Scott & Michael to be charged.

[Infamy]

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.

Not at all, the issues are mutually exclusive. If a player is injurred BEHIND PLAY, he should not be touched. If he goes for the ball he is fair game.

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

He was very wobbly, he was in OBVIOUS trouble.

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.

Sorry, but you are drawing a very long bow here. Scott admitted that he went to bump Reiwoldt.

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.

I think targetting any players injury is poor sportsmanship, but if they have passed a fitness test, then they have knowingly entered the arena fully aware of the risks. A player who is still trying to assess the damage to his shoulder is completely different.

 

[Tezmyster]

He was very wobbly, he was in OBVIOUS trouble.

Then maybe the trainer should have done the job they're paid for and removed him from the field.

I think targetting any players injury is poor sportsmanship, but if they have passed a fitness test, then they have knowingly entered the arena fully aware of the risks. A player who is still trying to assess the damage to his shoulder is completely different.

Once again, maybe the trainer should have removed him from the field so he could be fully accessed. The finger keeps getting pointed at Scott and Michael but the fact is if the Reiwoldt, the trainer, and Thomas had all been doing the right thing he wouldn't have been on the field at that moment anyway.

 

[Infamy]

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.

I don't see this whole "Sky is falling" attitude to all this. Not being allowed to touch a player who is injured behind play will not remove any of the physicality from the game.
Once a player has then attempted a contest he is considered fit to play, but until then he should be given the freedom to assess the injury behind play.

 

[Infamy]

Then maybe the trainer should have done the job they're paid for and removed him from the field.

Once again, maybe the trainer should have removed him from the field so he could be fully accessed. The finger keeps getting pointed at Scott and Michael but the fact is if the Reiwoldt, the trainer, and Thomas had all been doing the right thing he wouldn't have been on the field at that moment anyway.

I agree, the trainer should have done a better job, that however does not permit other players to make the decison for him. A player should be allowed to assess an injury behind play without having to worry about being attacked. That is a fairly simple concept.

Reiwoldt should take some of the responsibility for keeping himself on the field, that doesn't excuse what Michael & Scott did in any way at all. Had he expected what would happen next then I'm sure he would have left, but its not happened before. You just don't expect something like that.

 

[Tezmyster]

I don't see this whole "Sky is falling" attitude to all this. Not being allowed to touch a player who is injured behind play will not remove any of the physicality from the game.
Once a player has then attempted a contest he is considered fit to play, but until then he should be given the freedom to assess the injury behind play.

I agree, the trainer should have done a better job, that however does not permit other players to make the decison for him. A player should be allowed to assess an injury behind play without having to worry about being attacked. That is a fairly simple concept.

The injury was accessed by the trainer and then Reiwoldt left the trainer and returned to play. If he wanted further treatment he should have left the field not returned to his position.

 

[Infamy]

I know exactly what happened, I watched the game live
IT DOESN'T EXCUSE WHAT THEY DID!!!
Until he attempted to make a contest, he shouldn't have been touched.

 

[Roylion]

Not at all, the issues are mutually exclusive. If a player is injurred BEHIND PLAY, he should not be touched.

Disagree. If a player is injured and is attempting to resume his position to engage in any future play, then he is still part of the game and is therefore subject to any legal action by the opposition players. As far as I'm concerned under those circumstances Riewoldt can be treated in exactly the same fashion as any other player off the ball.

If he goes for the ball he is fair game.

That he is.

He was very wobbly, he was in OBVIOUS trouble.

Rubbish. I'm watching the replay for the umpteenth time right now. He was not wobbly at all. Why would he be? There was no bump to the head. He wasn't dazed. He wasn't even clutching his shoulder from the time the trainer left him until Michael bumped him. Watch the footage.

Sorry, but you are drawing a very long bow here. Scott admitted that he went to bump Reiwoldt.

Watch the footage. Of course Scott was going to bump Riewoldt. Riewoldt was blocking his path to Hamill, who Scott had attempted to bump not five seconds earlier. There we go, I've just watched it yet again.

I think targetting any players injury is poor sportsmanship, but if they have passed a fitness test, then they have knowingly entered the arena fully aware of the risks. A player who is still trying to assess the damage to his shoulder is completely different.

Then a player attempting to assess the damage should be removing himself from the field and not attempting to resume his position, or blocking another player.

