Scott & Michael to be charged.

[tapestry]

the means fits the end buddy and you stuffed up your little sentence its making an ass out of you and me. But once again changed fact to suit yourself

Can't you read english?

Fact: You are up on a holier than though pedestal accusing Lions players of having no human decency.
Fact: You started a tastless and disprespectful topic yesterday (that disapeared) that was designed to cause pain to Millane supporters.
Fact: You've got double standards, no respect and double standards. That equals no credibility.

 

[monoccular]

You can't be serious. What could they possibly be chargd with?

Maybe from:

- bringing game into disrepute
- unduly rough play
- misconduct, which is one they keep up their sleeves for anything they don't like that they haven't yet though of.

 

[Mikes4]

I'm saying theres no line of decency, so what I did was right, on your justification so is kiddy pr0n, so is bashing pensioners for money, so is racism,
so is Micheal Jackson sleeping with boys, so is murdering youe wife if you can't get a divorce, so is killing your dog if you can't afford to feed it. See basically what your saying is if the means justifies the end it's ok. Even though you know what your doing is wrong, as long as you can excuse it for some percieved higher good to yourself or someone close then its open slather. I actually was taught if you think its wrong, then it most probably is.

Both players have said if they had known it was broken then it would have been wrong to attack him, now they know its broken obviously there should be at the least an apology because they knew that would be wrong!!!! If they knew it was broken they wouldn't have touched him both said that but attacked anyway, I think that they should be delisted

Only half of your above examples actually had an end for the means to require justification.

 

[Mead]

This is getting hilarious.

Personally, I think the incident was a.) very dirty, and b.) smart. It did the job, and it absolutely shellshocked the sainters. Any rational supporter would have to accept that targetting an injured player is a pretty weak gutted action- if they can't hit back, you might as well be beating up on someone in a wheelchair. Having said that, Michael and Scott knew what they were choosing to do, they did it, and it doesn't appear to be specifically against the rules. The whole point about being sporting is that its up to you how far you want to go. They chose to trade that in for an immediate advantage, good for them. If what they did was worth it, I guess they now have to cop the stigma of being 'dirty players' and having people in the media sledge them. Hell, Scott and Michael would be seriously pushing it if now they started to get precious about people taking cheap shots in the media at them!

Is it at all possible that something can be a dirty, cheap shot but within the laws of the game? I think so.

That sort of bumping happens in every single game, with the only difference being that he was injured. As far as I know, there's no rule that says you have to go easy on a player just because he's injured- logically, if you're going say you can't bump an injured player, you shouldn't be allowed to tackle one with the ball either? St Kilda people have been carrying on about it being on par with kicking a player on an injured knee or punching a concussed player in the head or whatever- bull********. Kicking a player or punching them is an illegal, reportable offence in itself, the fact that they were injured just increases the severity. Those little bumps on someone off the ball are entirely legal, and I don't see how a perfectly legal act can become illegal just because they were calculated to hurt.

It will certainly make a lot of people think that Michael and Scott nasty, weak gutted swine, but if its within the laws of the game, then thats pretty much the be all and end all of it. Two players chose to do something not particularly sporting, st kilda fans understandably hate them for it, I guess their peers will make a judgement call as to whether or not they still respect those guys as players.

I don't think its a bad thing that this was cited, because its probably in everyones best interests that the incident is looked at and a ruling is made, but I doubt very much whether they will be suspended.

 

[Infamy]

Like it or not, the AFL NEEDS to make a move on this and nip it in the bud, it has to set a precident. The biggest problem Michael & Scott find themselves in, are not the bumps themselves, but the fact they both admitted that they knew he was injured so admitted that they were targeting an injury.

The AFL has to be seen to protect injurred players, even boxing has rules regarding protecting an injurred fighter. Even in war you have rules regarding injurred soldiers and if the AFL doesn't protect an injurred player then parents around the country are going to pull their kids out of youth leagues and it sets a dangerous precident that as long as you're on the field its open slather.

If anything Chris Scott could be in more trouble than Mal Michael as he was the 3rd man in plus by the time Michael had made his two bumps, Reiwoldt was in obvious trouble and unable to defend himself at all. It doesn't paint a very good picture of the AFL at all and despite some of you attempting to justify its legality, it has no place in the game. Despite a few incorrect comparisons with players who have come into a game under an injury cloud, this has never happened before, so the AFL is forced to move on it and rub it out of the game.

 

[luthor]

If there is any investigation at all it should be into the Saints medical staff. .

This is the crux of the whole issue and appears to have been convniently overlooked by those who are pointing fingers at Scott and Michael.

The player says he is OK to play on, the trainer takes his word for it, the player starts to move back to position, but the opposition players are supposed to make a value judgement that he really IS badly injured and then make allowances for him

What the hell was Reiwoldt doing, staying on the playing field with a broken collarbone??

