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

[catempire]

You have to ignore the crap posts on here. Rather than latch onto a post where someone says it was 30m, try to argue instead with those who said it was 10m. That's the problem with Big Footy. So many people posting, arguments tend to get rolled in together like one giant snowball of poop.

Clarke was picked off behind the play. There is no argument about this.The argument lies in whether or not West's bump was reasonable under the circumstances.

It's also a red-herring for you to twist words and misrepresent people for saying that "Clarke couldn't have been aware" of contact. The point is that Clarke WAS NOT AWARE of West approaching him. West knew this and delivered his blindside hit. Of course Clarke should've been more aware, but he wasn't and he was carted off.

Was West's hit becessary?

No.

There most certainly is an argument about this. In fact, if he had picked him off behind play, he would certainly have been suspended. West was attempting to shepard his teammate. That fact alone means that it was in play.

Was the hit necessary? No. But that doesn't make it illegal of itself. I've been over this point - we could see from the replay and on TV that a shepard wasn't necessary, but in all likelihood, West thought he was making a legitimate shepard to protect a teammate with the ball.

 

[Chewy]

They could elaborate but being too prescriptive can create problems as well. For one thing, there will always be some incidents that can't be foreseen and so will fall outside. For those, there needs to be discretion.

LOL at your use of "prescriptive" instead of descriptive
I think this is what I need when discussing the grey areas in the game.

It is as though the AFL have already decided exactly what you've said.
They've deliberately tried to keep things as simple as possible. Unfortuntely, the game is incredibly complex. There are so many different variables and so many different aspects to the contact in our game.

In my opinion, the "simple" approach has failed. We get the same frustrations and confusion with the rules every year. If the AFL took the "more is less" approach and rewrote the rules, giving the law for each different circumstance, then there would be no argument, no debate. The umpire's decision would be either correct or incorrect. And every time the game threw up an interesting new circumstance or variable, they could add another line to the rule book. (this would not be another new rule, simply a explanation for an existing rule)

I think they have tried to maintain some discretion to avoid these problems but also to be able to apply some form of common sense to adjudications.

This is the problem. What is common sense?
People bandy this expression about, like it's universal truth, but what is comon sense really?

I'll give you an analogy. When I was in high school, I had teachers grabbing the back of my hair and telling me to get a hair cut. At the time, the fashion was short hair, flat tops and undercuts. But the photos of prefects from just five years earlier showed they all had shoulder length hair! And five years after I was told off, long hair was back. My hair was only unacceptable, according to the "common sense", at a particular point in time.

Common sense also varies according to who you speak to. Some people think if common sense prevailed, Barry Hall would've received only 4 weeks for his punch that did no lasting damage. Other people think 7 weeks was far too lenient and common sense would see him fined, sent off and given 12 weeks for his outrageous behind play king-hit.

Why leave things open to "common sense"?

Why not spell it out for everyone's benefit and end all of these arguments?

Again, I don't think contact of the type of the West incident is contact that ever was intended to be outlawed.

Disagree.

This is another example of using a more recent rule, to cloud the old rules.

In the old days, Clarke would've received a free kick for West's off the ball shepherd.

But these days, confusions reigns.
Too many new rules, but not enough detailed explanation of the existing laws.

 

[dharma bum]

LOL at your use of "prescriptive" instead of descriptive

Dude, I suspect he meant "proscriptive". Look it up if you need to before being so quick with the LOLs.

 

[catempire]

LOL at your use of "prescriptive" instead of descriptive
I think this is what I need when discussing the grey areas in the game.

It is as though the AFL have already decided exactly what you've said.
They've deliberately tried to keep things as simple as possible. Unfortuntely, the game is incredibly complex. There are so many different variables and so many different aspects to the contact in our game.

In my opinion, the "simple" approach has failed. We get the same frustrations and confusion with the rules every year. If the AFL took the "more is less" approach and rewrote the rules, giving the law for each different circumstance, then there would be no argument, no debate. The umpire's decision would be either correct or incorrect. And every time the game threw up an interesting new circumstance or variable, they could add another line to the rule book. (this would not be another new rule, simply a explanation for an existing rule)

Look, I don't disagree that there could be more guidance given. If for no other reason I think they should make it clear that incidents like West's do not warrant suspension.