I still fail to see the difference between a player entering a game with an injury and having that tested by the opposition and a player sustaining an injury during a match and remaining on the field and having that tested by the opposition. If one situation is poor sportsmanship, then so surely is the other.

 

[Tezmyster]

I know exactly what happened, I watched the game live
IT DOESN'T EXCUSE WHAT THEY DID!!!
Until he attempted to make a contest, he shouldn't have been touched.

I'm not making an excuse for what they did, I thought it was unsportsmanlike but was definately within the rules of the game. The bumps weren't hard and the only reason there was pain was due to the injury he just sustained. An injury that the trainer should have taken him off for.

It's good to see you thought he should have been left along until the next contest, but what about if he had of been going for a mark then slipped and landed on the arm or shoulder? I think he would be in far worse a condition then he is now.

 

[kirky]

My two cents worth - now if Reiwoldt had stayed on the ground for the next contest what do you think was going to happen? Hello??? These were hardly earth shattering bumps - for christs sake the game is football not bloody netball - Reiwoldt should have gone off the ground immediately and NOT wave the trainer away. Take some responsibility for your own actions.

What has made this worse is the bloody hysteria by the media!!!

The reason a lot of people are pis*sed off in the media is probably because they had Reiwoldt to win the Brownlow and now they see their money up in smoke!!!

 

[Infamy]

I'm not making an excuse for what they did, I thought it was unsportsmanlike but was definately within the rules of the game. The bumps weren't hard and the only reason there was pain was due to the injury he just sustained. An injury that the trainer should have taken him off for.

It's good to see you thought he should have been left along until the next contest, but what about if he had of been going for a mark then slipped and landed on the arm or shoulder? I think he would be in far worse a condition then he is now.

What if... what if... what if...
It's not our place to speculate what had happened
We could say, "What if Reiwoldt got back to his position and realised that he was too hurt to play on"
He didn't get that opportunity to make that decision, the decision was taken out of his hands

I have agreed that technically its within the rules of the game, but my point is that they need to ensure it never happens again, which is why this case will set a precedent and why Michael & Scott will be charged to rub it out of the game.

Look, you are both Lions supporters, you are inherintly biased. I want Brisbane & StKilda to play the grand final this year, I respect both teams immensely. I'm as objective as you're going to get on this and the fact is that the AFL cannot be seen to do nothing on this issue.

 

[Tezmyster]

What if... what if... what if...
It's not our place to speculate what had happened
We could say, "What if Reiwoldt got back to his position and realised that he was too hurt to play on"
He didn't get that opportunity to make that decision, the decision was taken out of his hands

I have agreed that technically its within the rules of the game, but my point is that they need to ensure it never happens again, which is why this case will set a precedent and why Michael & Scott will be charged to rub it out of the game.

Look, you are both Lions supporters, you are inherintly biased. I want Brisbane & StKilda to play the grand final this year, I respect both teams immensely. I'm as objective as you're going to get on this and the fact is that the AFL cannot be seen to do nothing on this issue.

I'm not biased, I just don't think all fingers can be pointed at Scott and Michael because they didn't give him time to recover after he'd left the trainer. They didn't have to give him time as Reiwoldt and the trainer had both determined he was fit to play. If Michael and Scott get rubbed out for any period of time for a simple off the play bump that happens hundreds of times a game it would be absolute disgrace to the system and open a pandoras box of complaints in future games. It isn't their job to access the player, it's the trainers and the decision that he was right to play on had already been made.

 

[garth p]

I'm not biased, I just don't think all fingers can be pointed at Scott and Michael because they didn't give him time to recover after he'd left the trainer. They didn't have to give him time as Reiwoldt and the trainer had both determined he was fit to play. If Michael and Scott get rubbed out for any period of time for a simple off the play bump that happens hundreds of times a game it would be absolute disgrace to the system and open a pandoras box of complaints in future games. It isn't their job to access the player, it's the trainers and the decision that he was right to play on had already been made.

Your statement is rubbish. the trainer was directing Nick to the forward pocket to get off the ground. Going back through the interchange bench would have meant Nick going back thriough the field of play , putting him in more danger.

Your attempts to justify the unjustifiable are really pathetic.

They will get rubbed out all right, as the AFL cannot afford to let it's new Tribunal system fall into disrepute after the first game of the year. And also because they are a couple of jackels who should not be playing football.