What would have happened if he didn't get those reminders from Scott and Michael??

How much futher injury would he have suffered if he had been "left alone" as some have suggested, and within a few seconds had to have got involved in a real physical situation such as a contested mark or a full on tackle?.

Scott, Michael or anyone else for that matter could have caused a lot more damage if they had bided their time and really crunched him next time he was anywhere near "play"

Maybe Nick Reiwoldt should be thankful he got those little "reminders" as soon as he did and that he didn't get his wish to "play on".

 

[Tezmyster]

Like it or not, the AFL NEEDS to make a move on this and nip it in the bud, it has to set a precident. The biggest problem Michael & Scott find themselves in, are not the bumps themselves, but the fact they both admitted that they knew he was injured so admitted that they were targeting an injury.

It isn't whether they knew was injured or not, it's whether they knew the extent of the injuries. I'd wager that since Reiwoldt decided to play on they assumed it wasn't that bad.

The AFL has to be seen to protect injurred players, even boxing has rules regarding protecting an injurred fighter. Even in war you have rules regarding injurred soldiers and if the AFL doesn't protect an injurred player then parents around the country are going to pull their kids out of youth leagues and it sets a dangerous precident that as long as you're on the field its open slather.

Then why wouldn't the AFL promote injuried players to leave the field? The fact is if Reiwoldt hadn't have been injured (which the final hit was self inflicted by the way) the bumps would have meant nothing and no one would be caring about them.

If anything Chris Scott could be in more trouble than Mal Michael as he was the 3rd man in plus by the time Michael had made his two bumps, Reiwoldt was in obvious trouble and unable to defend himself at all. It doesn't paint a very good picture of the AFL at all and despite some of you attempting to justify its legality, it has no place in the game. Despite a few incorrect comparisons with players who have come into a game under an injury cloud, this has never happened before, so the AFL is forced to move on it and rub it out of the game.

When Scott came in for his bump Reiwoldt was facing the other way, he had no chance to see the look on his face and judge what the previous bumps from Michael had done.

 

[Macca19]

They could get reported under Rough Conduct.

I dont think they should get suspended but it was unwarranted and i bet if it happened to a player on the team anyone here supports they'd be annoyed at the incident as well. Its just one of those things....same as bumps. When a player on your side dishes out a bump everyone loves it...when your on the recieving end its an act of thuggery. When a player on your side rushes thru a behind its smart play, when an opponent does it hes weak as urine.

I do think Charman should be reported however. It was a textbook charge and many players over the past 2-3 seasons have been reported and suspended for identical incidents.

 

[Macca19]

When Scott came in for his bump Reiwoldt was facing the other way, he had no chance to see the look on his face and judge what the previous bumps from Michael had done.

Come on, he'd just been knocked around twice and was crouching over holding his shoulder and got pounded again.

There may not have been anything legally wrong with what Michael and Scott did but you cant tell me that if one of your players was in a similar situation you wouldnt be annoyed

 

[Tezmyster]

Come on, he'd just been knocked around twice and was crouching over holding his shoulder and got pounded again.

There may not have been anything legally wrong with what Michael and Scott did but you cant tell me that if one of your players was in a similar situation you wouldnt be annoyed

Annoyed, yes. Complaining about it like it was the end of the world and Scott and Michael should be banned for life, no.

 

[jezza]

Come on, he'd just been knocked around twice and was crouching over holding his shoulder and got pounded again.

There may not have been anything legally wrong with what Michael and Scott did but you cant tell me that if one of your players was in a similar situation you wouldnt be annoyed

Was not crouching over during any of the 3 bumps. Have got the footage downloaded, this is undeniable fact.

I'd be annoyed if it happened to one of my players, but I wouldn't be overreacting like so many of the Saint fans are. I'd also be very annoyed if one of my players chose to stay on the field with a serious injury.

 

[Roylion]

Come on, he'd just been knocked around twice and was crouching over holding his shoulder and got pounded again.

Riewoldt wasn't crouching over holding his shoulder at the time of Scott's bump.

Watch the replay. Michael comes in and slightly bumps Riewoldt's shoulder (something which happens off the ball numerous times every match...Fevola and Leigh Brown in today's match for example). I wouldn't even call what Michael delivered a hard bump. In the background Scott attempts to block Hamill by laying a bump which misses.

Riewoldt clutches his shoulder for about a second. He doesn't double over even though his shoulder/collarbone is obviusly a bit painful. Riewoldt lets go of his shoulder. Michael attempts to bump Riewoldt again and glances his chest. Scott comes in (on his way to Hamill) and on the way through, bumps Riewoldt (glancing bump to Riewoldt's arm) who was in his path. Scott isn't even really focused on Riewoldt; he doesn't take his eyes off Hamill.