I can also see the value in discretion though so I think it will always be a part of the law.

Disagree.

This is another example of using a more recent rule, to cloud the old rules.

In the old days, Clarke would've received a free kick for West's off the ball shepherd.

But these days, confusions reigns.
Too many new rules, but not enough detailed explanation of the existing laws.

I'm not sure to what "old days" you are referring. Didn't they decrease the distance to 5m? In the old days a bump like West's (probably around 10m, let's say) was probably legal.

 

[Chewy]

Dude, I suspect he meant "proscriptive". Look it up if you need to before being so quick with the LOLs.

I wasn't LOL at Catempire. I just thought it was funny typo.
But thanks for the tip. I didn't know about "proscriptive". Good word.

(Kerouac is overrated)

 

[Tay29]

Give up Catempire. Chewy isn't after a discussion. More an enforcement of his own opinions. He can't be swayed on anything. Even his insistence that the incident was 10m away like he empirically measured the 10m himself.

 

[catempire]

Dude, I suspect he meant "proscriptive". Look it up if you need to before being so quick with the LOLs.

I wasn't LOL at Catempire. I just thought it was funny typo.
But thanks for the tip. I didn't know about "proscriptive". Good word.

(Kerouac is overrated)

From the Collins dictionary:

Prescriptive adj laying down the rules.

 

[Chewy]

I'm not sure to what "old days" you are referring. Didn't they decrease the distance to 5m? In the old days a bump like West's (probably around 10m, let's say) was probably legal.

I'm referring to old days, before the five metre rule, before professionalism, back when footballers played with honour and a sense of fairness. Forget all the hype about king-hits and shirt-fronts. These were an auxillary part of the game. Watch the old footage and you'll see how much fairer footy was in the old days. Players weren't always trying to cheat in every contest. And if they did, they were penalised. Dozens of free kicks paid. Whistle happy the umpires were. They applied the law and used their common sense.

If a player executed a ridiculous shepherd like West v Clarke, they would've penalised him.

It's only as the professional footballers started pushing the boundaries of every law that the game has got out of hand, the umpires are more confused and new rules are introduced. If footballers played fair and the umps used common sense, everything would be fine. But Dermie started crunching taggers and so the league rewrote the rules. Now West delivers a shepherd to an unsuspecting player and for some reason, people can't acknowledge it was illegal and unnecessary.

The game is not about hitting people and knocking them down. If this occurs in the act of a legal shepherd, that's great. But were are not playing gridiron.

 

[Chewy]

From the Collins dictionary:

Prescriptive adj laying down the rules.

 

[Chewy]

Give up Catempire. Chewy isn't after a discussion. More an enforcement of his own opinions. He can't be swayed on anything. Even his insistence that the incident was 10m away like he empirically measured the 10m himself.

looks to me like you're the person who is not up for a discussion.
So why don't you piss off to the Geelong board and discuss Garry Ablett's thinning blonds locks?

Catempire can manage perfectly well without your idiot barracking from the sidelines.

TWAT.

 

[catempire]

I'm referring to old days, before the five metre rule, before professionalism, back when footballers played with honour and a sense of fairness. Forget all the hype about king-hits and shirt-fronts. These were an auxillary part of the game. Watch the old footage and you'll see how much fairer footy was in the old days. Players weren't always trying to cheat in every contest. And if they did, they were penalised. Dozens of free kicks paid. Whistle happy the umpires were. They applied the law and used their common sense.

If a player executed a ridiculous shepherd like West v Clarke, they would've penalised him.

It's only as the professional footballers started pushing the boundaries of every law that the game has got out of hand, the umpires are more confused and new rules are introduced. If footballers played fair and the umps used common sense, everything would be fine. But Dermie started crunching taggers and so the league rewrote the rules. Now West delivers a shepherd to an unsuspecting player and for some reason, people can't acknowledge it was illegal and unnecessary.

The game is not about hitting people and knocking them down. If this occurs in the act of a legal shepherd, that's great. But were are not playing gridiron.

If a free kick had been paid against West because he was outside the distance of a legal shepard I could not have argued with it.

I maintain that bumps of that kind - 10m off the ball, in the reasonable belief of protecting the ball carrier - should not be reportable offences.

