Autopsy Round 4, 2022: Hawthorn v St.Kilda

Remove this Banner Ad

HunterClarksHeadband said:
We’re challenging the decision. Thank f*ck
Click to expand...
As stav said last night, we would challenge, probably downgraded to a week and everyone feel happy. Not as aggrieved Saints fans, clowns like King won't be unhappy, sanctimonious Whately will wax lyrical and take some indefensible moral high ground, and Robbo will slur like a drunken idiot as usual.

Whately last night, whatever he could do, he can't do that. Well high and mighty, give an alternative to what he could do. Dive out of the way? Open himself up so he gets injured. Fat nosed arseh*le never played football in his life and you lecture the likes of Paddy Ryder on how he should conduct himself on a football field.
The arrogance is astounding.
 
Plugger35 said:
Have to wonder if us playing Gold Coast and GWS in the next couple of weeks played a part in Paddy getting the 2 week suspension.

I'm sure the AFL would prefer their 2 franchise clubs to get a win over us and rubbing Paddy out definitely improves their chances of beating us.

You would hate to think that would be a factor in the decision but it wouldn't surprise me if it was, it is out of whack when compared to other incidents.
Click to expand...
Would not put it past them.
 
StFly said:
Yeah, Rush, Gleeson cleans him up by invoking prayers about how God fists people for enjoyment or something, it's kind of weird TBH.

What we should do is hire a literal clown, have them front up, make a balloon animal of a horse have it trott around with the clown making shocked face expressions, then, with the opposite hand produce a pin and stand it straight up for all to see that yes, it is pointing up, and have the horse trott over the pin to be popped.

Then the clown can state "I rest my case" and sit down.

The MRP will take that as ironclad proof that Ryder was stationary and Day wandered around like said horse to F himself over by running into a bloke bigger than him, and Gleeson will be gazumped that he'll have to use something on a document instead of his arse, and we'll win the appeal easy.

As you know however, come on down Jack Rush to bottle it like a champ.
Click to expand...
I knew Rush's Daughter when I went to school...she was lovely 😊
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Saints TV said:
But in the long term how do you stamp out injuries? You fix THE ACTION. You punish THE ACTION. If Paddy stands still and someone runs into him and happens to get concussed, does suspending Paddy actually reduce the number of injuries moving forward? No it doesn't. If someone runs into a bloke, hits him head high and raises an elbow and is clearly off the ball, but the player is not concussed, is that action deemed unpunishable? You see what I mean.

Punish the action, and the outcomes will become less and less common.
Click to expand...
Get this logical argument out of here!

What's next? Kicking the ball into an opponent's head accidentally, causing a concussion, then getting a two game ban? Opponent got concussed because of your action, take a vacation!
 
There's enough evidence and a set precedent to say that, with some common sense, Ryder should not miss a game.
However I have 0 confidence that common sense will factor in to any decision that is made.

Ryder does not make an unnecessary or unreasonable action. It wasn't reckless, nor a choice to bump, he took no momentum into the impact.
In a split second, Ryder takes a defensive stance to minimise the contact as the hawks player changes course directly into him.
There's no malice, no aggression and nothing irresponsible or unreasoanble in how Paddy acted. It's all right there, on video.

You have the prior cases such as the bulldogs player, where they could plainly see there was nothing else that could be done and the player is not to blame.

If we change the rules all of a sudden, to say a reasonable action that results in high contact should be worthy of a ban regardless, then you have to go back and look at the tackle on Jack Higgins. Can you argue that action was more 'reasonable' than this?

Go back further and look at Hunter Clark's broken jaw. In no sense would anyone say that kind of kamikazi dive into a contest was reasonable. It was reckless, resulted in a severe impact and injury to the head, but the ball was in the vicinity, so play on.

The information is all there as long as they have the integrity to actually care about it.

This all just takes me back to when Carlisle got pinged for HTB after he'd been knocked out - as somebody had just kneed him in the head. :$
 
Hubnester said:
There's enough evidence and a set precedent to say that, with some common sense, Ryder should not miss a game.
However I have 0 confidence that common sense will factor in to any decision that is made.

Ryder does not make an unnecessary or unreasonable action. It wasn't reckless, nor a choice to bump, he took no momentum into the impact.
In a split second, Ryder takes a defensive stance to minimise the contact as the hawks player changes course directly into him.
There's no malice, no aggression and nothing irresponsible or unreasoanble in how Paddy acted. It's all right there, on video.