There may not have been anything legally wrong with what Michael and Scott did but you cant tell me that if one of your players was in a similar situation you wouldnt be annoyed

Part of the game as far as I'm concerned. I didn't have a problem with Cornes testing out Brown's knee in last year's Grand Final or Lappin's ribs being tested out in the 2003 Grand Final. I've had bruised/broken ribs tested out by the opposition in a football match as well...again part of the game.

 

[Infamy]

It isn't whether they knew was injured or not, it's whether they knew the extent of the injuries. I'd wager that since Reiwoldt decided to play on they assumed it wasn't that bad.

The extent of the injury is irrelevant, they admitted to targetting the injury of a player sustained a minute prior, end of story.

Then why wouldn't the AFL promote injuried players to leave the field? The fact is if Reiwoldt hadn't have been injured (which the final hit was self inflicted by the way) the bumps would have meant nothing and no one would be caring about them.

Some of the blame must be put on Reiwoldt for not leaving the field, that doesn't excuse what happened entirely.

When Scott came in for his bump Reiwoldt was facing the other way, he had no chance to see the look on his face and judge what the previous bumps from Michael had done.

What a load of crap. He knew he was injurred, Reiwoldt was struggling to keep his feet. The face he was facing the other way makes it even worse as he attacked an injured player from behind.

I'm not debating the legality of what happened, technically you can argue that it was within the rules of the game as there is no rule in place to specifically deal with this. I'm just saying that the AFL is obligated to use this incident to set a precedent as it has no place in the game. If injured players aren't protected then the game is in serious trouble.


Edit - Would people stop comparing this to injuries being brought into a game (Lappin, Lloyd, Brown, etc). Its a completely different set of circumstances. This is the first time this sort of thing has happened, at least in the modern form of the game.

 

[tdubfleet]

What would have happened if the ball came back down towards Reiwoldt before the bumps?

Would it have been OK for Micheal or Scott to tackle him?

You're on the field, you're fair game.

 

[Silvagnis]

Charged with being good for footy.

 

[jezza]

Edit - Would people stop comparing this to injuries being brought into a game (Lappin, Lloyd, Brown, etc). Its a completely different set of circumstances. This is the first time this sort of thing has happened, at least in the modern form of the game.

I don't consider it different, targeting and injured player is targeting an injured player, it's either unsportsmanlike or not, regardless of when the injury was incurred. It could be argued that doing it to a player carrying an injury into the game is actually worse given it is quite premeditated.

 

[Macca19]

Part of the game as far as I'm concerned. I didn't have a problem with Cornes testing out Brown's knee in last year's Grand Final or Lappin's ribs being tested out in the 2003 Grand Final. I've had bruised/broken ribs tested out by the opposition in a football match as well...again part of the game.

I think an injury being tested from a previous week when you can have painkillers or whatever to numb the area is a completely different situation to someone whos just pretty seriously injured himself 20 seconds earlier, is in obvious pain and gets tested. Completely different. But thats just my opinion

 

[tapestry]

I think an injury being tested from a previous week when you can have painkillers or whatever to numb the area is a completely different situation to someone whos just pretty seriously injured himself 20 seconds earlier, is in obvious pain and gets tested. Completely different. But thats just my opinion

But at the same time, Riewoldt himself indicated the injury wasn't that serious by waving the trainer away and starting out to return to his position. At no time during that run back towards position did he keel over or kneel down holding his shoulder in pain nor did he signal for the trainer to return or call/signal for physios or a doctor of even try to get the attention of a team mate for support/help. So it isn't all that different. He 'appeared' to get injured, he indicated in a number of ways (and by omitting other ways) that he wasn't and was returning to play.

By his own actions (which = his own admission under the circumstances) he was fit to continue. Unless opposition players are now supposed to supercede the medicos and umpires and call a halt to proceedings and stand back and wave for the opposition doctors and support staff to get their arses out there to a player NR's decision to keep himself in the foray is on his own head.

 

[Roylion]

The extent of the injury is irrelevant, they admitted to targetting the injury of a player sustained a minute prior, end of story.

And so? As others have mentioned, do players now not bump or go in hard at players who may have sustained an injury, but are still on the field? As far as I'm concerned Riewoldt was on the field, making his way back to position and was fair game to be challenged physically...as long as the challenge was within the rules. Which it was.

What a load of crap. He knew he was injurred, Reiwoldt was struggling to keep his feet.

Rubbish. At no point was Riewoldt in danger of losing his footing.

The face he was facing the other way makes it even worse as he attacked an injured player from behind.

Riewoldt was facing and blocking Scott as Scott made a beeline for Hamill. Riewoldt turned his body with his injured shoulder pointing towards Scott, who bumped it.

I'm just saying that the AFL is obligated to use this incident to set a precedent as it has no place in the game.

