The Non-Essendon Thread V

[Slattery_20]

Someone made a very, very, very good point about Geelong on the radio this morning

Remember back about 18 months ago, a certain club were whinging that a certain other club had talked to some of their people?
I would sincerely hope, for the sake of Cook & co's INTEGRITY, they quote 'picked up the phone' and let Matty Primus & whomever Port's pres is, that they were talking to their players....

I just couldn't hack it if these modern-day, self-appointed beacons of integrity and honesty were, in fact, just the same as everyone else after all. It would destroy my faith in them, I would be forced to think they were massive, massive hypocrites.

 

[Howard Moon]

It's funny that it was hardly cloak and dagger stuff, they flew in on commercial flights, no balaclavas... hence the 'rode in to town with brass buttons and band' quote... They were almost indignant in the way they didnt hide anything, just flouting the rules willy nilly!

Does seem a touch hypocritical as you say though, after the hullabaloo from a few years back... I doubt they 'picked up the phone' they just waltzed into to town with no respect.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

So what?
The ball bounced off Lloyd in the Sewell hit, and he was watching it all the way as well.
Does that mean he's allowed to put a hip through a bloke's head???
Ridiculous!

The intent is very clearly different IMO and as far as I have seen/heard the vocal majority seem to agree. In your opinion do you think the system handed out the appropriate punishment?

 

[Slattery_20]

The intent is very clearly different IMO and as far as I have seen/heard the vocal majority seem to agree.

Of course it is.
I'm pointing out why the "touched the ball" line of reasoning is poor.

If you get done for 'kicking in danger' and kick the ball, and a guy's face, then you don't get off because 'you touched the ball'. It's the same concept - no-one's saying you weren't contesting the ball, they're ruling thatthe action you took to contest was negligent - you had better, less dangerous options to contest.
What I was saying with the Lloyd bump, you can absolutely clean someone up, pretty much intentionally.... and "but I touched the ball" is not a defence.

Ziebell contested dangerously, and IMHO had other options, so whether he touched the ball or not is, basically, irrelevant (which is what the MRP admitted).

In your opinion do you think the system handed out the appropriate punishment?

Initially I thought 1-2, but the more I watch it, the more I think it's lenient if anything - but I'm falling for the old 'too many replays'.
2 weeks is fair.
He added the 3rd himself, North added the 4th.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

What other viable options did Ziebell have. He had to jump to take possession of the ball. Waiting for Joseph to take possession is not a viable option.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Initially I thought 1-2, but the more I watch it, the more I think it's lenient if anything - but I'm falling for the old 'too many replays'.
2 weeks is fair.

I can agree with that.

Loading, records and early pleas need to go and just judge everything on its merits. I'd be happier if they suspended players more often but lesser sentences.

 

[Slattery_20]

I can agree with that.

Loading, records and early pleas need to go and just judge everything on its merits.

Nah, disagree. You'd get guys doing it again, and again, and again. The loading goes a long way to stopping that.

I'd be happier if they suspended players more often but lesser sentences.

So would I. They catch far too few blokes, but when they catch them, a lot of the time they give them too much.

There are a LOT of lesser things things done on the field.
A lot of them intentional, but low impact things, like jumper punches, sneaky elbows etc, or Jamison putting his knees into Petrie, or Baker giving Johnson a bunch of little jabs.
They should not be worth anywhere near a week - only be 25 pts each or so each incident, but they still should be accountable.

But I'm not sure about body-into-head hits. That's about as dangerous as it gets.

 

[Doss]

Nah, disagree. You'd get guys doing it again, and again, and again. The loading goes a long way to stopping that.

I think my biggest issue is when the opposite occurs- and someone gets off relatively lightly for a genuinely disgusting act.

Sharrod Wellingham being the recent example. I'm not sure how you could quantify this, but when you do something as bad he did, the fact you have a clean record should count for squat as far I'm concerned. The fact that Wellingham ended up getting reduced from five weeks to three, when he didn't even attempt going for the ball, and just instead ironed Simpson straight out (giving him a broken jaw to boot), was IMO a disgrace.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Nah, disagree. You'd get guys doing it again, and again, and again. The loading goes a long way to stopping that.


So would I. They catch far too few blokes, but when they catch them, a lot of the time they give them too much.

