View Full Version : Doesn't look good for Browny
I usually like to be optomistic but I don't like Bowny's chances of getting off at the tribunal. His actions in making contact with Grant looked reckless. Hell some players we have had go up this year should never have been reported and still got rubbed out. I think he is looking at a minimum of two weeks. The tribunal has been so inconsistant you never know, he may get off and I might win lotto this week.
Would of been handy against the Pies!
Thank God for Pike!
OldLion
12 Jul 2004, 10:32
A badly executed spoil will get probably 3 weeks. JB is in danger of replicating Carl Ditterich's tendency to let the team down due to over-exuberance and poor judgment. He's going to miss Lynchy's 300th and a showdown with the Pies at his favourite ground - time to reassess.
BrisGirl
12 Jul 2004, 11:11
I love you JB, but if you want Captaincy, this type of reckless play and constant suspension will not be acceptable.
He will get 2 weeks if he is lucky.
Disappointed.
Yep, he's not getting the balance betwen contol and aggresion right at the moment.
He got himself suspended last time playing Carlton, and missed two good sides in Freo away and Melbourne. This time he's played Tigers and Doggies and will miss Pies and Sydney by the looks of things. Not good
I didn't think he got him as hard as Grant's reaction. Grant doesn't whinge, but he has a chronic neck condition that almost finished him last year. I wonder if that was a factor.
Even if it is a factor, I hardly expect Grant to go in there saying 'yep, my neck's crook he hardly touched me"
JB...JB...
NathanD
12 Jul 2004, 12:51
3 or 4 weeks is more likely than 2 IMO.
cjwalkley
12 Jul 2004, 14:13
I think JB will get three and a very stern warning that any further indiscretions will be severely dealt with.
It was rash and irrational as the Bulldogs were absolutely no danger, so what was the use?
Originally posted by xplo
I didn't think he got him as hard as Grant's reaction. Grant doesn't whinge, but he has a chronic neck condition that almost finished him last year. I wonder if that was a factor.
I've got to tell you that I had a fairly good view of the incident and I, along with all around me, were amazed that the "contact" caused as much damage is it evidently did.
In fact, many around me were initially convinced that Grant was "playing it up" because honestly, from our angle the "strike" really didn't look all that bad. Looked more like a mis-timed attempt at a spoil that went wrong.
I've since seen the inevitable 316 slo-mo replays and I STILL don't think it's all that bad. More of a slap around the neck than a genuine attempt to hurt the opponent.
So yes, in that context, I agree with your query as to whether Grant's well-documented neck condition actually predisposes him to suffering chronic symptoms from even a mild knock to the area.
The incident looks no worse and not even as bad as similar ones you see nearly every week, where the offender cops a free (and maybe a 50) and the agreived party suffers no lasting adverse reaction.
I'm still amazed that Grant suffered so badly from that contact.
Wasn't it only a season or two ago that there was a great hullabaloo about Grant being refused personal injury insurance due to this dodgy neck of his?
The other thing about the report was the really obvious "delay" between when the incident occured and the when the field umpire eventually put Brown's name in the book.
1. the incident occurs
2. Grant stays down but Brown immediately stands the mark as though he expects Grant to take his kick without too much of a fuss.
3. Grant still stays down and THEN ONE (only) Bulldogs player decides to remonstrate with Browny (Sam Power, I think)......there was no mass rushing to the scene of the "crime" by indignant team-mates, as you often see with a blatantly ugly incident.
4. Bulldogs trainers run onto the ground to attend to Grant.
5. The field umpire NOW decides a 50m pemalty is warranted.
6. While the field umpire is stepping out the 50, the trainers assist a very groggy and unwell Chris Grant from the field.
7. AFTER the 50 is stepped out, the field umpire THEN pulls his book out.
I really can't help thinking that the report was influenced more by the resultant dramatic exit of Grant from the field than the umpire's (or anyone else's) initial impression of the so-called "strike".
For all of this, I also believe that Brown has become somewhat of a marked man at the Tribunal, so I really am expecting the worst (up to 3 weeks)
However, the point surely should be made by Brown's advocate that:-
1. Grant apparantly has a more than usual propensity to suffer ill-effects from contact around the neck area.
and
2. there appears to have been a report made more in reaction to the injury rather than the action causing it.
All may not be lost for Brown if his "defence" can make a good fist of highlighting the above factors.
In the paper today it talks about Grant hitting his head on Brown's knee on the way down (or something like that). I thought Grant was putting it on until I watched him on the sideline - he was one sick puppy.
Originally posted by kimp
I thought Grant was putting it on until I watched him on the sideline - he was one sick puppy.
Exactly!
First impressions were that Grant was trying to milk a 50.
Then as events unfolded, there was widespread amazement that he REALLY was in a bad way.
You see WORSE contact than that nearly every game and nothing much ever comes of it.
Still really can't figure it out......:confused:
campbell
13 Jul 2004, 08:51
Here,here Luthor.