It's in the game all of the time. Players sustain injuries, which are then tested by the opposition. Most are fairly minor and the player remains on the field.

If injured players aren't protected then the game is in serious trouble.

Injured players should be in the hands of the trainers, on a stretcher or leaving the field, not attempting to resume their playing position.

Edit - Would people stop comparing this to injuries being brought into a game (Lappin, Lloyd, Brown, etc).

I see little difference. Whether or not an injury is brought into the game, surely under your argument, it is unsportsmanlike to take advantage of such injury by attempting to actively, deliberately and unnecessarily aggravate that injury to assert a competitive advantage over one's opponent. I'm sure that sets a very bad example to all the juniors out there to see Kretiuk off the ball slapping Lloyd's bandaged hand, Collingwood players repeateldyl elbowing Lappin's bandaged ribs or Cornes dealing with Brown's bandaged knee.

 

[Tezmyster]

The extent of the injury is irrelevant, they admitted to targetting the injury of a player sustained a minute prior, end of story.

And I'm sure this is the first time it's happened too....

Some of the blame must be put on Reiwoldt for not leaving the field, that doesn't excuse what happened entirely.

All of the blame can put on Reiwoldt and Thomas. Even if he hadn't of received those bumps he was in no condition for any future play.

What a load of crap. He knew he was injurred, Reiwoldt was struggling to keep his feet. The face he was facing the other way makes it even worse as he attacked an injured player from behind.

If he was struggling to keep his feet why was he on the field

I'm not debating the legality of what happened, technically you can argue that it was within the rules of the game as there is no rule in place to specifically deal with this. I'm just saying that the AFL is obligated to use this incident to set a precedent as it has no place in the game. If injured players aren't protected then the game is in serious trouble.

Yeah great idea. One of two things will be done, either bumps behind the play will be outlawed or injured players will be highlighted on the field and everyone will be told to leave them alone. Either one will destroy the game.

Edit - Would people stop comparing this to injuries being brought into a game (Lappin, Lloyd, Brown, etc). Its a completely different set of circumstances. This is the first time this sort of thing has happened, at least in the modern form of the game.

Of course they were different, none of them are Saints players

 

[3rdEchelon]

Good on those two i'd say, as i see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Roylion]

I think an injury being tested from a previous week when you can have painkillers or whatever to numb the area is a completely different situation to someone whos just pretty seriously injured himself 20 seconds earlier, is in obvious pain and gets tested. Completely different. But thats just my opinion

I don't share your opinion. In my view it's virtually the same. Riewoldt had the option of going off. He also had the option of painkillers, if he felt that strongly about continuing on.

As I said I've had bruised/broken ribs, sustained during a football match tested out by the opposition in the same match. Part of the game. I certainly have no hard feelings towards those that elbowed, bumped or did anything else to the injury, while I was on the field (by my choice).

Michael's and Scott's bumps on Riewoldt were pretty soft. Only one of the three bumps (the first) actually hit his shoulder.

 

[Infamy]

What would have happened if the ball came back down towards Reiwoldt before the bumps?

Would it have been OK for Micheal or Scott to tackle him?

You're on the field, you're fair game.

I would have had no problem with it if happened in play. Most of the contention is that the ball was in a different post code when the incident happened. The bumps were specifically targetting a players injury behind play.

While the trainers had been waved away, they were about 5m from him by the time the first hit arrived, he was still cradling his arm and testing it out himself, it was far too soon from the injury occurring.

I don't consider it different, targeting and injured player is targeting an injured player, it's either unsportsmanlike or not, regardless of when the injury was incurred. It could be argued that doing it to a player carrying an injury into the game is actually worse given it is quite premeditated.

Its very different, you have a player who has passed a fitness test and taken pain killers if required, compared to a player who is still testing out his arm trying to assess the injury to see if he could play on. Granted the trainer should have done a better job, but that's no excuse.

 

[jezza]

I would say it's fair to test out a player who isn't seriously injured. Given Reiwoldt sent the trainer away, the Brisbane players could only assume he wasn't seriously injured.

I still don't see the difference between the player being injured before the match or during the match. To me, it's the same thing, testing out a player you know is injured.

 

[Tezmyster]

While the trainers had been waved away, they were about 5m from him by the time the first hit arrived, he was still cradling his arm and testing it out himself, it was far too soon from the injury occurring.

Too soon? The moment he left the trainer he was fair game as he had officially entered play. There is no cooling off period at this level of the game.

Its very different, you have a player who has passed a fitness test and taken pain killers if required, compared to a player who is still testing out his arm trying to assess the injury to see if he could play on. Granted the trainer should have done a better job, but that's no excuse.

Don't back down on your position now, the trainer did an excellent job, Scott and Michael should have done their own medical investigation before bumping him.