You have the prior cases such as the bulldogs player, where they could plainly see there was nothing else that could be done and the player is not to blame.

If we change the rules all of a sudden, to say a reasonable action that results in high contact should be worthy of a ban regardless, then you have to go back and look at the tackle on Jack Higgins. Can you argue that action was more 'reasonable' than this?

Go back further and look at Hunter Clark's broken jaw. In no sense would anyone say that kind of kamikazi dive into a contest was reasonable. It was reckless, resulted in a severe impact and injury to the head, but the ball was in the vicinity, so play on.

The information is all there as long as they have the integrity to actually care about it.

This all just takes me back to when Carlisle got pinged for HTB after he'd been knocked out - as somebody had just kneed him in the head. :$
Click to expand...
The information is all there as long as they have the integrity to actually care about it.

this is the problem - they don't
 
PostmanBish said:
The other problem is that the head is not truly sacrosanct in the AFL. It's perfectly fine to s**tmix Hunter Clark or Jack Higgins in multiple situations, where you will be judged on the action, rather than the outcome. Then you have the Ben Long incident against the Doggies where one specific action, combined with a presumption of "potential to cause injury" sees weeks given when the "offended" player was completely unharmed and plays out the game.

My gears grind a bit on this, because we know St Kilda players are over-represented in concussion-related retirements, yet anytime our players get laid out, or damaged above the shoulders, it is a "football incident" (which apparently mitigates all possible outcomes of those concussions). On the other hand, I guess we can be thankful that the league doesn't give weeks every time Selwood leads with his head and has to break out the sticky tape.

To the topic at hand, I'd really like to see the club appeal Ryder's suspension, backed up with a proper biomechanical analysis of the Day incident, because if you watch it in slow-mo from behind, Day's change of direction is clear - had he stayed on the line he held up to the point of the kick, Ryder's action of stopping would have resulted in a glancing blow, at worst, rather than full contact.

View attachment 1370048

View attachment 1370053

Up to the point of the kick, there's no sign that Day is going to change direction - After the kick, Day plants his right foot, and pushes into a direction change - Ryder is already visibly trying to stop his forward momentum.

View attachment 1370057
View attachment 1370059

At this point, I reckon the only thing Paddy could potentially have done would be to try and flop backwards, or de-materialize ... he does make every effort to stay low, however, and avoid high contact - his shoulder is noticeably lower than Day's at this point, and Day is actually airborne at the point of impact, facing approximately 90 degrees away from his original path.

View attachment 1370062

View attachment 1370067

It actually appears that Day's head impacts on his own hand, moreso than making any direct contact with Paddy.

View attachment 1370082


By contrast to the English bump, where Blakey was running DIRECTLY at English throughout the clip, and English opts to turn to his left and brace the right shoulder, Paddy needed to be clairvoyant to be able to forsee that Day would turn basically 90 degrees from his original line and launch directly into him.

View attachment 1370175
View attachment 1370176
View attachment 1370177
View attachment 1370178
View attachment 1370183
View attachment 1370184



Given that Day played further time on ground, I'd also be interested to know if:

a) Day was PROPERLY assessed for concussion after the incident (he was only off the ground for a couple of minutes - is that sufficient time to administer a concussion test - was ANY consideration given to having him off the ground for the 20 minutes rather than expose him to more contact?) BEFORE being allowed to resume.
b) If not, why not? On what grounds was he allowed to continue? The speed at which he was interchanged back on raises questions which should be answered by the Hawthorn medical staff
c) Whether any of the contests that Day participated in following the Ryder incident influenced his halftime substitution following a seemingly hasty return to the field:

9:13 - Whistle blows on the Ryder contact
7:44 - Marking contest with Mason Wood
7:26 - Marking contest with Rowan Marshall and Sam Frost
7:24 - Tackled by Mason Wood (Day was still on his knees in back of frame 4 seconds later while Wood had regained his feet)
6:53 - Pack marking contest involving King, Wood, Marshall and another Hawk - looking at the reverse angle replay (around 6:37) it appears his head makes contact with King's right arm as well as his torso impacting with Marshall's back which would also be a fair jolt) - pretty sure he ran to interchange after this.
5:10 - Commentators state that Day was checked out by the doctors ... "All clear, just a little graze under the chin" - cut to shot of Day looking fine on the bench, with no signs of bleeding.

Then we get to the other side of halftime, and they start with the coordinated crucifixion of Ryder in a trial-by-media special.

