Irrelevant. McAdam's wasn't about front on contact or even contact to the head. The AFL made it clear it was about force and potential to cause injury.
Was there no potential in this case?
Player Watch Shane McAdam
- Thread starter SuperBashBros
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Was there no potential in this case?
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,391
- 38,370
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yep, made the decision to bump which has the potential to lead to injury. In this case it did. Has to get more than McAdam.
The stupid AFL have made a rod for themselves with McAdams suspension. Every time there’s an example we have to highlight it
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
For someone with the name "Wehr" he seems pretty easy to find.
Won't matter. The Vic media will completely ignore it and then suggest we are wingers for bringing up their hypocrisy.
- Jul 6, 2017
- 32,076
- 46,476
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
‘That’s a six weeker’: Great calls for HUGE ban for brutal ‘car crash’ AFL tackle
‘That’s a six weeker’: Great calls for HUGE ban for brutal ‘car crash’ AFL tackle
www.foxsports.com.au
The incident was graded as careless with severe impact and high contact — the maximum charge.
Speaking on Fox Footy’s First Crack, King labelled Broad’s tackle a “horrific incident” and a “car crash,” saying he’d be “really disappointed” if it only results in a three or four week ban.
“We’ve got one chance to stamp this out, and unfortunately, Nathan Broad and the Richmond footy club have to pay a price. That’s a six weeker for me,” the dual premiership Kangaroo said.
“You have to say: ‘Guys, you know the rules.’
“We stuffed this up with the bump totally and we’ve got all sorts of trauma with past players and we’ll be court for all sorts of reasons and all sort sorts of finances will drift out of the game.
“But players know with this one, they know when they’ve got a guy cold. That poor young fella there — Patrick Parnell — we can’t say what his injury is today.
“Because he doesn’t have a broken arm or broken leg, the trauma he’s going to suffer is down the track potentially. The game now has to get this right, you’ve got one chance, don’t stuff this up.
“If you give that six weeks, it will not happen again for the year. The grading was careless, high and severe — that’s the max. So don’t tiptoe through this one.”
Gtowncrow
Premiership Player
- Jul 6, 2021
- 3,266
- 4,196
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
We really do need to remain vocal about this point.
Strong agree with you.
- Oct 16, 2011
- 16,738
- 43,463
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Can't compare them.
Look the only issue I had with Macadams...well two, it was the first time someone had been done on potential outcome that I just thought bizarre but the second was if they gave him 3 but had given Pickett more then no issue it would have been a statement from the AFL.
To make it though that the Pickett one wasn't judged on potential seemed inconsistent to say the least.
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,391
- 38,370
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Except the tribunal said McAdam had the option to tackle, chose to bump which had the potential to cause injury.
Duggan had the option to tackle, chose to bump and actually caused an injury.
- Oct 16, 2011
- 16,738
- 43,463
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
It isn't even close to the same thing
MsTopG
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 21, 2023
- 5,710
- 5,744
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The elbow didn't hit them in the head. They ultimately only care about money they have to payout to players from head injuries. If players start suing the AFL about non head injuries they will start penalizing it.
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,391
- 38,370
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
He didn’t have the option to tackle and chose to bump?
Rabish Binney
Left out overnight
Yes they were different actions.
But the tribunal emphasised that McAdam's action had the potential to cause injury and that this was the main deciding factor in handing down the penalty.
In the washup, there was no injury to Wehr.
Duggan had the opportunity to tackle (as McAdam did) and chose to bump.....with Wehr subsequently being injured.
So, both decided to bump when they could have tackled......McAdam's actions did not lead to any injury, yet Duggan's did.
So by the tribunals reasoning that a player's actions (any actions I assume) can be suspended for the potential to cause injury, then Duggan should have been sighted?
BTW I'm glad that he wasn't.
It puts the inconsistency of the tribunal at the forefront. I give you the Pickett outcome - he got less games because it was a glancing blow apparently
This is why so many of us are pissed off with with the McAdam 3 weeks.
It was a football action that did not cause injury, did not hit the head.
This week a massive collision between MM and Marshall.
Front on, got the player in the body, huge potential for injury.
Excellent by Marshall. He didn’t back off, went in hard and clean, hit the body not the head.
No way should it be a suspension.
Awesome by MM too. Didn’t flinch, went to the bench, came back on sore… but that is something we love about our game.
So explain to me, those who disagree, how these two incidents shouldn’t BOTH be ok?
Shane hit hard, no doubt. But what did he do wrong exactly?
It reaks.
It was a football action that did not cause injury, did not hit the head.
This week a massive collision between MM and Marshall.
Front on, got the player in the body, huge potential for injury.
Excellent by Marshall. He didn’t back off, went in hard and clean, hit the body not the head.
No way should it be a suspension.
Awesome by MM too. Didn’t flinch, went to the bench, came back on sore… but that is something we love about our game.
So explain to me, those who disagree, how these two incidents shouldn’t BOTH be ok?
Shane hit hard, no doubt. But what did he do wrong exactly?
It reaks.
The 2 incidents with McAdam and MM were very similar. There was no conclusive proof that McAdam had hit Wehr in the head. So essentially:
- they’re both similar body hits
- players fell and were winded
- both had players coming off the field
- both cleared of concussion
- both came back and able to play out the entire match.
- both “looked an ugly incident”, or “potential for serious injury”
MatthewB
If the drinking lamp is lit, you should be too
- Sep 17, 2015
- 10,472
- 13,027
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- NY Yankees, Glenelg Adelaide Giants
Does Nick Holman's hit on Sam De Koning get looked at similar incident to McAdam's and De Koning was subbed out
FR0GGY
From a cartel villa in Tuscany
I’m going to say they’re completely different as acts.
Pretty sure they’ve said with the bump you take the risk of what happens with the head.
The problem with Mcadam they went off script and went with the “potential” injury which we’ve never seen before.
The Michaelanney incident wasn’t even close the to the head.
FR0GGY
From a cartel villa in Tuscany
Logue offered one game for running past the ball and bumping in the head, with the same result of no injury. 
Rankine2Thilthorpe
Cancelled
- Mar 24, 2023
- 211
- 379
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
How is this not worse than McAdam’s?Logue offered one game for running past the ball and bumping in the head, with the same result of no injury.
View attachment 1648122
Intentional - Severe - High. Potential to cause injury is certainly there too.
4+ matches.
The AFL isn’t even trying to hide its biases anymore.
At least 2023 has been a good year where fans are uniting to see the ugly face of AFL bosses for what they really are - greedy, biased dimwits.
Rankine2Thilthorpe
Cancelled
- Mar 24, 2023
- 211
- 379
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Kangaroos must be the newly appointed (always exclusive to Victorian teams) “fairytale”.
As per the Bulldogs, have they received a phone call from AFL House recently telling them how much the league would love to see a flag go their way soon?
Logue offered one game for running past the ball and bumping in the head, with the same result of no injury.
View attachment 1648122
Watching 360 now - how did McAdam get 4, and this only gets 1?
Only difference is Day not requiring a concussion test, but that doesn’t explain why he didn’t get at least two like Pickett
- Sep 3, 2018
- 5,337
- 7,043
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
There are a couple of differences between Marshall and McAdam which Inthink are fair enough
For Marshall hitting MM it was a contest for a loose ball so he couldn’t really tackle, and more relevant he didn’t drop the shoulder and run through him like McAdam did. Marshall hit MM with his arm out like a tackle so with the front of the shoulder. If he had of the cord it in and ironed him out then he would definitely have got weeks
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
