Could you please describe what this saints trainer looks like, hair colour/style, did he have a number on his shirt? etc. There were a few runners involved just trying to work out which one you are talking about.toasty said:
-
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
1 - Nick Riewoldt is a courageous player and is definetly not soft.
2 - The way everyone is going on about it is SOFT.
It is footy FFS - He was clearly hurt but was not heading off - I would expect anyone of my players to test it out also - It is part of the game (Unless he was in the arms of trainers or heading straight for the bench) Neither of which was happening.
If either of Scott or Michael get charged I'll go he there is just totally no justification for it.
The game has allready changed enough if the whingers dont like it go follow netball or soccer.
He's copped an injury just like many many many players over the years and they and their sides supporters haven't had a big old sook about it.
It isn't the end of the world the guy's got a big exciting future ahead of him - Build a bridge and get over it.
2 - The way everyone is going on about it is SOFT.
It is footy FFS - He was clearly hurt but was not heading off - I would expect anyone of my players to test it out also - It is part of the game (Unless he was in the arms of trainers or heading straight for the bench) Neither of which was happening.
If either of Scott or Michael get charged I'll go he there is just totally no justification for it.
The game has allready changed enough if the whingers dont like it go follow netball or soccer.
He's copped an injury just like many many many players over the years and they and their sides supporters haven't had a big old sook about it.
It isn't the end of the world the guy's got a big exciting future ahead of him - Build a bridge and get over it.
If either of Scott or Michael get charged I'll go he there is just totally no justification for it.
QUOTE]
Your opinion is shared by the majority but there are some who must have seen a different game as they can see men who weren't there and things that didnt happen !
QUOTE]
Your opinion is shared by the majority but there are some who must have seen a different game as they can see men who weren't there and things that didnt happen !
This is approximately Post 3000 for this incident, so most angles appear to have already been covered.
However, a couple of things seemed to have slipped through the cracks. Now clearly I'm not a Saints or Lions supporter, though I am a great fan of Reiwoldt's, Michael's and Scott's work for their respective clubs.
From my non-subjective perspective, it seemed apparent that Nick was trying to make something of a statement by casting away the trainers (this was clearly evident by the camera of a Saint trainer about 10 metres running away from Reiwoldt on one of the angles replayed ad nauseum) - something of a "Dermie circa 1989 GF" type scenario - and pushing through the pain threshold i.e. being inspirational in his first game as skipper. Nice if it works.
In doing so, Nick opened the door to become something of a target to the Lions backmen. Surely they were within the rights to prevent such an eventuality ... force Nick to reconsider the wisdom of such a decision. And remember, it was Nick Reiwoldt who picked up and dumped a very injured looking Thurgood(?) only a few weeks back in an early Wiz Cup game. No such outrage emanated from Moorabbin on that occasion.
I also quite clearly recall a first quarter incident in Thursday's game where Sammy Hamill "tested out" a very open Chris Johnson by driving his knee into a thigh in a moment of vulnerability after being cleaned up in a collision. I am yet to read of any uproar over this incident, especially considering Brereton's commentary at the time referring to Hamill's apparent entitlement to do so.
People in glass houses shouldn't stand up in the bath ... and nor should they throw stones.
Thirdly, the duty of care element attached to the role of trainer appears to have been overlooked by many. At what point does a trainer/doctor need to order the player from the ground. I'd expect a vast proportion of current AFL footballers, on seeing an opponent dispatch the medical personel but still seem a little ginger, would make a point of going after this opponent a little harder and a little more often for the ensuing few minutes. It's a no-brainer.
Nextly, taking this to the nth degree, do we also need to now consider those who have been "mentally" or "emotionally" injured by an incident? ... That they should enjoy a certain period of grace to reclaim their inner peace before being sledged or emotionally tortured by an opponent? Silly, I know, but not beyond the realms of this particular argument.
Finally, the incident has certainly triggered an emotive response from many quarters. The Saint fans are entitled to feel aggrieved - they have lost probably the best player in the comp from their lineup for at least a month - but maybe it is something of a case of misdirected animosity.
Basically, a good rule of thumb to indicate to you when you are being totally irrational, unreasonable and utterly confused is when your opinion coincides with that of Molly Meldrum.
However, a couple of things seemed to have slipped through the cracks. Now clearly I'm not a Saints or Lions supporter, though I am a great fan of Reiwoldt's, Michael's and Scott's work for their respective clubs.
From my non-subjective perspective, it seemed apparent that Nick was trying to make something of a statement by casting away the trainers (this was clearly evident by the camera of a Saint trainer about 10 metres running away from Reiwoldt on one of the angles replayed ad nauseum) - something of a "Dermie circa 1989 GF" type scenario - and pushing through the pain threshold i.e. being inspirational in his first game as skipper. Nice if it works.
