-
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
- Banned
- #104
So it is reportable now because he had an injury of an unknown nature? Same theory suggests that if he contested the ball before the bump it should have been a free-kick against him... It makes no sense.
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:
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.
sainter12riewoldt
Club Legend
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.
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.
It's questionable whether or not Michael and Scott should or will be charged, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the AFL will be crossing the t's and dotting the i's at charging them and sending them to the tribunal.
You can raise a very good argument against any charges, but make no mistake this is BAD for the AFL's image which they work so hard to protect. I personally think they will get charged and be found guilty. Dirty pr1cks.
You can raise a very good argument against any charges, but make no mistake this is BAD for the AFL's image which they work so hard to protect. I personally think they will get charged and be found guilty. Dirty pr1cks.
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:
Tezmyster said:
If you are going to quote my post, don't remove the part that automatically argues the point you are going to make.
It is open to interpretation that Reiwoldt had returned to the contest. There was no play to return to as the ACTUAL contest was 100m away. Reiwoldt was still testing the movement out in his shoulder when he was hit, you could very reasonably argue that he was still assessing the injury. It is this period of time that the AFL needs to step in to protect the injurred player.
Having a trainer next to you or being off the field should not be the only way you are protected from being attacked when you are unable to defend yourself.
The whole sympathy line is not worth answering, seriously if that's what you're left with, stop posting.
FOR THE FINAL TIME, you have admitted that it was unsportsmanlike and that's the exact reason that they will be put up.
- Banned
- #115
sainter12riewoldt said:
a) How does that tie into it?
b) Where was he headed then? Certainly not to the bench. He was sore, no-one not even Riewoldt knew how bad the injury was. Where is this 10 metre rule? So Goddard will be gone for his bump about 15 metres off the ball on McGrath? All bumping to now be outlawed in the goal-squares and on the edge of the centre square because of that rule?
c) Now you are just blubbering like 'Captain Courageous' himself. 100 times better than them both put together? Premiership medals? He is a great player, but now you are simply talking out of your arse. They couldn't handle him being the Brownlow favourite? So they are going to hunt down Chris Judd and attack him with a baseball bat? To call them weak from behind a keyboard is awfully weak of yourself.
4. You mean kARma? So Hamill is excused due to karmic reallignment? That must mean your case just died in the arse because of the Thurgood incident, talk of karma.
Wiljoy
Senior List
IMHO,what Michael & Scott did,was the most COWARDLY incident I have ever seen on a sportsfield in my life. Even worse than the Cantona incident for Man Utd.
- Banned
- #117
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
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
- Banned
- #118
toasty said:
Your tiara is too tight.
Ooookay, this is clearly way out of hand.
Here is the distilled, troll-free, output of this conversation.
- Riewoldt was also aware he was injured, but did not think it as severe as it was.
- The trainer was on the ground and was attempting to persuade Riewoldt to leave the field, so he and the Saints coaching staff were also aware Riewoldt was injured.
- Scott and Michael were aware Riewoldt was injured. They were aiming to exacerbate the injury - whatever it was - and may have succeeded, although of course that will never be known.
- Scott and Michael, fair play to them, have stated that had they known of the severity of the injury, they would not have done what they did. While we can't actually know the truth of that either, it does not excuse the fact that they attacked a player who had obviously just sustained an injury, multiple times, behind the play, and that is a cowardly and unsportsmanlike act no matter what else the situation. I fail to see how this "sets a precedent" for all off-the-ball contact in the history of everything ever, and those suggesting that are at least as guilty of overheating the situation as are people like tigerboyz.
The End.
Here is the distilled, troll-free, output of this conversation.
- Riewoldt was also aware he was injured, but did not think it as severe as it was.
- The trainer was on the ground and was attempting to persuade Riewoldt to leave the field, so he and the Saints coaching staff were also aware Riewoldt was injured.
- Scott and Michael were aware Riewoldt was injured. They were aiming to exacerbate the injury - whatever it was - and may have succeeded, although of course that will never be known.
- Scott and Michael, fair play to them, have stated that had they known of the severity of the injury, they would not have done what they did. While we can't actually know the truth of that either, it does not excuse the fact that they attacked a player who had obviously just sustained an injury, multiple times, behind the play, and that is a cowardly and unsportsmanlike act no matter what else the situation. I fail to see how this "sets a precedent" for all off-the-ball contact in the history of everything ever, and those suggesting that are at least as guilty of overheating the situation as are people like tigerboyz.
The End.
- Banned
- #120
To take it to one extreme:
He should be glad he just copped a couple of bumps on it and realised the extent of it then. If he flys for a mark and has a player or two land on top of him his season could have been over.
He should write a letter of appreciation to the boys who saved his season, coz he and his trainer certainly didn't have a clue.
Other extreme: Michael and Scott had no business touching him because he was clearly injured even though he remained on the field and was heading back into play. Once the contact was made they should have raced to the fence, dialled 000 and halted proceeding because the young lad was wincing in pain. After the game they should have visited him in hospital and fluffed his pillow and then chaperoned him back home to be sure that no further damage was done.
He should be glad he just copped a couple of bumps on it and realised the extent of it then. If he flys for a mark and has a player or two land on top of him his season could have been over.
He should write a letter of appreciation to the boys who saved his season, coz he and his trainer certainly didn't have a clue.
Other extreme: Michael and Scott had no business touching him because he was clearly injured even though he remained on the field and was heading back into play. Once the contact was made they should have raced to the fence, dialled 000 and halted proceeding because the young lad was wincing in pain. After the game they should have visited him in hospital and fluffed his pillow and then chaperoned him back home to be sure that no further damage was done.
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:
- Banned
- #123
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.
saintsrule
Premiership Player
Homer Jnr said:
Man this is so 'hell I gotta come up with an excuse to defend my pet gorillas'!
Similar threads