Personally, I think the incident was worth the downfield free kick, possibly a 50m penalty, but not two weeks. Ryder's actions in the lead-up had every potential to AVOID injury to Day, had he not turned 90 degrees following the kick, which could not reasonably be foreseen, IMHO. There was no direct contact with Day's head, so really, even if you took the absolute worst interpretation of Paddy's intent, combined with the nature of the impact and outcome, there's no way it should be more than one week. I honestly think Hawthorn's medical staff have much more to answer for in rushing him back onto the field - imagine how WE would have been crucified, had we allowed Higgins to play on for one moment longer after the Ralphsmith tackle ...
Click to expand...
Really interesting analysis. Have you established where Lee Harvey Oswald was located at the time ?
 
ScrappyDo said:
So where does Long's conviction fit in to that framework?
Click to expand...

This received 3 weeks.
Graded as rough conduct, careless, severe impact and high contact, for a concussion.

AFL tribunal clears Adelaide defender David Mackay of rough conduct over Hunter Clark's broken jaw - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au amp.abc.net.au
You read this an tell me then how the **** could they have given Long 3 weeks and allowed McKay to get off?

This is not a bump. This is a player who still has his hands down trying to get the ball," he said.

"These are two players going for a 50-50 ball.

"As a society and as a league, we are all rightly concerned about head injuries,.

"[But] if you punish the players for proper technique for protecting themselves, we end up with more injuries, not less."

Absolute joke. And for whatever reason we always seem to the club on the receiving end of these shit decisions.
I’m happy for the afl to make a stand and example but then they have to be consistent. Is it outcome based or action based? They pick and choose.
 
Last edited:
Sun Ra said:
Really interesting analysis. Have you established where Lee Harvey Oswald was located at the time ?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Oswald was wearing hi-viz at the time, and there was a dazed umpire wearing gaffer tape back in the sheds ;)

I should add that I'm not a biomechanist, but I generally enjoy physics, and have worked in analytics for 20+ years. The footage of the Ryder incident is really helpful because you can see Day's position relative to the centre circle at all times, and it clearly shows that he changed direction after the kick in a way which actually caused Ryder's concerted attempt at avoiding contact to be nullified. Putting all the blame for this incident on Ryder is akin to blaming the driver of a car stopped at traffic lights, for not getting out of the way of an oncoming vehicle which veers into them because that driver does something unforeseen.

Maybe Ryder should have thrown himself forward for a late spoil ... Day might have suffered a broken leg or a knee injury, but at least that would be a footballing incident ...
 
In an ideal scenario Paddy gets cleared tonight Then we rest him for two weeks as a big **** you to the AFL.
 
Myles David said:
Get this logical argument out of here!

What's next? Kicking the ball into an opponent's head accidentally, causing a concussion, then getting a two game ban? Opponent got concussed because of your action, take a vacation!
Click to expand...
Lol only because I've seen this happen
 
puppy_dog7 said:
Absolute joke. And for whatever reason we always seem to the club on the receiving end of these shit decisions.
I’m happy for the afl to make a stand and example but then they have to be consistent. Is it outcome based or action based? They pick and choose.
Click to expand...
And our players are over-represented in the list of players who retire prematurely with concussion-related effects.

For St Kilda players, protection of the head begins above the longest hair they possess ...

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ads734 said:
Then you see Rioli get off after polaxing Rowell and you think, which team you play for makes more of a difference.
Click to expand...
We must remember that the MRO did actually hand Rioli a week, which was overturned at the tribunal, so we're only halfway on the Paddy story.

Of course the AFL insist that the tribunal decision was wrong, but didn't appeal ... AFL says Rioli decision was wrong — but it won’t appeal, and will keep banning players for the act

If Paddy gets a reduction, or has the weeks struck off, however, I fully expect the AFL to appeal with full force.
 
I am pumped to be getting Jones and Clark back into this team. More class and speed to be added to this team is super exciting. I know Billings will probably come straight back in as well but he doesn’t excite me as much, but I guess if it’s him or someone like Wood in the team obviously you’d go Billings.
Possibly our most damaging midfielder, a top 10 pick to come into the team and another one back from injury next year. This is more like it.

Sly little coaching adjustment that I’m not sure anyone’s noticed. If Marshall is the #1 ruck then Sinclair’s CBA’s go up to combine with Gresh and we get more pace around the centre bounce to react because obviously Marshall isn’t as good at the tap work. If Ryder is in then Crouch and Ross’ CBA numbers go up because we can be more proactive around the stoppage. Great lesson from round 1.

