Player Watch Shane McAdam

Remove this Banner Ad

All_In said:
Can someone start a super league already! If a Vic club wants to join it's a $20m licence fee.

Sick of the VFL. Sick of the bias coverage, commentary, decisions.

They even bang on about average AFLW players compared to the legends over here.

It's R1 and I'm over this poo already.

(These DHs can't even get a CEO)
Click to expand...
I like your Super League idea.
10 teams, play each other twice a year. Top ranked teams host the finals/ Grand Final etc.

How much do you need to get it started?
I’ll skip my coffee today and chip in $5 if it’ll help.
 
Bearded Clam said:
I get what your saying..

But I think most people watch that vision and think.. geezuz Shaneo, what the hell were you thinking.. that was crude and completely unnecessary..

The other thing us crows supporters should be asking is “wtf did that actually achieve shane?”..

If he hadve tackled him instead he may have got him holding the ball.. couldve ended up with the ball and the crows going the other way and scoring a goal..

Small moments like this can have big effects on the end results of the game.

I’m not sure youd find many that dont think shane should get a holiday.. the thing most are blowing up about is the inconsistencies in punishments handed out over the weekend.
Click to expand...

But that’s my point.

Why do people think he should get a holiday? Because he winded a guy in an AFL game for premiership points?

He could have tackled, I liked the hit. Legal and makes a statement. Dislodged the ball so it was back up for the contest.

Go back and watch teams like the Lions and Hawks and Cats at their best. This would have been lauded.

These commentators like to talk about how the best teams are intimidating, but when an Adelaide player does something within the rules … that is physical and on the edge it is all of a sudden time to teach us a lesson?

I’m sick of us being the friendly easy to play against happy crows. I’d love teams to line up against us knowing it is going to hurt.
 
MRB37 said:
About the only AFL media people who'll get my attention are Jonathon Brown and Nathan Buckley at this point. Because they're both secure enough in themselves and their opinions (and have yet to become complete caricatures of themselves like some others) that they don't need to make stupid and ludicrous claims for attention.

I don't mind Tredders either, though he's a Port guy, so can never be near the top of my list.
Click to expand...
I'm glad Tredders is back on 5AA, his segments were the only ones I bothered listening to on the sports show. He is always quite balanced and doesn't seem to be trying to deliberately say something for clickbait.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It's incredible that it took 1 week for the MRO to demonstrate just how incompetent he is.

3 bumps and they got it backwards.

It should have been:
McAdam 1 week
Pickett 2 weeks
Franklin 3 weeks.

Do that and everyone understands.

Franklin chose to bump and caused concussion. Therefore 3 weeks.
Pickett chose to bump and hit the head. Didn't cause concussion though. Therefore 2 weeks.
McAdam chose to bump in an aggressive way (which apparently is no longer ok). No injury sustained at all. 1 week.

Logical and easy to follow.

The AFL really are complete morons.
 
IMO if he had completed a front on tackle at the speed he was approaching, it would have been Wehr spending weeks on the sidelines, because the back of his head would have smashed into the ground. McAdam chose the safest competitive action.

I haven't been able to find the complete MRO statement on the initial assessment.

What reportable offence has he committed?
(A) Striking, kicking? Clearly not.
(C) Misconduct? Nope.
(D) Forceful front on contact? - only applies when victim player has head over the ball, so no.
(E) Rough conduct? Appears to be the charge applied. So was it a high bump, bump to the body, or dangerous tackle?

You'd have to include the secondary contact with the head to make it a high bump. So it is a bump to the body, which then comes down to being reasonable or unreasonable in the circumstances.

The degree of force could be considered unreasonable/excessive noting Wehr was winded, but he was not in a vulnerable position and saw the contact coming.

I'm not sure on what grounds the appeal was submitted, but I'd guess one of points 2 or 3.

1679527443229.png
1679526199962.png 1679525973622.png
 
DJ75 said:
It's incredible that it took 1 week for the MRO to demonstrate just how incompetent he is.

3 bumps and they got it backwards.

It should have been:
McAdam 1 week
Pickett 2 weeks
Franklin 3 weeks.

Do that and everyone understands.

Franklin chose to bump and caused concussion. Therefore 3 weeks.
Pickett chose to bump and hit the head. Didn't cause concussion though. Therefore 2 weeks.
McAdam chose to bump in an aggressive way (which apparently is no longer ok). No injury sustained at all. 1 week.