 

[Squizz]

When I saw this post, my first reaction was that he did an OK job in tucking the elbow in and bending his knees. On the borderline, but no penalty seemed acceptable.

Then I read some of the posts which stated that West was stationary (rubbish), the umpire was looking straight at it (bollox - he did a double take implying "what did I miss?"), there was no malice (c'mon - the whole point of a bump rather than a normal shepherd is to increase the impact), Clarke ran into West (hilarious), and he was only unconcious when his head hit the ground (never head of the brain moving inside the skull in a car accident?).

I now know why we are building a bypass around Geelong.

 

[Chewy]

If a free kick had been paid against West because he was outside the distance of a legal shepard I could not have argued with it.

I maintain that bumps of that kind - 10m off the ball, in the reasonable belief of protecting the ball carrier - should not be reportable offences.

Yeah, I can almost agree with you on this.

Clarke getting stretchered off has clouded things however.
He was injured/hurt after West went outside the rules and spirit of the game.

Isn't this similar to those trips when players stick out their leg like Mooney did?
There was nothing too malicious about Mooney's trip attempt, yet he was suspended.
Why? Because footballers get injured like this. Think of Nigel Lappin after he was tripped/kicked by Hodge. Amazingly Hodge escaped suspension, but he injured a bloke, not maliciously, but outside the rules.

West was not trying to break the rules, you may argue, but he intended to put Clarke down, just like G'siracusa intended to put Koschitzke down. There was no duty of care shown and 99% of footballers would not have bothered attempting this shepherd. He didn't help his team at all. The only thing he succeeding in doing was to hurt X Clarke.

What next? Push your opponent into a goal post so he breaks his leg?

That's probably legal also.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

[This was not reasonable contact. Clarke was not expecting it and he was hurt.

The fact that Clarke wasn't expecting it does not make it unreasonable. Nor does the fact he was hurt, when it wasn't a high contact.

 

[Chewy]

The fact that Clarke wasn't expecting it does not make it unreasonable. Nor does the fact he was hurt, when it wasn't a high contact.

I've already said: the contact was unreasonable because Clarke was no chance to tackle Hunt.

He was a jogging bystander, 10 metres away and Hunt was in the process of kicking the ball.

Imagine Nick Davis ran into an open goal and as he roosted the ball into the top deck, his opponent Wojcinski gave up on the chase, let down his guard, then was blindsided by Barry Hall, 10m away, at the top of the goal square.

Imagine if as Wojcinski was getting carted off the field, the replays showed that Hall's bump was below the shoulders and legal.

I'm sure you'd be happy with that.

Not the same, but just giving you a different perspective of "fair and reasonable".

 

[kosifantutti]

[YOUTUBE]lbjiefgRt-g[/YOUTUBE]

Chewy, you can whinge all you like but the bump WAS within 5 meters of the ball.

Clarke needs to watch where he is going. Simple as that.

Lots of Cats fans pointing to the YouTube video and a still shot taken from that as their "proof" that the ball was in 5m. The Youtube video is taken from Channel 10's analysis after the event but doesn't show the original, live, wide angled view from the wing which puts Clarke about 8m away from Hunt at the point of contact and further away from the ball which has already been kicked.

Go back and look at the live footage and tell me Clarke was within 5m of Hunt.

 

[Bollox]

Still dont know what all the fuss is about. It was always going to be a lineball decison and its mainly becuase its a big guy on a small guy that damage was done.

Not exactly a hero job but if its 5-10m off the ball instead of 5 then who cares really. Shyt happens.

Clarke was watching the ball in play and should be afforded SOME protection from big guys trying to demolish him from out of his vision...but it was probably just the size difference that caused the damage.

Big guy hitting little guiy when he wasnt expecting it...u can argue a dog act but the dog would be a chihuahua.

Let it go...woulda hurt and good he came back on. A call from West to Clarke or visiting him in the sheds is enough surely.

Maybe lucky to not get a week...but then i reckon he'd be unlucky if they gave him a week...wasnt intentional high contact. Just size difference.

You cant go around hammering the little guys off the ball coz someone will catch up to you eventually.....just ask Staker lol.