 

[Tezmyster]

Your statement is rubbish. the trainer was directing Nick to the forward pocket to get off the ground. Going back through the interchange bench would have meant Nick going back thriough the field of play , putting him in more danger.

Your attempts to justify the unjustifiable are really pathetic.

They will get rubbed out all right, as the AFL cannot afford to let it's new Tribunal system fall into disrepute after the first game of the year. And also because they are a couple of jackels who should not be playing football.

If the trainer was directing him off the field why didn't the trainer stay with him as he left the field?

 

[garth p]

He was numbnuts. They have vision of him over on Saintsational.

 

[Tezmyster]

He was numbnuts. They have vision of him over on Saintsational.

Then stop pointing the finger at Scott and Michael. If the trainer was directing Reiwoldt off the field then fair enough. If he directed him off the field directly through the forward line in front of the goals and left Reiwoldt to walk it by himself then the trainer is incompetent.

 

[bucksisbest]

If Scott and Michael do get charged you've got to wonder how ********ed up this game is becoming , farcical.

 

[garth p]

Then stop pointing the finger at Scott and Michael. If the trainer was directing Reiwoldt off the field then fair enough. If he directed him off the field directly through the forward line in front of the goals and left Reiwoldt to walk it by himself then the trainer is incompetent.

Yes, sure. its everyone elses fault, other than the two creeps guilty of thuggery. i hear people making excuses for others and their bad, anti- social behavior every day. It's called the blame game. Doesn't wash with me.

 

[Mikes4]

Your statement is rubbish. the trainer was directing Nick to the forward pocket to get off the ground. Going back through the interchange bench would have meant Nick going back thriough the field of play , putting him in more danger.

Your attempts to justify the unjustifiable are really pathetic.

They will get rubbed out all right, as the AFL cannot afford to let it's new Tribunal system fall into disrepute after the first game of the year. And also because they are a couple of jackels who should not be playing football.

Riewoldt ran past Hamill. Hamill said something to Riewoldt, most likely something along the lines of if he was ok. Michael came up behind, and very lightly (and I mean lightly as in their shoulders pretty well just touched). Hamill pushed Michael away, then Michael tried to have antoher go, connecting with Riewoldt on the chest. At this stage, Chris Scott made a beeline towards Hamill, making sure he made some contact with Riewoldt as he passed. Scott then made contact with Hamill, who had engaged a little with Michael.

Therefore, Riewoldt was not heading to the pocket to get off the ground, if his desire was to leave the ground, he was about 5 metres from the boundry line close to the 50m.

 

[bluey17]

Why do you believe this knob?

Nothing will happen.

 

[Tezmyster]

Yes, sure. its everyone elses fault, other than the two creeps guilty of thuggery. i hear people making excuses for others and their bad, anti- social behavior every day. It's called the blame game. Doesn't wash with me.

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.

 

[Infamy]

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.

 

[Tezmyster]

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.

If either player goes to the tribunal and is rubbed out for any period of time due to "unsportsmanlike conduct" it will be the end of the hard game. Any bumps during play where the ball is more then 5m away will considered unsportsmanlike and due to this precident will require a trip to the tribunal. Players like Hall, Gehrig, Brown, etc will all be outed every week.

 

[coasting]

Why do you believe this knob?

Nothing will happen.

I don't but we all know the AFL is a knee-jerk organisation when it comes to public pressure, especially pressure from within Melbourne. The AFL have no spine when its comes to public opinion. With the amount of whining by Saints supports on SEN and with the amount of crap being written on the subject by supposed 'footy-journos' Australia-wide they will be compelled to do something and save face.

 

[Infamy]

If either player goes to the tribunal and is rubbed out for any period of time due to "unsportsmanlike conduct" it will be the end of the hard game. Any bumps during play where the ball is more then 5m away will considered unsportsmanlike and due to this precident will require a trip to the tribunal. Players like Hall, Gehrig, Brown, etc will all be outed every week.

No it won't, no they won't, would you give up this sensationalistic nonsense
Bumps during play have absolutely no impact on a ruling that you can't charge an injurred player before he resumes the contest... and before you say he had resumed, that point is open to interpretation.
A simple ruling that an injurred player cannot be touched until he contests play would have ZERO impact on general play or bumps 5m off the ball.

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.

 

[Footy_Mad]

Would be an absolute travesty if true.

BS !!
It is GREAT NEWS !!