intended to hit him high or not doesn’t matter in the assessment of intentional". It should.
Choosing to bump an unaware player off the ball is as intentional as it comes.
To be classed as careless it has to be a consequence from a football incident in which you had no obvious alternative course of action. Off-the ball incidents give you essentially no grounds to claim carelessness. You simply had the alternative option of not doing it.
This wasn’t a football incident. Rankine saw an opportunity to bump Starcevich off the ball and took it. The fact he stuffed it up is irrelevant to the grading of intentional. Rankine not intending to knock out Starcevich is irrelevant. The act was intentional, not the outcome. Andrew Gaff probably didn’t intend to bust Brayshaw’s jaw apart, but he sure as shit chose to hit him.
If we followed your logic, an intentional grading becomes unenforceable. It would be like drink driving and accidentally killing someone, and expecting leniency because you didn’t intend to kill someone. Of course you didn’t “intend” to kill someone. But you intentionally drove drunk and are therefore culpable for the outcome.
Last edited: