- Oct 9, 2003
- 15,667
- 830
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Bolton,Clippers,Falcons,Mariners
You heard it here first. Announcement to come Monday.
Don't know any more details.
Don't know any more details.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Scott & Michael to be charged.
- Thread starter Daytripper
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Oct 9, 2003
- 15,667
- 830
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Bolton,Clippers,Falcons,Mariners
- Thread starter
- #4
superstar said:
Its true.
Sports Capital
All Australian
- Jun 25, 2004
- 901
- 1
- Other Teams
- ESSENDON
My bet, misconduct.coasting said:
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #6
All they have said so far is that the AFL will have a look at it, as they always do when the public get over emotional about it. The AFL have set their precedent by allowing bumping off the ball in every stoppage of every game since the competition began. To do anything to Michael and Scott, they will have to prove that the Lions players knew the extent of Riewoldt's injury despite Riewoldt himself thinking he may be able to play on.
Still the AFL are not beyond making up the rules as they go along. For mine, they can only update rules after the fact and not backdate their interpretations in order to sate the public's witchhunts.
Still the AFL are not beyond making up the rules as they go along. For mine, they can only update rules after the fact and not backdate their interpretations in order to sate the public's witchhunts.
- Oct 9, 2003
- 15,667
- 830
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Bolton,Clippers,Falcons,Mariners
- Thread starter
- #7
The Michael Gardiner incident is apparantly going to be the precedent.
speculation .... would'nt suprise me but i dont think they should..
i believe it should be sorted out on the field the next time they play..
i also think some players this year may target michael and scott for what they did...
it will either do two things..
1 is send a message that the lions are in it to win it , they are playing for keeps and dont give a rats what that takes to achieve...
they are going to be tough to beat and be prepared for physicalities of all sorts if you want to...
2 is that it will come back and bite them in many different ways..
i believe it should be sorted out on the field the next time they play..
i also think some players this year may target michael and scott for what they did...
it will either do two things..
1 is send a message that the lions are in it to win it , they are playing for keeps and dont give a rats what that takes to achieve...
they are going to be tough to beat and be prepared for physicalities of all sorts if you want to...
2 is that it will come back and bite them in many different ways..
If he was going off the ground then yes, fair enough, but he was going back to position and the actions were not even enough to give away a free kick. I hate the pricks but you can't rub them out for that.
Mikes4
Club Legend
lasher said:
Good luck to all players who attempt this feat. They may need more than a bit of luck, as trying to physically intimidate/hurt/beat up on arguably one of the toughest and one of the strongest players in the AFL will not be easy.
If there is any investigation at all it should be into the Saints medical staff. Why on earth did they allow him to stay on the field with a broken collar bone? Last year they allowed Baker to stay on the field after he was concussed and he ended up striking a player and they tried to use that as evidence as to why he should be let off. They have a history of letting injured players stay on the field.
Darealrath said:
fair comment...
- Dec 1, 2004
- 55
- 0
- Other Teams
- Collingwood
- Banned
- #15
Good.
- Oct 9, 2003
- 15,667
- 830
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Bolton,Clippers,Falcons,Mariners
- Thread starter
- #16
coasting said:
WCE vs Bulldogs. Gardiner's first game. About 5 players basically tried to intimidate him. All concerned were fined.
MadRyan said:
No idea yet. All I know is that they are being charged.
I thought it was an ugly incident, but I don't think it warrants any penalties against Michael and Scott. They would not have known the extent of Riewoldt's injury. I'd like to see this kind of thing disappear from the game. The player was visibly injured, so Michael and Scott thought they'd soften him up by engaging in cheap shots. Gamesmanship and psychology is all part of football, and I doubt Michael and Scott broke any rules.
But I do think the AFL has a responsibility to maintain a good public image. I hope they don't go overboard though.
But I do think the AFL has a responsibility to maintain a good public image. I hope they don't go overboard though.
Daytripper said:
Thats a silly precedent because Gardiner wasn't injured and that went for 10 minutes while this was two bumps. The Gardiner thing was more akin to a wresting/melee charge. The Primus/Gardiner incident is a much better precedent, where Primus intentionally injured Gardiner by ripping his arm out his socket. What Primus did was much worse than what Scott and Michael did, and he wasnt even investigated.
- Oct 9, 2003
- 15,667
- 830
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Bolton,Clippers,Falcons,Mariners
- Thread starter
- #21
Blues_Man said:
Its all been decided. I'm not speculating. Trust me, I know.
hit the nail on the head right their. if he was heading off they should get time off the game, seeing as he whent back to his position he was saying that he was fine and could keep playing. Had they of bumped him if he wasn't injured there would have been no issue at all and it will be viewed as if he wasn't injured.Darealrath said:
- Banned
- #23
rubbish bumps are one thing, they knowingly attacked an ALREADY injured player, one of the dogs readily admitted that straight after the game. All this crap about how its a part of the game are pure rubbish, as far as I can recall from playing coaching and unpiring afl at most levels, an injured player is sancrosanct, it is an unwriiten rule to leave an injured player alone, god if its serious you even stop play to help him. Sportsmanship simply requires you to be a decent human being, this willing to win at any cost crap your all putting forward as an excuse is pure bilge.BrisGirl said:
As a player on a footy field, your responsibility to an injured player is to assist him or leave him alone pure and simple. What these cretins did was a calculated and premeditated attack to see if they could worsen the injury, nothing more nothing less, all this rubbish about on the field of play and fair game are simply excuses put up to justify what they did. What they did was outside the simple rules of human decency, play hadn't even restarted from a goal being scored. And I do believe when he was hit he was stationary he HAD turned his back on the trainer yes but was standing stationary holding his shoulder in obvious pain when almost instantly hit by the first dog. Obviously Micheal had run some distance to get the first hit because his man was some thirty metres away
So are ch9 going to be charged for bringing the game into disrepute by continually showing the incident, talking it up and continually showing NR crying on the boundary line??? That was a freaking joke. The guy is injured, he's upset, he shed a few tears. So what? He's a kid, I can't make the call on whether or not he should be captain, but to continually focus on his misery was uncalled for, along with the jibes about the hospital. Ch9 and Ed are just as much to blame for this furore as anyone else.
Similar threads
