 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| slangman wrote: | | Presti35 wrote: | Going back to round 1 (Nik Cox/Essendon), he was fined for being reckless. The Hawks player shook it off and played on. If the Hawks player left the field and was concussed, then would Cox be suspended?
There's a fine line between accidental and reckless if you ask me. And then theres a big step to when a player does it on purpose (ie Dangerfield in round 1).
I think you can argue what Kelly did was reckless. |
Kelly ran directly towards De Goey and jumped off the ground and struck him in the head with his hip.
It was not deliberate but he chose to jump and bump instead of tackle.
How he hasn’t been suspended is beyond me especially in this era where concussion and its ramifications are more well know.
This was not accidental imho.
Two players watching the ball and colliding heads is an accident.
This was not. |
agree. did he intend to hit him in the head. No. That is clear. and even though he doesnt appreciate it, this is actually what david is arguing.
Did he attend to attack the player with the ball to try and get it, absolutely. Could he have tackled, yep.
More importantly, he is duty bound to do the right thing to protect the head (and this duty is over and above making a contest or even getting to a contest - or even protecting himself it seems from the rules).
We have always been told that if a player chooses to enter a situation, he has a duty to protect. He failed. Negligent or accident? Once he made the decision to go to the contest leading with his hip (after jumping no less) he is responsible for what happens next. It was forceful contact (it broke a nose and caused concussion), to the head!! The rules say its actually weeks for that incident.
i also agree with David that it would be harsh for Kelly to be suspended for this because he only had eyes for the contest BUT THAT ISNT WHAT THE RULES SAY!!
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | Did he attend to attack the player with the ball to try and get it, absolutely. |
I think this is the pivotal point we disagree on here. We're watching the same footage so I can only speak for what I see in it, but it just didn't look like that to me.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Redlight
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I actually believe that if the roles were reversed DeGoey would've been cited and likely suspended.
I base that on my belief that the media would've run with the incident in this scenario and forced the AFL's hand. We've seen it before. That's why it's so galling. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ I think that's probably true - but, equally, I don't really see Kelly trying to lay a bump in that video. It certainly isn't the classic "went to bump his hip but caught his head" situation. I think it's possible to accept that De Goey would have been cited if the roles were reversed but that neither Kelly nor De Goey (if their roles were reversed) should be cited for an incident like that. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | E wrote: | | Did he attend to attack the player with the ball to try and get it, absolutely. |
I think this is the pivotal point we disagree on here. We're watching the same footage so I can only speak for what I see in it, but it just didn't look like that to me. |
Well he wasn't there to pick daisies (only Sier does that once his tank is empty!!). You honestly think he wasn't intending to try to address the fact that DeGoey had the ball? Even if you argue that at the last second he tried to get out of the way, that's too bad.
Getting out of the way by jumping up off the ground and hitting a defenseless player flush in the head with your hip is about as negligent as it gets!!!
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | ^ I think that's probably true - but, equally, I don't really see Kelly trying to lay a bump in that video. It certainly isn't the classic "went to bump his hip but caught his head" situation. I think it's possible to accept that De Goey would have been cited if the roles were reversed but that neither Kelly nor De Goey (if their roles were reversed) should be cited for an incident like that. |
For what it is worth, I agree with your common sense approach to the incident. If i was writing the rules of the game, it was clearly not malicious and is just part of the dangers of AFL football.
However, that is definitely against the rules as currently drafted and other players could make exactly the same argument when they got weeks.
My entire point isn't whether the rule is right or wrong, its that they get interpreted by people in different ways at different times basically rendering the league a joke.
Its the same with "taking out the legs" vs "kicking in danger or high contact" rules.
And the "incorrect disposal" vs "ball got dislodged in the tackle" rule
and the late in game interpretation of what you can do to a forward vs late in the game.
the rules are so open to interpretation in the ruck that mostly when the umpire blows the whistle, both ruckman genuinely look at the umpire with no idea as to who deserves the free.
How come kennedy can try to throw roughead out of a contest but roughead gets called for a free against because he holds kennedy to stop him from doing that? How does kennedy do that without holding roughhead? I kid you not, that shit is real!!!!!
Its just a joke and a lottery.
it may have always been thus, but games are decided more and more by these incidents because they seem to be happening more and more and the games are generally much closer.
And here is the proof that i am right. I am not saying this happens (and i'm not saying that it doesn't), but i think you would all agree that if the umpires wanted to pre-determine the outcome of nearly any game not involving north melbourne, they could very easily do so without appearing to be any more inconsistent than they appear to be today!!
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | K wrote: | Kennedy reported to be in doubt to fly for the Geebung game with "ankle" issues.  |
cry me a $�$%^%%$ river, he played the game out, meanwhile De Goey is earning his 10K working for vodaphone |
Kennedy confirmed out.
Don't have to cry. Can laugh if you want.   |
|
|
|
|
Presti35 
Dick Lee for Legend Status
Joined: 05 Oct 2001
Location: London, England
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Bump...
_________________
A Goal Saved Is 2 Goals Earned! |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Mmm. The head is only sacrosanct when a Collingwood player was the perpetrator.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