It happens in every match.Slow mo,makes it look far worse than what it actually is..
Maybe Grant was ill before hand with gastro or something.I distinctly saw the doctor working on his knee,The prior illness would explain this anonomly.
I am sick of our supporters crucifying Brown.He did nothing any other of our players would do.He was not agressive.He was standing the mark,no players remomstrated at the time.
You guys would have him as a serial killer.I am happy with the way he played.
What I am not happy with is this changing of the rules we see, week in and week out,this tribunal lottery.
An interesting thing out of this incident,after the match why were the Doggies players bagging one of ours,when he was asking about Grants wellbeing.There was no need for that.Something fishy at the Gabba on Sunday me thinks.
Originally posted by campbell
Here,here Luthor.
It happens in every match.Slow mo,makes it look far worse than what it actually is..
Maybe Grant was ill before hand with gastro or something.I distinctly saw the doctor working on his knee,The prior illness would explain this anonomly.
I am sick of our supporters crucifying Brown.He did nothing any other of our players would do.He was not agressive.He was standing the mark,no players remomstrated at the time.
You guys would have him as a serial killer.I am happy with the way he played.
What I am not happy with is this changing of the rules we see, week in and week out,this tribunal lottery.
An interesting thing out of this incident,after the match why were the Doggies players bagging one of ours,when he was asking about Grants wellbeing.There was no need for that.Something fishy at the Gabba on Sunday me thinks.
Well said!!
OldLion
13 Jul 2004, 15:09
Originally posted by campbell
I am sick of our supporters crucifying Brown.He did nothing any other of our players would do.He was not agressive.. I'm a HUGE JB fan but get real .. when he hits hard, it's felt. So when you're as big as he is, you MUST show some judgment. This has happened to players like Carey, Ablett etc .. it goes with the territory. And I don't think Chris Grant is going to flake out.. we're not talking Wanganeen here. He should plead guilty to take the heat out of the whole matter and move on.
adey115
13 Jul 2004, 16:20
am I the first to say...
"JB... You've done it again!"
campbell
13 Jul 2004, 16:49
Just ask Sydney supporters about Grant and Barry hall, he is a bit of a stager from way back I am afraid.
OldLion
13 Jul 2004, 19:29
Originally posted by campbell
Just ask Sydney supporters about Grant and Barry hall, he is a bit of a stager from way back I am afraid. How Hall got off that was .... anyway, Chris was buggered for the rest of the game. I thought 3 weeks would be fair. 4 is tough, considering that really soft one against Blues.
Originally posted by campbell
Just ask Sydney supporters about Grant and Barry hall, he is a bit of a stager from way back I am afraid.
Yeah, I just hate it when players fake dry-retching and concussion...
...
Come ooon :rolleyes:
Lenny29
13 Jul 2004, 21:51
Fair dinkum, what is this game coming to?
Should've gotten one for the incident, plus one for his record. That's it.
Probably given him Roids' two from Easter Thursday though, so it all balances out.
Originally posted by Mahama
Yeah, I just hate it when players fake dry-retching and concussion...
...
Come ooon :rolleyes:
I take your point.
I agree it's a silly proposition to suggest Grant is somehow a serial "diver".......he was genuinely crook after the "Brown" incident.
However, the question needs to be asked whether Grant is susceptible to an unusually adverse reaction to any sort of contact around the neck area.
The conclusion being drawn by many is that Grant's symptoms were somehow "proof" of the degree of force used by Brown.
Maybe Grant's symptoms are simply a factor of the problems that he is KNOWN to have had with this part of his anatomy.
I wonder how Grant's insurance company is feeling?
Yippyio
13 Jul 2004, 23:02
I love Browny to bits, and believe he will be the next Wayne Carey (skill wise and ability to turn games single handedly) and could win a brownlow if he stops getting suspended, however that spoil is absolutely unforgiveable, if he hadnt made any contact it wouldntve made the smallest difference to anyone on the day!
In saying that, i think its absolute crap that he got 4 weeks! My reason? Scott burns ran in and elbowed him to the head in the first minute of last years Grand Final, Browny had no idea where he was the first quarter and a bit, as he came out and said after the game. Burns gets none, wasnt going for the ball at all, Brown in this case gets 4, gets the same result on the victim, but just made a completely reckless attempt at spoiling.
Now why can you run in from the square and purposely take someone out and get off at the tribunal, when if you get caught out of position and you make a reckless spoil you get 4 weeks?
The tribunal has lost it, and the lions should appeal the severity of the decision.
Lady Lawrence
13 Jul 2004, 23:10
Still spluttering here and trying to find a positive spin but not looking good. A suspension was warranted for reckless play but definitely not for striking and I seriously thought 2 weeks would be fair. One for the "incident" and one for the fact that this is becoming far too regular an occcurence for JB.