Shock horror, dual BnF winner plays well in the position where he won those BnF’s. His kicking can be ordinary but that’s probably why you shouldn’t play him in a position where that’s a critical part of his role.

Draftees have all looked good and I’ve learnt not to get too excited too early but jeez it’s hard not to be with these guys. Hopefully they can go on with it.

We still need an interceptor. Oh wait we have one he’s just not playing.

I thought we were in for a repeat of last year but things look closer to my original prediction of us finishing somewhere around mid table/in finals with scope to improve and that’s all I could’ve asked for.
 
Plugger35 said:
Have to wonder if us playing Gold Coast and GWS in the next couple of weeks played a part in Paddy getting the 2 week suspension.

I'm sure the AFL would prefer their 2 franchise clubs to get a win over us and rubbing Paddy out definitely improves their chances of beating us.

You would hate to think that would be a factor in the decision but it wouldn't surprise me if it was, it is out of whack when compared to other incidents.
Click to expand...

It basically is a factor but not the way you think, it just is because in reality in AFL circle we're the shit kid that generally bends over and take it, whines a bit and moves on, we have no staying power or pull in anything worth a damn so it's just easier to kick us than others.

That being said, not an issue in this for mine, core issue for me is muppets like the comm team immediately towing the "OMG BUMP" line when even immediately, but especially on almost every single replay since, you see one player running who braces and one player who after disposing, does the human thing overcorrection with momentum instead of continuation of trajectory. When the two forces meet, well, the wall generally wins in 99.98% of situations since humans can't generally generate enough momentum to break said wall, which is why most go around or over said wall instead.

I mean, look at Rugby for exhibit A, one bloke running at another bloke bracing to knock his arse down.

Dard Ball Get said:
Then on his break he could assault a woman in a nightclub and be free to play week 3!
Click to expand...

In this reality, the AFL paid out Lovett so he could assault no less than 3 women, imagine being an organisation that told a serial offender "you're a great bloke, here's some cash".

Just tell Paddy to get pissed at a rando pub and then urinate on a boat and we can trade him to Carlton for his retirement run just to rub it into Essendon some more about how shit a club they are to come full circle.
 
StFly said:
It basically is a factor but not the way you think, it just is because in reality in AFL circle we're the shit kid that generally bends over and take it, whines a bit and moves on, we have no staying power or pull in anything worth a damn so it's just easier to kick us than others.

That being said, not an issue in this for mine, core issue for me is muppets like the comm team immediately towing the "OMG BUMP" line when even immediately, but especially on almost every single replay since, you see one player running who braces and one player who after disposing, does the human thing overcorrection with momentum instead of continuation of trajectory. When the two forces meet, well, the wall generally wins in 99.98% of situations since humans can't generally generate enough momentum to break said wall, which is why most go around or over said wall instead.

I mean, look at Rugby for exhibit A, one bloke running at another bloke bracing to knock his arse down.



In this reality, the AFL paid out Lovett so he could assault no less than 3 women, imagine being an organisation that told a serial offender "you're a great bloke, here's some cash".

Just tell Paddy to get pissed at a rando pub and then urinate on a boat and we can trade him to Carlton for his retirement run just to rub it into Essendon some more about how shit a club they are to come full circle.
Click to expand...
Was referring to DeGoey 😂
 
Dard Ball Get said:
Was referring to DeGoey 😂
Click to expand...

Oh I figured, I just went local instead of the USA.

Like just trap a woman in a car, get drunk a bit punchy and the AFL will pay you! instead of the other way around at present.
 
PostmanBish said:
The other problem is that the head is not truly sacrosanct in the AFL. It's perfectly fine to s**tmix Hunter Clark or Jack Higgins in multiple situations, where you will be judged on the action, rather than the outcome. Then you have the Ben Long incident against the Doggies where one specific action, combined with a presumption of "potential to cause injury" sees weeks given when the "offended" player was completely unharmed and plays out the game.

My gears grind a bit on this, because we know St Kilda players are over-represented in concussion-related retirements, yet anytime our players get laid out, or damaged above the shoulders, it is a "football incident" (which apparently mitigates all possible outcomes of those concussions). On the other hand, I guess we can be thankful that the league doesn't give weeks every time Selwood leads with his head and has to break out the sticky tape.

To the topic at hand, I'd really like to see the club appeal Ryder's suspension, backed up with a proper biomechanical analysis of the Day incident, because if you watch it in slow-mo from behind, Day's change of direction is clear - had he stayed on the line he held up to the point of the kick, Ryder's action of stopping would have resulted in a glancing blow, at worst, rather than full contact.

