| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Presti35 
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
25 to 13 in favour of Essendon last night. Heard anything?
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
 |
matrix10
Joined: 17 May 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| was absurdly one-sided last night- actually felt sorry for the saints (for about 1 minute, then back to normal!) |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I have not seen the N. Brown incident yet. Perhaps this primed the umpires? |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem 
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | I have not seen the N. Brown incident yet. Perhaps this primed the umpires? |
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-08-10/saad-kod-by-brutal-brown-hit
Brown in some trouble, I would think. Don't think there was malicious intent but Saad never saw it coming. Just very reckless by Nathan, who'd be one of the fairest blokes going around.
_________________
Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Well, it just seemed incredibly late but not much else... I doubt I would have described it as "brutal" without knowing the result. |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Well, it just seemed incredibly late but not much else... I doubt I would have described it as "brutal" without knowing the result. |
I agree, aside from being late it didn’t even appear to hit him in the head even though they have classified it as intentional, high impact, high contact.
I think they have grounds to dispute intentional (based on precedents, eg Walker, May both deemed not intentional) and the high contact (based on vision I saw).
The damage seemed to be done by the unfortunate whiplash effect.
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, "high contact" is an amazing claim. I can't see a head clash, and the shoulder contact if anything is below the victim's shoulder (though it's possible that his head whiplashed on to the top of NB's shoulder, I guess). Maybe head hitting turf was the worst contact.
Oh, the victim also ran way too far --- at least 20m between bounce and handball. I wouldn't want them pinged for running 16m, but when it's that much over... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/saints-in-damage-control-at-afl-tribunal-20180814-p4zxb2.html
The article describes it as a "savage" bump. Really?? I just don't agree...
A. Richardson:
"The debate will be intentional versus (careless).
"I know what his intent was - it wasn't to hurt someone.
"He didn't run front on, he's come from the side to check him, he's absolutely done what he thought was the right thing to do, but the timing was out.
"I think we've got to be really clear on what his intent was." |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
3 weeks.
"Prior to the hearing, there had also been conjecture as to whether Brown made contact with Saad's head. That was immediately dismissed as a result of Essendon's medical report.
That revealed Saad had been treated for a concussion as a result of a knock to the head, also saying the defender had complained of a sore jaw in the aftermath of the bump."
It's not at all clear that wasn't from his head hitting the ground. Of course, if he had not been bumped, his head would not have hit the ground, but it sounds like they assumed a primary contact.
Nathan wishes his tie were black and white
 |
|
|
|
|
MightyMagpie
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Location: WA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
27-15
_________________
All We Can Be |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MightyMagpie wrote: | | 27-15 |
The really poor decisions favored the Tigers tonight. The blatant block by caddy that allowed Reiwoldt to kick the sealer and wasn't paid was just terrible. The only thing worse than that was the way Lingy (who it appears hates the bombers as much as he hates the pies) spent three minutes trying to defend the umpires and exonerate caddies behavior. This is virtually a quote.
Ling: I think the reason the free wasn't paid BT is that he was looking at the ball. He made it look like a genuine attempt.
BT: I don't know about that, look at the replay he isn't watching the ball at all.
Ling: If you look there hew has his eyes on the ball, and at Reiwolt, but he wasn't looking directly at the person he was blocking.....
fair dinkum - Ling is a biased useless commentator!
Carey is a gem. totally unbiased. Very insightful.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
