Strenglien appeal successful

[PAFC2004]

Stenglein took only two steps. How many did Byron Pickett take in his brutal attack?

Why even compare the two? This should be based on it's own merits.
Picketts was not a "brutal attack". It was clumsy, as was stengleins. While the intention was not to injure the player (in both cases), injury was sustained. If it's good for one, it should be good for the other.

 

[torment]

I suppose if Eckerman was competant enough he wouldnt have fumbled and had himself knocked out.

face it most freo supporters rekon stenglein wasnt at fault and usually freo and wc supporters dont get along very well

 

[weagles_fan]

All the Port supporters are the ones who seem to want him to get suspended.Have a sook,we r*ped your team and you just want this to happen to us so you can think something good came of your defeat.

 

[The Fireman]

He did deserve something, he had no eyes for the ball.

 

[Altum Volantes]

ahh well 1 is better than 2...

Gotta wonder when it's originally worth 4 from the match review panel.

 

[Farrand]

People like you make no sense. You can't tell me what I am thinking. I think I would know that better than you

Iv'e seen a lot worse on the footy field, but at the end of the day, suspension was warranted. Looking at this years tribunal decisions, no one could be blamed for thinking Port have gotten the rough end of the stick.

I don't know what you are thinking, but in the end, it was what you were thinking? Face it, you feel victimized mate.

All this isn't to say that I agree with some of the tribunal decisions in relation to Port, I reckon some were harsh. But live and let live. Stenglein will probably only get a match suspension, so what is there to complain about?

Problem is, this game is getting soft.

 

[PAFC2004]

All the Port supporters are the ones who seem to want him to get suspended.Have a sook,we r*ped your team and you just want this to happen to us so you can think something good came of your defeat.

Not at all, there's nothing to take from that game. I'm basing this on the incident, nothing else.
And "torment", Eckermann is not to blame because he fumbled. That is just plain stupid. Players fumble, it happens... just like players cause injury without intending to.

 

[Ari]

Just wrong.

He was offered 3 weeks, or 2 weeks if he took the deal. Instead he gambles on 3 weeks and is STILL found guilty, yet gets 1 week? I think the AFL just proved the system doesnt work.

Worse still, theyve set a precedent that youre allowed to stop going for the ball at the last minute and go after the player with a raised elbow. I hope they stay consistant.

 

[PAFC2004]

I don't know what you are thinking, but in the end, it was what you were thinking? Face it, you feel victimized mate.

All this isn't to say that I agree with some of the tribunal decisions in relation to Port, I reckon some were harsh. But live and let live. Stenglein will probably only get a match suspension, so what is there to complain about?

Problem is, this game is getting soft.

I agree with you there. Bumps should always be allowed. But not to the head.

 

[hotpie]

Why even compare the two? This should be based on it's own merits.

Because the number of steps you take determines the number of "other options" you have to avoid the contact and the momentum you have at the point of impact. It also give an indication of the proximity of the ball which in Stengleins case was within the legal range.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Have a sook,we r*ped your team

The word 'r*ped' has never sounded so good.

Season over.

 

[weagles_fan]

I don't know what you are thinking, but in the end, it was what you were thinking? Face it, you feel victimized mate.

All this isn't to say that I agree with some of the tribunal decisions in relation to Port, I reckon some were harsh. But live and let live. Stenglein will probably only get a match suspension, so what is there to complain about?

Problem is, this game is getting soft.

Wouldn't really care if he was missing vs Essendon but Richmond should be a tougher game.2 games or 1 I wouldn't care,I just want him to play this week.

 

[H. C. Loads]

Height has a lot to do with the severity. If Peter Bell runs into Peter Everitt he's going to get whacked in the head.

But is that an excuse?

Same with tripping. There is no excuse for tripping. (Not sure if that's a good rule or not.) And I've seen guys get done when it's 100% guaranteed nothing malicious - just making a lunge at a player and catching their feet.

What do the rules say about head high contact and players' heights? Is there more room for interpretation, unlike with tripping?

 

[PAFC2004]

Because the number of steps you take determines the number of "other options" you have to avoid the contact and the momentum you have at the point of impact. It also give an indication of the proximity of the ball which in Stengleins case was within the legal range.

Stenglien has no eyes for the ball. He was looking straight at Eckermann.
Begley had posession of the ball, so when Pickett tried to lay the tackle/bump, he was within 5 meters.

 

[Farrand]

I agree with you there. Bumps should always be allowed. But not to the head.

Definitely. The only problem is those players who tend to duck into a bump. There's gotta be some leeway.

 

[hotpie]

But is that an excuse?

Yes. It mitigates severity which is partly why Stengleins charge was downgraded.

 

[PAFC2004]

The word 'r*ped' has never sounded so good.

Season over.

It looks like our season might be over... but at least we have been in more than one final
Year after year you have to face that fact that your season is over after round 10.

 

[Ari]

Height has a lot to do with the severity. If Peter Bell runs into Peter Everitt he's going to get whacked in the head.

Dustin Fletcher was rubbed out of the finals in the Essendon v Fremantle 03 game for contact with a short short man in Dion Woods. I dont see any allowances in that one.... hell, Dion Woods didnt even know he had the free, the umpire had to call him back from 50 metres away. That said, the AFL saw 2 weeks fit.

 

[hotpie]

Stenglien has no eyes for the ball. He was looking straight at Eckermann.
Begley had posession of the ball, so when Pickett tried to lay the tackle/bump, he was within 5 meters.

Pickett ran past the ball to hit Begley.

 

[Ari]

This title is misleading. He pleaded not guilty and got found guilty but they are going to downgrade it.

I cant believe people dont see it as an absolute mockery.

 

[PAFC2004]

Definitely. The only problem is those players who tend to duck into a bump. There's gotta be some leeway.

Perhaps, but Eckermann shouldn't be punished for being short. Players have to learn to avoid head high contact at all costs. There was no attempt to avoid contact, so suspension was warranted.

 

[hotpie]

Dustin Fletcher was rubbed out of the finals in the Essendon v Fremantle 03 game for contact with a short short man in Dion Woods. I dont see any allowances in that one....:

Dustin Fletcher is a special case. The tribunal is a bit sick and tired of his "clumsiness".

 

[Farrand]

Wouldn't really care if he was missing vs Essendon but Richmond should be a tougher game.2 games or 1 I wouldn't care,I just want him to play this week.

It is a bastard, but on the bright side, he could have missed up to the game against Melbourne.

Still nothing in it. Shows the faults in the new system.

 

[Ari]

ahh well 1 is better than 2...

Gotta wonder when it's originally worth 4 from the match review panel.

The new 'system' can see 4 weeks turn into 1. Oh it's working indeed

 

[PAFC2004]

Pickett ran past the ball to hit Begley.

Excuse me? I was at the game and have seen numerous replays. The ball was within 5 meters, and it was Picketts intention to bump the player off of the ball, so that he could gather it.
Was a clumsy bump, I know that.