View attachment 1370048

View attachment 1370053

Up to the point of the kick, there's no sign that Day is going to change direction - After the kick, Day plants his right foot, and pushes into a direction change - Ryder is already visibly trying to stop his forward momentum.

View attachment 1370057
View attachment 1370059

At this point, I reckon the only thing Paddy could potentially have done would be to try and flop backwards, or de-materialize ... he does make every effort to stay low, however, and avoid high contact - his shoulder is noticeably lower than Day's at this point, and Day is actually airborne at the point of impact, facing approximately 90 degrees away from his original path.

View attachment 1370062

View attachment 1370067

It actually appears that Day's head impacts on his own hand, moreso than making any direct contact with Paddy.

View attachment 1370082


By contrast to the English bump, where Blakey was running DIRECTLY at English throughout the clip, and English opts to turn to his left and brace the right shoulder, Paddy needed to be clairvoyant to be able to forsee that Day would turn basically 90 degrees from his original line and launch directly into him.

View attachment 1370175
View attachment 1370176
View attachment 1370177
View attachment 1370178
View attachment 1370183
View attachment 1370184



Given that Day played further time on ground, I'd also be interested to know if:

a) Day was PROPERLY assessed for concussion after the incident (he was only off the ground for a couple of minutes - is that sufficient time to administer a concussion test - was ANY consideration given to having him off the ground for the 20 minutes rather than expose him to more contact?) BEFORE being allowed to resume.
b) If not, why not? On what grounds was he allowed to continue? The speed at which he was interchanged back on raises questions which should be answered by the Hawthorn medical staff
c) Whether any of the contests that Day participated in following the Ryder incident influenced his halftime substitution following a seemingly hasty return to the field:

9:13 - Whistle blows on the Ryder contact
7:44 - Marking contest with Mason Wood
7:26 - Marking contest with Rowan Marshall and Sam Frost
7:24 - Tackled by Mason Wood (Day was still on his knees in back of frame 4 seconds later while Wood had regained his feet)
6:53 - Pack marking contest involving King, Wood, Marshall and another Hawk - looking at the reverse angle replay (around 6:37) it appears his head makes contact with King's right arm as well as his torso impacting with Marshall's back which would also be a fair jolt) - pretty sure he ran to interchange after this.
5:10 - Commentators state that Day was checked out by the doctors ... "All clear, just a little graze under the chin" - cut to shot of Day looking fine on the bench, with no signs of bleeding.

Then we get to the other side of halftime, and they start with the coordinated crucifixion of Ryder in a trial-by-media special.

Personally, I think the incident was worth the downfield free kick, possibly a 50m penalty, but not two weeks. Ryder's actions in the lead-up had every potential to AVOID injury to Day, had he not turned 90 degrees following the kick, which could not reasonably be foreseen, IMHO. There was no direct contact with Day's head, so really, even if you took the absolute worst interpretation of Paddy's intent, combined with the nature of the impact and outcome, there's no way it should be more than one week. I honestly think Hawthorn's medical staff have much more to answer for in rushing him back onto the field - imagine how WE would have been crucified, had we allowed Higgins to play on for one moment longer after the Ralphsmith tackle ...
Click to expand...
Why are you not representing Ryder?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy Round 4, 2022: Hawthorn v St.Kilda

Similar threads

Hubnester
  • Locked
Votes Round 9, 2024: Hawthorn v St.Kilda
Replies
7
Views
652
borderbarry
borderbarry
Hubnester
  • Locked
Autopsy Round 9, 2024: Hawthorn v St.Kilda
33 34 35 36 37
Replies
908
Views
30K
Hubnester
Hubnester
Hubnester
  • Locked
Votes Round 4, 2024: Richmond v St.Kilda
Replies
17
Views
881
CursingFijian
CursingFijian
Hubnester
Autopsy Round 4, 2024: Richmond v St.Kilda
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
462
Views
21K
The_Steadier
The_Steadier
Hubnester
Votes Round 20, 2024 - St.Kilda v Essendon
Replies
8
Views
603
Kildonan
Kildonan
Hubnester
  • Locked
Votes Round 14, 2024: Brisbane v St.Kilda
Replies
7
Views
683
Brains Trust66
Brains Trust66
S
Autopsy Round 14, 2024: Brisbane v St.Kilda
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
487
Views
18K
tomjoad
tomjoad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top