Infamy said:No one is blaming them for the injury itself
You acknowledge that it was unsportsmanlike and that's the exact reason why they will be put up to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Exactly !!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Infamy said:No one is blaming them for the injury itself
You acknowledge that it was unsportsmanlike and that's the exact reason why they will be put up to ensure it doesn't happen again.
bluey17 said:Why do you believe this knob?
Nothing will happen.
Tezmyster said:To put his collarbone injury into perspective, Reiwoldt copped a hit from Charman earlier in the game, then just before the Scott/Michael incident he landed on it (self inflicted). The trainer then came out had a quick look, then Reiwoldt sent him away and went back into play. I'm not going to make an excuse for what they did because I know it was unsportsmanlike. I'm just saying the injury was there before Scott and Michael bumped him and they can't be fully responsible for the fact that he was on the field.
But Reiwoldt returned to play giving the impression to all the players that he wasn't injured and that he was fit to play. Are you trying to tell me the Saints were letting an injuried player stay on the field in order to gain sympathy from the opposition?Infamy said:The INJURY is what makes this incident different, so unless there is a bump to an INJURED player over 5m off the ball, there won't be any other repercussions.
Resorting to personal insults huh, you're showing how much your arguement is slipping away if that is what you have to resort to.garth p said:The play was 100 metres away dipstick.
Tezmyster said:Resorting to personal insults huh, you're showing how much your arguement is slipping away if that is what you have to resort to.
coasting said:You can't be serious. What could they possibly be chargd with?
I agree that it was a low act, but to suggest they wouldn't do it to any other player is pathetic. It just goes to show how precious people think he is.sainter12riewoldt said:All of you who think they should not be charged are morons who should get a broken collarbone and we should bump you.
They should be charged because:
1. He was injured ( he was not going back to position D.I.C.K.H.E.A.D.S)
2. The ball was more than 10 metres away and that is against the rules.
they did it beacause:
1. He was brownlow favourite and the couldn't handle it.
2. The saints were coming back hard and they were scared of losing.
3. They are weak and can only bump people who can't defend themself.
4. He is 100 times better then them, put together.
They wouldn't do it to any other player.
Aaron Hamill did the right thing protecting him.
Scott got his krama getting hit by Hamill and lossing teeth.
They should be out for as long as he is out for to teach them a lesson, or they can get there collarbone broken and get bumped by Aaron Hamill and Gehrig.
I am not just saying it because I am a saints player, but because it is like hitting someone from behind. They are selfless low life p.r.i.c.k.s who shoul go for at least 4 weeks.
sainter12riewoldt said:All of you who think they should not be charged are morons who should get a broken collarbone and we should bump you.
They should be charged because:
1. He was injured ( he was not going back to position D.I.C.K.H.E.A.D.S)
2. The ball was more than 10 metres away and that is against the rules.
they did it beacause:
1. He was brownlow favourite and the couldn't handle it.
2. The saints were coming back hard and they were scared of losing.
3. They are weak and can only bump people who can't defend themself.
4. He is 100 times better then them, put together.
They wouldn't do it to any other player.
Aaron Hamill did the right thing protecting him.
Scott got his krama getting hit by Hamill and lossing teeth.
They should be out for as long as he is out for to teach them a lesson, or they can get there collarbone broken and get bumped by Aaron Hamill and Gehrig.
I am not just saying it because I am a saints player, but because it is like hitting someone from behind. They are selfless low life p.r.i.c.k.s who shoul go for at least 4 weeks.
PAFC2004 said:Misconduct.
Tezmyster said:But Reiwoldt returned to play giving the impression to all the players that he wasn't injured and that he was fit to play. Are you trying to tell me the Saints were letting an injuried player stay on the field in order to gain sympathy from the opposition?
sainter12riewoldt said:a) All of you who think they should not be charged are morons who should get a broken collarbone and we should bump you.
b)They should be charged because:
1. He was injured ( he was not going back to position D.I.C.K.H.E.A.D.S)
2. The ball was more than 10 metres away and that is against the rules.
c)
1. He was brownlow favourite and the couldn't handle it.
2. The saints were coming back hard and they were scared of losing.
3. They are weak and can only bump people who can't defend themself.
4. He is 100 times better then them, put together.
d)
Scott got his krama getting hit by Hamill and lossing teeth.
toasty said:The pettiness of the whole rival code thing is getting out of hand the league has one filthy dog in Hopoarte so the qld dogs trump them with two hopoartes of their own.
Micheal and Scott are chops- a chop is a useless piece of meat, coward dogs, how tough are they attacking a man who could only fight back with one arm to defend himself. These would be the guys in a pub fight that got around behind a guy in a fight and king hit him from behind, on that did you notice as well as the fact these dogs attacked a "one armed man" they still thought it best to do it from behind him???
How tough is that dogs snipers filthy spineless eels
I have been reading in other threads saying that Reiwoldt was returning to the bench and if that is what he was doing then fair enough, send Scott and Michael away for as many weeks as required. My only question is if the trainer sent him to the bench why did he sent him through the forward line and not directly to the sideline? And if he did send him through the forward line why did he not walk with Riewoldt to the bench? Leaving Riewoldt to walk to the bench through the forward line by himself is cutting a very fine line on whether the other players on the field take that as returning to play or not.sainter12riewoldt said:They should be charged because:
1. He was injured ( he was not going back to position D.I.C.K.H.E.A.D.S)
2. The ball was more than 10 metres away and that is against the rules.
Homer Jnr said:Particularly when the bench is along way from the forward line and heading to the forward would mean he was not heading directly to the bench, and the fact he basically walked down the line to 50 seems to suggest the bench wasn't his intended destination.