 

[paramore]

I reckon the only reason West got off is because X.Clarke went back onto the ground.

 

[LongBomb]

It's over people.
Move on.

 

[ultimate hater]

ok.. a question.. how can steve baker get 6 weeks (i know it was 4 plus whatever) for a bump that wasnt even caught on tape. But yet this, which shows clarke WASN'T in the contest or was not going to be in the contest (was barely out of a walk), getting bumped 10+meters away from the ball and blindsided, can not even be cited??

it was not in play and there is a rule there for episodes like this.. a result of the budda hocking vs rob harvey incident..

you'd want to hope this incident doesn't allow for a precident, or you might find guys getting cleaned up all over the field when they are not looking, as long as its a "fair bump"...

The AFL rule regarding this is Rule 15.4.5 (e) and is explained as when "a player makes prohibitive contact with an opposition player, if he pushes, bumps, holds, or blocks an opposition player when the football is further than five metres away from the opposition player or is out of play".

 

[footyfreak]

Spin around? Charge? Fanciful.

Clarke was running towards West (and the ball), there was no spinning around at all.

And charge? West was stationary when the bump took place, it was Clarke who moved.

[YOUTUBE]lbjiefgRt-g[/YOUTUBE]

not good video quality but to say he was stationary is not accurate. He jogged in, turned sideways and as Jimmy35 said, "he picked him off". I'm the biggest advocate of footy not going soft but there was no need for that but if it's legal then fair enough, bring it on, just be consistent.

 

[Mr Lizard]

What next? Push your opponent into a goal post so he breaks his leg?

I remember when Hird's face got caved in, I can't remember exactly the other players involved (it might have been McVeigh for Essendon)...anyway, Fremantle player and lets say it was McVeigh running out to meet the ball, the Freo bloke flat out pushed McVeigh into the oncoming Hird. There is no doubt in my mind he was responsible for the extensive damage caused...no-one said anything about it at the time that I can recall. Maybe I'm soft, but it's what I would call 'outside the spirit of the game'. I suppose other people would argue that hurting the opposition is the spirit of the game.

...its mainly becuase its a big guy on a small guy that damage was done....should be afforded SOME protection from big guys trying to demolish him from out of his vision...but it was probably just the size difference that caused the damage...a dog act but the dog would be a chihuahua...

The Brown-Dog! He is smaller than Xavier, and I have no doubt would relish this sort of chance to show his wares. Byron Pickett was also a small bloke, with this as the rule he would have unleashed. Wait...he pretty much did anyway.

...but if it's legal then fair enough, bring it on, just be consistent.

Campbell Brown would be licking his lips at the thought of consistent decisions like this one. He wouldn't be the only one either...

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

ok.. a question.. how can steve baker get 6 weeks (i know it was 4 plus whatever) for a bump that wasnt even caught on tape. But yet this, which shows clarke WASN'T in the contest or was not going to be in the contest (was barely out of a walk), getting bumped 10+meters away from the ball and blindsided, can not even be cited??

it was not in play and there is a rule there for episodes like this.. a result of the budda hocking vs rob harvey incident..

you'd want to hope this incident doesn't allow for a precident, or you might find guys getting cleaned up all over the field when they are not looking, as long as its a "fair bump"...

baker admitted to the tribunal that he initiate the contact by stopping to block farmer. It was his own testimony that sunk him. Once he admitted this there was no need for the video. Doh

 

[kosifantutti]

baker admitted to the tribunal that he initiate the contact by stopping to block farmer. It was his own testimony that sunk him.

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.

 

[ciaobella]

If all those condemning West's actions actually look at the footage, you'll see that Clarke is jogging almost in a 45% angle towards Hunt and they probably would have met up about 20 metres further had West not been there. Where West made contact with Clarke looks to be pretty close to five metres away to me. West has hit Clarke in the body. No part of West has hit Clarke in the head!!!! Obviously Clarke has hit his head on the ground.

I could've almost jumped through the wires and thumped KB and Greg this morning and then Ox and Frank this afternoon on SEN saying West should have been pinged! Saying Clarke was 20-30 metres away (as claimed by Greg on KB's show) from Hunt when he was taken out. What a tosser!!

Poor form all the above celebs!

Bollox!!