Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 50,886
- 68,154
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
So almighty one, just so we are clear - as long as the players intent is the ball first and foremost then contact to the head is okay. Do I have that right now
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Sandilands bump on davis, 1-2 weeks?
- Thread starter Upgrayedd
- Start date
- Tagged users None
So almighty one, just so we are clear - as long as the players intent is the ball first and foremost then contact to the head is okay. Do I have that right now
absfab
Premiership Player
- Mar 8, 2009
- 3,128
- 83
- AFL Club
- Carlton
So almighty one, just so we are clear - as long as the players intent is the ball first and foremost then contact to the head is okay. Do I have that right now
You are at least getting closer.
Baby steps.
Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 50,886
- 68,154
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
You mean there is more to incidental contact than going the man first rather than the ball - please explain.
Your justifying why hille got off but hawk supporters are obnoxious for 'sooking' about franklin not being as lucky.
Or as usual are you going to ignore the posts that show you to be a hypocrite, wait a couple of pages, then post the same crap without acknowledging you were wrong?
Thought so.
Dirtiest player in the league, give him six weeks
Throw the book at him...
If he gets anything I give up on this game
Totally agree with that. If he gets weeks I wonder what the h*ll is going on.
learn the rules you idiot. I'm not moaning about something I have no idea about. Hille has gotten off because one wasn't high, and the other was in a marking contest - just like this one.
I'm not having a cry about my player every time something happens, so I'm not being a hypocrite, and I've pointed out repeatedly how poor Franklin was different to this or Hille, hence not responding to that dump post.
Try learning the actual rules matey
Public Enemy No1
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #183
Not much in it...
I certainly hope Sandi gets off - one can mount a case that contact was unavoidable and he was just bracing himself for contact whereas Davis didn't flinch so it meant he came off even worse.
But, you never know with the MRP, they can twist any incident from a no case to answer to a 6 week suspension by over-legalistic pedantic application of the rules.
But, you never know with the MRP, they can twist any incident from a no case to answer to a 6 week suspension by over-legalistic pedantic application of the rules.
absfab
Premiership Player
- Mar 8, 2009
- 3,128
- 83
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Explain what?
Like the great majority of Hawthorn supporters, your attitude to this subject is repetitive, factually incorrect and plain irritating.
Off The Couch
TheBrownDog
- Oct 4, 2007
- 50,886
- 68,154
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Things not going your way huh, I asked you to explain incidental contact as you were the one who was going to help us hawk fans out - you know, show us how clever you are. But the shit below is all you could come up with.
Just out of curiosity - what subject are we talking about.
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,249
- 62,093
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
Here's the vid for those who haven't seen it.
[youtube]YChfAG7vLUE[/youtube]
He's clearly watching the ball the whole way and Davis marks a millisecond before he gets to it.
[youtube]YChfAG7vLUE[/youtube]
He's clearly watching the ball the whole way and Davis marks a millisecond before he gets to it.
Smoooothy
SACK THE LOT OF THEM!
- Jan 12, 2005
- 24,461
- 22,666
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- North Adelaide; ConeyIslandWarriors
its a shame that people are focusing on the hit (which shouldn't get anything) as opposed to the fantastic corageous mark that phil davis took
I thought the same about 2 of Franklin's 3 suspensions. Going for the ball, beaten to it and braced for contact at the last second. He should get off, I hope he gets off, but I wouldn't hold your breath about it.
Just wait for the press to show it in ultra-slow motion so it looks like he had 5 or 6 seconds to decide to bump.
It is a growing trend in today's AFL, media and fans alike are talking more about reports, suspensions and umpires than they are talking about the good parts of the game. Thus more and more people are getting disillusioned with the game.
Thanks, Demitripoo and Anderson.
- Banned
- #192
He's a typical Hawks supporter.
- Dec 29, 2000
- 25,153
- 23,440
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Whole heartedly agree.
Most of Adelaide people saw nothing in it and just loved the courage of Davis. The boy (and he is still in his teens) has shown courage and the footy nous (except deciding to take on the tallest and biggest player in the league
) in all his games so far.
GeorgeGrljusich
Club Legend
- Banned
- #194
Yeah, top marks to the kid. Hope that he gets back on the park soon. Wonderful courage.
But if Sandi gets weeks for it, the Essendon screaming about umpires today, (fully justified btw
), will pale into insignificance with the outrage that will ensue.No doubt that the threads will be deleted.
Yeah, top marks to the kid. Hope that he gets back on the park soon. Wonderful courage.
But if Sandi gets weeks for it, the Essendon screaming about umpires today, (fully justified btw
No doubt that the threads will be deleted.
If Sandi gets weeks, the game is finished, because it will mean that two people can't contest a mark.
will be very interesting to see what happens?? is there a difference between this and buddys earlier one? head high, they've set a precedent! im actually looking forward to the tribunal this week! will be an uproar if he gets done!
Yes there was a difference, one was two players going for the mark, the other was a player deciding to bump instead of tackling.
Sandilands - Davis was a contested mark.
Franklin - Mattner was a contested ball on the ground.
Sandliands had his eyes on the ball in the air and doesn't realise Davis is there until the very last moment and has no other option than to quickly protect himself. In Franklin's bump Buddy knows a lot earlier than Sandilands that there is going to be contact. That's the big difference.
As it goes I don't agree with the Franklin suspension.
Peerless Pete
Senior List
Can't believe some think Enright isn't in trouble. He could've tackled or smothered. He was chose neither and jumped up and smashed him in the head. He'll get a couple at least.
Pods will go for the clumsy elbow, but maybe not enough points to get a week. Waite will be fine. He was airborne looking to mark. You can't stop yourself in mid air.
And from today, Bateman will get another couple of weeks for the very crude knee in the back. Really shitty effort first game back after a suspension.
Sandilands was nothing like Buddy's incidents. At all. Period.
The problem is Buddy is getting suspended for minor incidents where there was minimal contact and no one was ever in any danger of getting seriously injured. That's just not what the rule on bumping was brought in to do.
Pods will go for the clumsy elbow, but maybe not enough points to get a week. Waite will be fine. He was airborne looking to mark. You can't stop yourself in mid air.
And from today, Bateman will get another couple of weeks for the very crude knee in the back. Really shitty effort first game back after a suspension.
Sandilands was nothing like Buddy's incidents. At all. Period.
The problem is Buddy is getting suspended for minor incidents where there was minimal contact and no one was ever in any danger of getting seriously injured. That's just not what the rule on bumping was brought in to do.
Absolutely correct!
The intention of the rule was to stop players being (potentially) seriously injured by another player intentionally acting in a manner that is likely to lead to injury. ie delivering a bump where the chance of head injury is increased. That is why factors such as leaving the ground, raised elbows etc
are taken into account.
Buddy's problems are due to his height not his intent. If he bumped players like Sandi (not recommended
) then he wouldn't have these issues. If he was a short arse, he wouldn't have these issues. Intentionally going the bump when you are his height is probably ill advised under the current regime.In my view, if the likelihood of injury is minimal and the 'intent' is not to injure, then free kick for high contact and nothing more. If the player leaves the ground or raises an elbow, then fair enough, give him time.
Some of Buddy's bumps have been frankly ill advised, some have been fair bumps in my view. Pay the free and move on. We are getting too technical here and missing the reason behind the rule.
Similar threads