Logical and easy to follow.

The AFL really are complete morons.
Click to expand...
Thing is with Buddy, I feel he's bracing for contact. I wouldn't deem it intentional. That's careless.

What I'd have gone with

Franklin - Careless, high, high
Pickett - Intentional, high, low
McAdam - Intentional, body, low

So using the AFL standards that results in

Franklin - 2 matches
Pickett - 1 match
McAdam - Fine

Having said that, I feel intent should be what results in the penalty, not the result. So I'd personally have gone.
Pickett - 3 games
McAdam - Fine
Franklin - Off
 
DJ75 said:
It's incredible that it took 1 week for the MRO to demonstrate just how incompetent he is.

3 bumps and they got it backwards.

It should have been:
McAdam 1 week
Pickett 2 weeks
Franklin 3 weeks.

Do that and everyone understands.

Franklin chose to bump and caused concussion. Therefore 3 weeks.
Pickett chose to bump and hit the head. Didn't cause concussion though. Therefore 2 weeks.
McAdam chose to bump in an aggressive way (which apparently is no longer ok). No injury sustained at all. 1 week.

Logical and easy to follow.

The AFL really are complete morons.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it was but you forgot the adjustment scale in the fine print

McAdam 1 week (+1 week non- Vic penalty +1 week Adelaide Penalty)
Pickett 2 weeks
Franklin 3 weeks (-3 week star power subsidy +1 week non Vic Penalty*)

*Cotchin would've got off with a small fine
 
glengowan said:
Saw McAdam’s bump on the weekend - very lucky Wehr was ok. 2-3 weeks suspension fair enough.

Just watched Franklin’s bump. Not as bad as McAdam, but still braced and contact high. Very lucky only 1 week.

Just watched Pickett’s bump - worse than McAdam due to feet off the ground! Again, lucky the Bulldogs player was ok. Should be a minimum 3, maybe 4 weeks.

I can’t comprehend how Pickett can only get 2 weeks and McAdam 3. Is it because Wehr went off for a concussion test and Smith didn’t?
Click to expand...
In a world where the AFL is facing substantial lawsuits relating to concussion, to have a result where the guy who caused a concussion is the least penalised and the guy who impacts the head then only gets two weeks, while the guy who bumps to the chest gets the harshest punishment is just absurd.
I hope they sue the AFL into oblivion.
 
Dirty Bird said:
Thing is with Buddy, I feel he's bracing for contact. I wouldn't deem it intentional. That's careless.

What I'd have gone with

Franklin - Careless, high, high
Pickett - Intentional, high, low
McAdam - Intentional, body, low

So using the AFL standards that results in

Franklin - 2 matches
Pickett - 1 match
McAdam - Fine

Having said that, I feel intent should be what results in the penalty, not the result. So I'd personally have gone.
Pickett - 3 games
McAdam - Fine
Franklin - Off
Click to expand...
Franklin ignored the ball and hit a guy in the head with his elbow. He caused a concussion. He has to get suspended.
 
Truck25 said:
That's exactly what it was but you forgot the adjustment scale in the fine print

McAdam 1 week (+1 week non- Vic penalty +1 week Adelaide Penalty)
Pickett 2 weeks
Franklin 3 weeks (-3 week star power subsidy +1 week non Vic Penalty*)

*Cotchin would've got off with a small fine
Click to expand...
You mean with an apology from the AFL for wasting his time with frivolous things that only apply to other non vic players
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Truck25 said:
That's exactly what it was but you forgot the adjustment scale in the fine print

McAdam 1 week (+1 week non- Vic penalty +1 week Adelaide Penalty)
Pickett 2 weeks
Franklin 3 weeks (-3 week star power subsidy +1 week non Vic Penalty*)

*Cotchin would've got off with a small fine
Click to expand...
If Cotchin had played for GWS, he would have a record of suspensions like Toby Greene.
If Toby Greene played for Richmond, he would have a record of fines like Cotchin.

No doubt in my mind.

If you want to see the Vic bias, there it is in full glory.
 
I'm paraphrasing a tweet I saw about the Franklin bump here but it's spot on: Buddy is renowned as one of the most athletically gifted, coordinated and mobile footballers of the modern game on the field.

