Trent West - no case to answer??????????

[Hawk-in-syd]

So if West went to the tribunal there would be no need for video evidence. There are about 50 posts here saying that West was stationary and allowed Clarke to run into him.

Couple of differences between the cases
1.west would have to admit he initiated the contact
2.west would have to admit the contact was 50m off the ball
3.Clarke need to have damage to his face, indicating the point of impact was high and severe

West I think has admitted be initiated the contact, thats were the similarity ends. It wasn't 50m off the ball and there was no damage to Clarke's his head.

 

[Jean Claude Vas Deferens]

The bump itself was fine, executed perfectly. The distance from the player to the ball was well over 5 metres (about 8 metres actually), and as such contact was illegal. West should have been cited for unduly rough play, probably received a reprimand, and we all move on.

The "hardness" or otherwise of Clarke is irrelevant. He was moving off the mark, wasn't chasing the ball carrier, and shouldn't have expected contact.

The MRP got it wrong again. Go figure ...

Well summed up. I concur wholeheartedly!

 

[winty]

I am absolutely baffled by the hypocrisy and double standards displayed by the majority of St.Kilda fans in this thread.

On one hand, they argue that West should've been suspended for a bump that was caught on camera and was, at most, 10-15 metres off the ball, in which Clarke copped a concussion, but one that wasn't severe enough to prohibit him from playing out the rest of the game.

Then, on the other hand, they swear black and blue that Baker should never have been suspended for a bump that was more than 50 metres off the ball, and not caught on camera, even though Farmer suffered significantly worse injuries than what Clarke did.

I'm guessing these same Saints fans think that a tree that falls in a forest with no-one around falls perfectly silently too.