There are a LOT of lesser things things done on the field.
A lot of them intentional, but low impact things, like jumper punches, sneaky elbows etc, or Jamison putting his knees into Petrie, or Baker giving Johnson a bunch of little jabs.
They should not be worth anywhere near a week - only be 25 pts each or so each incident, but they still should be accountable.

But I'm not sure about body-into-head hits. That's about as dangerous as it gets.

I'm not sure how much the loading/early plea has stopped repeat offenders, can't remember what it was like before, though currently its leading to much worse decisions than it should.

My gripe is carry over points in incidents like Carlisle's on the weekend. Now he has 93 carry over points for a bloke basically running into his path, chances are down the track he will miss an addition match anyway because of the correlation between the MRP and the tribunal. Now because of inconsistent rulings, we are afraid to challenge what should be a fairly straight forward overuling. They mirror each other too closely.

The MRP looks at things in black and white which is fine, but the counter balance should be far more logic at the tribunal than currently demonstrated.

 

[Slattery_20]

My gripe is carry over points in incidents like Carlisle's on the weekend. Now he has 93 carry over points for a bloke basically running into his path, chances are down the track he will miss an addition match anyway because of the correlation between the MRP and the tribunal. Now because of inconsistent rulings, we are afraid to challenge what should be a fairly straight forward overuling. They mirror each other too closely.

My gripe with the Carlisle one, is that it was a shocking decision to reprimand him in the first place.
I've no problem with Davey/Crameri/Hocking/whoever else having carry over points.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

My gripe with the Carlisle one, is that it was a shocking decision to reprimand him in the first place.
I've no problem with Davey/Crameri/Hocking/whoever else having carry over points.

Exactly. You can't have it both ways though. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “It is better for one hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man to go to jail”.*

*may or may not be applicable to AFL tribunals

 

[Slattery_20]

I think my biggest issue is when the opposite occurs- and someone gets off relatively lightly for a genuinely disgusting act.

Sharrod Wellingham being the recent example. I'm not sure how you could quantify this, but when you do something as bad he did, the fact you have a clean record should count for squat as far I'm concerned. The fact that Wellingham ended up getting reduced from five weeks to three, when he didn't even attempt going for the ball, and just instead ironed Simpson straight out (giving him a broken jaw to boot), was IMO a disgrace.

Yep, I agree.
The worry is, the system does have a clause, that when you get graded (I think) Intentional & Severe (impact); all the loadings & pleas etc get thrown out. But they said he was 'reckless' - somehow that was not an intentional attempt on Simpson, god knows how they came up with that.

I don't think they've used Intentional/Severe more than once or twice.

 

[Doss]

Yep, I agree.
The worry is, the system does have a clause, that when you get graded (I think) Intentional & Severe (impact); all the loadings & pleas etc get thrown out. But they said he was 'reckless' - somehow that was not an intentional attempt on Simpson, god knows how they came up with that.

I don't think they've used Intentional/Severe more than once or twice.

Barry Hall would have been Intentional/Severe. Perhaps Solomon on Ling as well.

 

[DaSawx]

The Faz files on SEN with Fasolo and Harf, such ****ing terrible listening.

 

[VelvetSledge]

Did anyone see Brad Scott's presser this morning?



Normally not a fan of him, seems to complain a lot for someone who was once one of the hardest, strongest players in the league, but his words ring true.

 

[Pweter]

Did anyone see Brad Scott's presser this morning?



Normally not a fan of him, seems to complain a lot for someone who was once one of the hardest, strongest players in the league, but his words ring true.

Absolutely. I read some of this interview on AFL.com.au before seeing this and I couldn't agree more. Can't remember whether it was on this board or the main board where I argued the same thing.

Under the current ruling he was guilty, but I don't believe the current ruling is in the spirit of the game at all.

 

[Pweter]

Question(s):

If Ziebell jumped at the ball with a knee out in front to protect himself, took the ball on his chest like a chest mark (or at least attempted to), and took out Joseph in the process, what would people think? It is not a mark, but this sort of contact is allowed in a marking contest so when a ball is not kicked but there is the chance to take it in the same fashion as marking, would it make the contact fair under today's rules?

