| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | Tackling and laying a bump is also a legitimate act of playing football but if you elect to do it and cause the player to be struck in the head you run the risk of suspension.
What Greene did was unbelievably dangerous. |
the Grundy tackle was legitimate. the dangerfield tackle was a spear tackle. I agree that what greene did is dangerous. My point is that greene did his act while making a football move with the ball in dispute. Ollie wines decided to lay a late hit on a player who had already disposed of the ball. there is a photo of the ball at least 10 meters away from Langdon and wines still hadnt yet left his feet to hit Langdon. it was such a late hit that it was not part of the game of footy but effectively a behond the play incident.
It was intentional, it was late, it was to the head. And the entire port crowd went up as one meaning that it was with force.
Its a total joke.
The behind the play elbow to the head is the thing i thought we eliminated a LONG time ago.
Maybe Leigh Matthews should be cleared of his little whack to Neville Bruns. Afterall, its not like he was tackling him.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
 |
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| WarrenerraW wrote: | | PyreneesPie wrote: | | Raw Hammer wrote: | "Brodie Grundy never stood a chance in the unofficial hearing governed by media hysteria. Even at the ground, as Ben Brown lay prostrate as Grundy waited to take his free kick, the scoreboard operators saw fit to replay the Dangerfield incident from the previous week, thus immediately wedding the two as one and the same. Nevermind the circumstances were indeed different (Grundy not having a Brownlow on the line seemingly the most significant)."
WTFF??? Is this true??? If so, I'm close to never renewing a membership to watch this bogan boys' club league again. |
Yeah, I was extremely peed off to read that. Talk about trial by media!!! The Collingwood administration needed to object loudly and vigorously to this, but they all seem to have gone to sleep during the review. |
Even our so called president talked about how there was nothing wrong with the tackle but why didn't we challenge it instead of bending over and accepting whatever the afl and mrp decide to dish out to us. It's like we're always made an example of by the afl just to prove a point. The media hung us out to dry and everyone else follows suit. The Collingwood administration is as soft as butter. This game is losing me by the week. |
Isn't it obvious? If we had appealed it Grundy would have served 3 weeks, not two. The club did the right thing. Good opportunity for Mason Cox to prove himself in the seniors for a couple of weeks. And I don't know why people have got it in for Ollie Wines. He didn't deserve a suspension for his hit on Langdon, just as Grundy didn't deserve a suspension for his tackle on Brown (who recovered to play the following week so really wasn't hurt).
|
|
|
|
|
Geek
geek
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Jacana
|
|
|
|
|
Geek
geek
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Jacana
|
|
|
|
|
3rd degree 
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Location: John Wren's tote
|
| Post subject: | |
|
yep rules for some
_________________
" Ohhh Banksy and out comes the Note Book".
www.facebook/the hybernators |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | | WarrenerraW wrote: | | PyreneesPie wrote: | | Raw Hammer wrote: | "Brodie Grundy never stood a chance in the unofficial hearing governed by media hysteria. Even at the ground, as Ben Brown lay prostrate as Grundy waited to take his free kick, the scoreboard operators saw fit to replay the Dangerfield incident from the previous week, thus immediately wedding the two as one and the same. Nevermind the circumstances were indeed different (Grundy not having a Brownlow on the line seemingly the most significant)."
WTFF??? Is this true??? If so, I'm close to never renewing a membership to watch this bogan boys' club league again. |
Yeah, I was extremely peed off to read that. Talk about trial by media!!! The Collingwood administration needed to object loudly and vigorously to this, but they all seem to have gone to sleep during the review. |
Even our so called president talked about how there was nothing wrong with the tackle but why didn't we challenge it instead of bending over and accepting whatever the afl and mrp decide to dish out to us. It's like we're always made an example of by the afl just to prove a point. The media hung us out to dry and everyone else follows suit. The Collingwood administration is as soft as butter. This game is losing me by the week. |
Isn't it obvious? If we had appealed it Grundy would have served 3 weeks, not two. The club did the right thing. Good opportunity for Mason Cox to prove himself in the seniors for a couple of weeks. And I don't know why people have got it in for Ollie Wines. He didn't deserve a suspension for his hit on Langdon, just as Grundy didn't deserve a suspension for his tackle on Brown (who recovered to play the following week so really wasn't hurt). |
No one has got it in for wines. We just want some consistency. Your kidding yourself if you think he didn't deserve to be sidelined. Just take a look at the pic above of the incident which i would have thought is clear to anyone with eyes.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Cunnington and Wines were both sniping. I simply can't believe they didn't each get 4 weeks for their nasty hits.
|
|
|
|
|
woodys_world69
Joined: 04 Jul 2005
Location: Brisbane
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| lol even dunstall on the couch said it was the worst decision of the week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