In doing so, Nick opened the door to become something of a target to the Lions backmen. Surely they were within the rights to prevent such an eventuality ... force Nick to reconsider the wisdom of such a decision. And remember, it was Nick Reiwoldt who picked up and dumped a very injured looking Thurgood(?) only a few weeks back in an early Wiz Cup game. No such outrage emanated from Moorabbin on that occasion.
I also quite clearly recall a first quarter incident in Thursday's game where Sammy Hamill "tested out" a very open Chris Johnson by driving his knee into a thigh in a moment of vulnerability after being cleaned up in a collision. I am yet to read of any uproar over this incident, especially considering Brereton's commentary at the time referring to Hamill's apparent entitlement to do so.
People in glass houses shouldn't stand up in the bath ... and nor should they throw stones.
Thirdly, the duty of care element attached to the role of trainer appears to have been overlooked by many. At what point does a trainer/doctor need to order the player from the ground. I'd expect a vast proportion of current AFL footballers, on seeing an opponent dispatch the medical personel but still seem a little ginger, would make a point of going after this opponent a little harder and a little more often for the ensuing few minutes. It's a no-brainer.
Nextly, taking this to the nth degree, do we also need to now consider those who have been "mentally" or "emotionally" injured by an incident? ... That they should enjoy a certain period of grace to reclaim their inner peace before being sledged or emotionally tortured by an opponent? Silly, I know, but not beyond the realms of this particular argument.
Finally, the incident has certainly triggered an emotive response from many quarters. The Saint fans are entitled to feel aggrieved - they have lost probably the best player in the comp from their lineup for at least a month - but maybe it is something of a case of misdirected animosity.
Basically, a good rule of thumb to indicate to you when you are being totally irrational, unreasonable and utterly confused is when your opinion coincides with that of Molly Meldrum.
Darealrath said:
In case you havent noticed reiwoldt is a CHF and the incident happened on the wing... what does this tell you about him heading back to his position? they took him aside to quickly look at him almost 100m from the ball. Hey i've got a fun idea maybe next time someone goes up for a mark and lands on their head concussed maybe someone should u know give em a quick kick to the head just to make sure, i mean god forbid we wouldnt want him 2 keep playing... that wouldnt b in the interest of the game
Correct me if I'm wrong but when Reiwoldt was on the ground the closest Brisbane player to him was Leppitsch, and he just ran a wide circle around Reiwoldt before kicking the ball further upfield. There was no contact made with Riewoldt while he was on the ground or with the trainer, the contact was made after he left the trainer and was heading back onto the field.sussy128 said:
If you're going to start saying that Scott and Michael kicked him while he was laying on the ground you really need to watch the tape again.
- Banned
- #157
sussy128 said:
In case you haven't noticed, Centre Half Forward is just his main position. He was stationed about 35-40 out from goal at that stage of the game and was very close to the 50 by the time of the incident. Now I aint a brainiac, but from the wing, to nearly 50 would suggest you aren't crossing the field to get to the bench.
While most of your post is very well-reasoned, well-spoken, and certainly more worthwhile than the hordes of meatheads baying for more blood on the field and likening people who disagree with them to netball and soccer fans (thereby displaying their sporting ignorance - interesting sidenote: amateur netball causes more injuries than amateur martial arts and amateur soccer causes more injuries than amateur rugby), this paragraph interests me:
He did it three times in a row, huh? Co-ordinated with another Saint? Nowhere near the play?
No. He didn't. It's not so much the nature of what was done as -how- it was done: coldly, co-ordinated, pre-meditated, and most importantly, repeatedly. It's interesting you bring up Dermie's hit in the 1989 GF because that displayed to my eyes the same intent. That is not sportsmanship.
GhostofJimJess said:
He did it three times in a row, huh? Co-ordinated with another Saint? Nowhere near the play?
No. He didn't. It's not so much the nature of what was done as -how- it was done: coldly, co-ordinated, pre-meditated, and most importantly, repeatedly. It's interesting you bring up Dermie's hit in the 1989 GF because that displayed to my eyes the same intent. That is not sportsmanship.
saintsrule
Premiership Player
Tezmyster said:
Hey i've got a fun idea maybe next time someone goes up for a mark and lands on their head concussed maybe someone should u know give em a quick kick to the head just to make sure, i mean god forbid we wouldnt want him 2 keep playing... that wouldnt b in the interest of the game[/QUOTE]
Hey I've got a fun idea too, let's concuss a guy then pick him up and drop him! Ooops sorry Nick's already done that one
Hey I've got a fun idea too, let's concuss a guy then pick him up and drop him! Ooops sorry Nick's already done that one
Matt_TY said:
Agree, Matt.
Similarly, Brett Lee bouncing a batsman who's just been floored by a crack to the head from a previous short ball is not cricket either, but still exists as a valid tactic to removing an opposing batsman from the ballgame.