 

[Slattery_20]

Question(s):

If Ziebell jumped at the ball with a knee out in front to protect himself, took the ball on his chest like a chest mark (or at least attempted to), and took out Joseph in the process, what would people think? It is not a mark, but this sort of contact is allowed in a marking contest so when a ball is not kicked but there is the chance to take it in the same fashion as marking, would it make the contact fair under today's rules?

Theoretically, high negligent contact is officiated the same, whether a mark, ruck contest, handball, last bottle of sauce @ Coles - but I'm worried they would allow it.

EDIT: Definitely think they would allow it if he went front on for the mark - but I think they would've allowed it if he went front on for the handball as well.
Tucking in as soon as he took off was what did him.

 

[Pweter]

Theoretically, high negligent contact is officiated the same, whether a mark, ruck contest, handball, last bottle of sauce @ Coles - but I'm worried they would allow it.
quote]

Gee, guys better not take hangers anymore. Might knee a guy in the back of the head and get suspended for it.

If this is where the league is heading then god help us all.

 

[VelvetSledge]

THE DEN?! May god have mercy on us all.

 

[Slattery_20]

Pweter - explained more in the edit.

Do you think guys like Waite should be able to put their bootstuds into the guy in front of them in a marking contest?
I think that'll go - not yet, but it will. And then they'll start pinging guys who go out of their way to put a knee in, when they fly for a mark - eventually.
Probably 10 years away though.

 

[Pweter]

Pweter - explained more in the edit.

Yeah, read your edit
Do you think guys like Waite should be able to put their bootstuds into the guy in front of them in a marking contest?
I think that'll go - not yet, but it will. And then they'll start pinging guys who go out of their way to put a knee in, when they fly for a mark - eventually.
Probably 10 years away though.

Where does it stop?

Players are allowed to protect themselves. You put a knee up to protect your nuts, gut and ribs from front on contact. That should never be penalised.

As for using feet in a marking contest, perhaps they could make a rule where if you move your opponent under the ball using your feet it is penalised as a push in the back or something, but then it becomes grey when someone takes a hang where the opponent was never a realistic chance of grabbing it, and the last thing we want is more rules with grey areas (and also the demise of the hanger).

If what you're saying does eventually become a reality then I'm not sure I'd enjoy watching football any more. "Mark the ball any way you like lads, just make sure you don't touch anyone in the process".

Contact injury is inevitable in a contact sport. everyone knows that when they take the field and you should be prepared to protect yourself when out there against accidental contact. Ball watching when going back with the flight with your arms out straight is a recipe for disaster, and it has only become a trend in recent years. The courage of the modern footballer is absolute, but it is looking like it could be at the demise of the game.

EDIT - Not arguing with you Slats, it is just annoying me where the game is headed. Thuggery where you can't protect yourself should be banished and offenders punished. A hot contest should be allowed even if someone comes off 2nd best, if someone chooses to leave themselves open then that is there fault.

 

[yaco55]

The current AFL paranoia is the fear of concussions coming back to bite down the track, because of that, every incident involving the head seems to be lumped together. Maybe I'm longing for an old era of football mentally, to me that doesn't seem like a malice incident or something that should be judged by points. Its just another shade of grey, that they have painted with a black brush.

Think you need to be careful when comparing the AFL's aim to protect the head and Ziebell's action - They are not related events !

We are better to use our time discussing how Carlisle got a reprimand and 93 points for a non-event - This was a case of injustice - And how Merrett's charge on Riewoldt got downgraded from 2 weeks to a reprimand.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Think you need to be careful when comparing the AFL's aim to protect the head and Ziebell's action - They are not related events !

Bit over it, but wondering how are they not related? I doubt Ziebell would have been suspended if joseph wasn't subbed out of the game with a concussion.

and why do I need to be careful? I'm just some pleb in the stands, my opinion doesn't mean anything more than any other supporter.

 

[yaco55]

Bit over it, but wondering how are they not related? I doubt Ziebell would have been suspended if joseph wasn't subbed out of the game with a concussion.

and why do I need to be careful? I'm just some pleb in the stands, my opinion doesn't mean anything more than any other supporter.

Don't take careful literally

What I am suggesting is that Ziebell plays footy like in the 1980's,and we are in the 2010's.

Carlisle was more harshly treated than Ziebell.