Now, we're supposed to believe in this one instance he suddenly becomes a newborn baby deer with absolutely no idea where his limbs are? Lol. Get ****ed. His outstretched elbow to the head was about as intentional as there will ever be.
 
Intentional vs careless is adjudicated wrongly

It appears as though the MRO/tribunal assess both the action AND where it impacts to determine whether it's intentional. For example, if a player intentionally bumps, but unintentionally gets their head, it's now careless rather than intentional.

That is wrong. The intent should be for the action only. Did they intend to bump? Did they intend to strike? Did they intend to trip? If so, it's intentional.

If you accidentally hit their head in the process (because you "intended" to hit the body), you still did the action intentionally and should be aware of the risk of head contact when initiating the action.

Careless would be for actions where the type of contact was not intended. For example if you launch into an unrealistic marking attempt, miss the ball, hit another player in the head and concuss them - that's careless conduct.

After that, the MRO should take into account the risk of the action. High/medium/low risk of head contact. And then a final grading for the outcome (low/medium/high/severe)

Under my much better and easier to adjudicate system

McAdam - Intentional bump, medium risk of head contact, low or no outcome

Pickett - Intentional bump, high risk of head contact, low or no outcome

Franklin - Intentional bump, high risk of head contact, high outcome
 
footy4ever said:
Narrator: We won’t win
Click to expand...
Without a majority push from the talking heads in Victoria we really don't stand a chance.

If the ourside pressure is just coming from the Crows legal Council and SA outrage, this will be a formality in the eyes of the appeal board. In fact i really doubt they'll even listen, more likely just wait for us to stop talking before reading a statement they prepared before it started.

Still glad they did it though. Gotta draw a line in the sand for something
 
Betts are off said:
Without a majority push from the talking heads in Victoria we really don't stand a chance.

If the ourside pressure is just coming from the Crows legal Council and SA outrage, this will be a formality in the eyes of the appeal board. In fact i really doubt they'll even listen, more likely just wait for us to stop talking before reading a statement they prepared before it started.

Still glad they did it though. Gotta draw a line in the sand for something
Click to expand...
I'm actually worried they'll add a week for wasting their time.
 
Betts are off said:
Without a majority push from the talking heads in Victoria we really don't stand a chance.
Click to expand...
The way it was commentated on game day, McAdam basically "murdered" the player.

I dont think we ever stood a chance, however it will end up screwing one Victorian fairytale this season, as I can see a similar incident happening with a Victorian player.

Actually correct me if I am wrong didnt Cotchin do something very similar in the Preseason game?
 
CrowToon said:
It is insufferable to think that Whateley can say the s**t he did yesterday which is full of contradictions and bluster and face no repercussions. He wouldn't look at Twitter, he wouldn't read the texts and noone in thr media landscape who wants to make a career will be able to take the fight to him as he is a mouthpiece for the AFL.

And Barrett the same saying we should just cop it.

I cannot believe they have focused so much on being a martyr for headknocks and only focused on McAdam rather than spending time going 'yeah the Pickett and Franklin ones needed more'. If they were serious about this then that would be their focus but no, we know the agenda.

Just hate the lack of accountability. When I shitpost here there is a congaline of you campaigners waiting to get your pound of flesh but Whateley talks s**t on national radio and tv and gets a few one liners on Twitter.
Click to expand...
Agreed - my biggest gripe with these clowns is the complete lack of accountability. Would love someone, somehow, to hold them to account for bollocks they espouse.

There needs to be a champion emerge in the media who crusades to highlight the sutpidity and bias of some of the things they put out there. A journalistic Batman, as it were.
 
footy4ever said:
Narrator: We won’t win
Click to expand...
I am leaning that way myself..they got caught off guard by us with the Mackay appeal (we usually just roll over and they were not expecting resistance) and we snuck an unexpected win...they are not letting that scenario play out with us again and it would not surprise in the least if they have not already tapped up the appeal board panel already
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Shane McAdam

Similar threads

Mostyn
News Shane McAdam traded to Melbourne for F2
52 53 54 55 56
Replies
1K
Views
64K
FR0GGY
FR0GGY
1990crow
Toast Welcome to the AFC - Shane Edwards
2 3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
8K
PeterSalt
P

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top