My point is, neither what Michael did, nor what Brett Lee or Shoaib or whoever does, is against the rules of the game. However, all of a sudden half of us want to rub these Brisbane guys out for some apparent contravening of the "spirit" of the game, or some arbitary "unwritten rules" of the game.
Let's not make rules on the run, though. If we want such behaviour eliminated from the game, then so be it. I'll even sign the petition. But let's do it in a calculated, balanced manner, free from the ridiculously subjective and reactionary baying of the narky St Kilda and apparently-slighted Collingwood fans ...
Of course, once implemented, such "new" regulations should not be enforced retrospectively, just to appease the Michael/Scott critics.
PTP
Senior List
Jim O'Dea!
Karma.
Karma.
- Banned
- #164
If this happens, then the AFL is a joke.Daytripper said:
- Banned
- #165
Tezmyster said:ok numb nuts its taken a while because I'm waiting for the footage ntil then look at this pic from realfooty.comsaintsrule said:
You will see the little film strip going across the bottom of the pic where the first hopoate comes in in this film strip you see the first hit look over Reiwoldts left shoulder see the trainer???
I've also found someone who has kindly blown it up a bit thank you whoever you are
you can see the person clearly directly behind Reiwoldt
GhostofJimJess said:
Very good points. Lets get the lych mob emotional mentality out of this dangerous debate, before it's too late and the biff gets taken out of the game all together.
- May 1, 2002
- 12,019
- 20,333
- AFL Club
- Carlton
GhostofJimJess said:
Well Said.
Kildonan
Premium Platinum
I hope they are charged.
This is not the public face of football that we want to show.
(Cowards ganging up on the injured)
But my beef is Charman.
Jamie Charman must be charged for his hit on Nick Riewoldt.
He ran in and jumped into the contest where Riewoldt was in the air contesting a mark. Charman never had eyes for the ball. He is guilty of CHARGING and should be on holidays for a while.
This hit is where Nick Riewoldt's collarbone was injured IMO.
Riewoldt still went after the next mark with a broken collarbone and it became obvious that he was seriously hurt.
The two Hopoates came running in to finish him off.
This is not the public face of football that we want to show.
(Cowards ganging up on the injured)
But my beef is Charman.
Jamie Charman must be charged for his hit on Nick Riewoldt.
He ran in and jumped into the contest where Riewoldt was in the air contesting a mark. Charman never had eyes for the ball. He is guilty of CHARGING and should be on holidays for a while.
This hit is where Nick Riewoldt's collarbone was injured IMO.
Riewoldt still went after the next mark with a broken collarbone and it became obvious that he was seriously hurt.
The two Hopoates came running in to finish him off.
- Apr 2, 2000
- 75,612
- 25,387
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
The biggest story of the year in the first game of the year.
There will be massive uproar should Michael and Scott get any sort of fine or suspension from there actions.
There will be massive uproar should Michael and Scott get any sort of fine or suspension from there actions.
- Apr 2, 2000
- 75,612
- 25,387
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Chicago Bulls.
toasty said:Tezmyster said:ok numb nuts its taken a while because I'm waiting for the footage ntil then look at this pic from realfooty.com
You will see the little film strip going across the bottom of the pic where the first hopoate comes in in this film strip you see the first hit look over Reiwoldts left shoulder see the trainer???
I've also found someone who has kindly blown it up a bit thank you whoever you are
you can see the person clearly directly behind Reiwoldt
The person your highlighting is another StKilda player....not a trainer. I have watched the footage many many times....no trainer or runner was near Riewoldt at the time of the bumps. He had already waved them away.
I honestly cant believe all his uproar over such a small incident.
jod23 said:
Mikes4
Club Legend
That was Aaron Hamill, the guy you highlighted. DOG!!! You make me laugh. If you haven't seen real footage, STOP COMMENTING. The force with which Michael bumped Riewoldt was MINIMAL, meaning, (for the dog who can only bark his own name) that while it may have stung a bit, nothing malicious at all. Aaron Hamill remonstrated, and Scott directly hit back at him. If Hamill wasn't there I really doubt Scott would have even been anywhere near there, as when he did lay a vigorous bump on Riewoldt, the ferocity was actually increased due to the beeline he was making for Hamill who by then was remonstrating with Michael.
DOG....uhhh.....DOG .....Hopoate (who hit from the front)......DOG....uggggh
DOG....uhhh.....DOG .....Hopoate (who hit from the front)......DOG....uggggh
Just looking at the footage again, the whole thing is so soft I can't believe the beat up this whole thing has caused.
Australians are becomming soft.
Australians are becomming soft.
- Banned
- #175
The person in that second clip on the film strip is not Hamill, he is wearing a WHITE shirt, look at it you clown Hamill arrived after Micheal hit from behind at least hopoate took on an uninjured man but from the back and you clown I have seen the full footage. Hamill arrives after the first attack from Michael from Reiwoldts right the guy on the left is the Saints trainerMikes4 said:
Similar threads