I was frothing at the time it happened on Sunday purely because I really hold JB in high regard and have high hopes for him as our future captain and all this on the back of Qld Rules on Saturday when Vossy gave him the (nod, seal of approval etc can't think of the right word - brain is fried) as his possible replacement.
Yippyio
13 Jul 2004, 23:15
Agree totally but again i pose my previous question, how does Burns get nothing when his was a deliberate act in an important game, and Brown gets 4 for recklessness? Brown was out of it when he copped his hit.
Lady Lawrence
13 Jul 2004, 23:19
I think what happened was at the beginning of the year the great God of Dictionaries reigned his supreme powers on the AFL Tribunal peoples and deleted all words out and left only one in there.
INCONSISTENCY
tapestry
14 Jul 2004, 00:43
4 weeks for a guilty plea? Anyone would think he headbutted the umpire the way some supporters and media are carrying on.
The tribunal have made their statement. Time to bid farwell to the big, strong, detrmined and committed football player. You can now go for the ball as long as you take care of the opp player near by too.
You got to feel for Browny now too. He must feel like crap for being outed for something that wasn't intentional and sees him miss his forward line team-mates big game.
This feels worse than Lynch being outed for the 2001 prelim. At least then Lynch had done something pretty woeful.
:(
Asgardian
14 Jul 2004, 01:16
Originally posted by Yippyio
The tribunal has lost it, and the lions should appeal the severity of the decision.
Appealing a tribunal decision can be a double edged sword.
Sure, they could reduce, or even expunge the suspension, but equally, they could increase the suspension.
Not saying that it is likely, just saying it's possible
campbell
14 Jul 2004, 09:30
Well I heard the Doggies crew say at the bus that they were going to make Browny go down.So this proves it.
Since when is a player who is at training and training well,not well enough with concussion to go to the tribunal.
When is the doctor allowed to instead do a standard letter, that he was to have a concussion check before he played again.Thats standard medical practice.Talk about making it look worse than what it is.Why isn't grant fined for not appearing,and lying.He is fine to train but too affect by brownies hit to appear 1'2 hour away at the tribunal.
The tribunal and the whole prcess is a joke.
campbell
14 Jul 2004, 09:32
The only good thing is that the week Browny comes back shuld see Crackers back as well.Too fired up,fit and large players reading and firing for the finals.
I would look at appealing myself.Biomechanics expert,the same thing happening 10 mins after to one of our players,exact same movement of arm, no report.
I didn't realise he pleaded guilty! That's just shocking then. I'd be appealing on the severity for sure. Yes it was reckless and yes he has a bad record but 2 or even 3 weeks really is sufficient.
BrisGirl
14 Jul 2004, 11:21
Originally posted by Mahama
Yeah, I just hate it when players fake dry-retching and concussion...
Yes, it looked bad didn't it.
Bad enough that you would have thought he was having a brain hemorage, that he took a severe blow to the head and wouldn't be able to play for at least a week or more due to concussion..........but no, Grant was at training last night and is named to play this weekend.
I always thought if you receive concussion during the course of a game it was an automatic rest the following week, so he musn't have sustained a concussion, so it does leave open the door for speculation doesn't it.
If he didn't sustain concussion which he was displaying all the hallmarks of one, what did he sustain?
I will add that we will be without JB for a 1/3 of the season due to suspension, and we need him, he is so important to the team and I can not help but feel disappointed.
He is now a marked man, he will never be able to exert is strength again without being under scrutiny of the Umpires and the Tribunal. It is something he has to deal with now.
OldLion
14 Jul 2004, 11:46
Originally posted by BrisGirl
He is now a marked man... He has been for awhile. Didn't the umpires come into the rooms before the 2001 ( or 2002 ) GF and tell him that they had their eyes on him. Nice .. right before the big one.
BrisGirl
14 Jul 2004, 12:00
I am also hurt that Browny will not been seen in the Heritage Bears jumper......it will be a couple of years now before we get to see him in one of those.
campbell
14 Jul 2004, 12:25
Can anyone remember years ago a decision regarding Dermott and Ross Smith.Ross Smith was foud t have told a pork pie and was called back to the tribunal and given a weeks holiday.
I thought it was compulsary for all parties to appear before the tribunal.Grant through his club told the tribunal he was too ill to appear before them.He has lied because at the same time he was appearing on TV live at training,running about.
The tribunal took into account that Grant was unjured and the severity of that injury.He should be held accountable for his lies to the tribunal.
Also why wasn't Koops up before the tribunal for the exact same late hit as Browny.
If that's for real about Grant then they should definately appeal. Then at least the true nature of the injury can be used in the judgement.
I'm awaiting the announcement of the appeal and if it doesn't come then we as supporters should submit for one.
Grant did not front the tribunal as he did not have any recollection of the incident. The Bulldogs' doc gave a submission regarding the injury.
It is not compulsory for the witness to front the tribunal. Alan Didak did not appear either on Tuesday with the Matthew Scarlett incident, as he was concussed in a later incident in the game and had no recollection.