View Full Version : S.Baker hand hit on Stevie J
Bombers_Insider
28 Jun 2010, 19:58
Did i just hear and see that right from the 6pm sports news 4 weeks for punching Stevie J's Hand if that is true then what about Tiger Jacks hit on Pears !!!! if Tiger Jack was rubbed out 4 weeks as well then everyone would be like Jack who !!!!
George Washington
28 Jun 2010, 20:04
Why didn't Riewoldt get weeks for punching Pears' broken arm?
MRP inconsistency ftw.
Agree.
Bombers_Insider
28 Jun 2010, 20:29
Agree.
sorry didnt see ya post.
George Washington
28 Jun 2010, 20:43
sorry didnt see ya post.
Sorry I wasn't having a go at you, just didn't want to repeat my exact words.
Bombers_Insider
28 Jun 2010, 21:01
Sorry I wasn't having a go at you, just didn't want to repeat my exact words.
Haha true gets like that . think it was only 1 week not 4.
Baker got 12 all up. That's WAY over the top. I would be very pissed off if I was a Saint supporter.
OzBomber
29 Jun 2010, 13:33
Did Steven Kretiuk get anything for hitting Lloyd's hand in 2002?
CT3HmKhFsI
bombers2011
29 Jun 2010, 13:43
Not only Did Riewoldt not get pinged by the MRP, Pears' retaliation (a mere push and shove) saw a free kick paid down the ground to the Tigers right in front of goal before the ball had even been bounced.
Baker's hitting Stevie J, was EXACTLY the same as Riewoldt on Pears.
I swear we are getting a royal rogering from the MRP this year.
Except for D.HIlle's hit on Bartel in round 1 :cool:
EVERLAST
29 Jun 2010, 20:09
No complaints from me in regards to the AFL dealing with that cockroach.
Donakebab
29 Jun 2010, 22:39
No complaints from me in regards to the AFL dealing with that cockroach.
I do. Regardless of the player up on a charge, consistency is a must, otherwise the whole system is a farce.
Longy413
30 Jun 2010, 08:15
Not only Did Riewoldt not get pinged by the MRP
The difference is, Johnson was an injured player, Pears wasn't.
Pears was still clearly struggling with the injury by favouring the hand in contests. He was injured.
Jonesy10
30 Jun 2010, 11:43
The difference is, Johnson was an injured player, Pears wasn't.
As Whomb said, Pears was injured - just came back from a broken arm or something. And why should it matter if the player is injured or not? If they are fit enough to be on the ground, everything should be judged the same IMO.
Longy413
30 Jun 2010, 12:24
Pears was still clearly struggling with the injury by favouring the hand in contests. He was injured.
It was before the first bounce of his first game back and he wasn't wearing any protection.
He was declared fit to play and therefore had no injury.
There hadn't been a contest in the game yet, he can't have favoured anything.
stander
30 Jun 2010, 12:50
The difference is, Johnson was an injured player, Pears wasn't.
Depends on your interpretation of injured- Baker was only assuming Johnson was injured.
It was before the first bounce of his first game back and he wasn't wearing any protection.
He was declared fit to play and therefore had no injury.As was Steve Johnson when he was sent back on.
No different; both players were declared fit enough to play.
If Baker gets pinged, so should Riewoldt.
It was before the first bounce of his first game back and he wasn't wearing any protection.
He was declared fit to play and therefore had no injury.
There hadn't been a contest in the game yet, he can't have favoured anything.
Longy
You have answered your own question.
Both incidents were ' behind the play ' and shouldn't be condoned under any circumstances.
Longy413
30 Jun 2010, 16:17
Longy
You have answered your own question.
Both incidents were ' behind the play ' and shouldn't be condoned under any circumstances.
I'm not condoning it.
I'm highlighting that they're different.
The charge wasn't striking, it was misconduct in that he made unreasonable contact with an injured player.
Pears wasn't injured and therefore Riewoldt couldn't have been charged under the same conditions as Baker.
Riewoldt could have been charged for striking, in which he was investigated, but the strike was deemed to be without enough force to warrant a suspension.
The MRP have clearly said that Johnson was injured and Pears wasn't.
I can't see how we can argue that. Johnson was injured during the game, Pears was returning from injury. He had recovered.
Therefore the incidents fall under different categories of report. One misconduct, one striking. Again, I'm not sure how we can argue that Riewoldt's force was enough to warrant a striking charge, just like we argue (and rightfully so) that Ryder's strike on Hodge wasn't with enough force to warrant a charge.
Pears was coming back from injury. He later showed during the game that he was still suffering from the injury.
Johnson came back onto the ground from injury. He showed during the game he was still suffering from the injury.
I'm assuming you're going to argue that Riewoldt didn't know Pears was injured or returning from injury, which is bollocks, because otherwise he wouldn't have targeted his hand. So he didn't know Pears was sore?
Johnson came back on, deemed fit enough to play by the medical department, so how is that any different; Baker, for all we know, was just as aware as Riewoldt.
That's what I don't like about this rule, so much is a grey area; who determines whether or not a player is injured or not? The same MRP that shows inconsistencies from play to play, game to game, week to week etc.
The bottom line is Steve Johnson was sent back on to the field; it is completely different to Nick Riewoldt breaking his collarbone on the field and being attacked as he tried to leave.
That rule should either apply to both cases, or not at all.
You've got this one wrong, as have the MRP.
Hirdman
30 Jun 2010, 18:57
Pears was coming back from injury. He later showed during the game that he was still suffering from the injury.
Johnson came back onto the ground from injury. He showed during the game he was still suffering from the injury.
I'm assuming you're going to argue that Riewoldt didn't know Pears was injured or returning from injury, which is bollocks, because otherwise he wouldn't have targeted his hand. So he didn't know Pears was sore?
Johnson came back on, deemed fit enough to play by the medical department, so how is that any different; Baker, for all we know, was just as aware as Riewoldt.
That's what I don't like about this rule, so much is a grey area; who determines whether or not a player is injured or not? The same MRP that shows inconsistencies from play to play, game to game, week to week etc.
The bottom line is Steve Johnson was sent back on to the field; it is completely different to Nick Riewoldt breaking his collarbone on the field and being attacked as he tried to leave.
That rule should either apply to both cases, or not at all.
You've got this one wrong, as have the MRP.
Correct.
nipst@r
30 Jun 2010, 20:54
Surely the definition of an injured player should be pretty simple if a player is being attented to by trainers, needs attention by trainers, of if he is off the ground then he injured.
If he is on the field and has declared himself fit to play then he is fair game. Not injured
I'm not condoning it.
I'm highlighting that they're different.
The charge wasn't striking, it was misconduct in that he made unreasonable contact with an injured player.
Pears wasn't injured and therefore Riewoldt couldn't have been charged under the same conditions as Baker.
Riewoldt could have been charged for striking, in which he was investigated, but the strike was deemed to be without enough force to warrant a suspension.
The MRP have clearly said that Johnson was injured and Pears wasn't.
I can't see how we can argue that. Johnson was injured during the game, Pears was returning from injury. He had recovered.
Therefore the incidents fall under different categories of report. One misconduct, one striking. Again, I'm not sure how we can argue that Riewoldt's force was enough to warrant a striking charge, just like we argue (and rightfully so) that Ryder's strike on Hodge wasn't with enough force to warrant a charge.
Longy
I accept your eloquently put argument - And agree with your summation.
My argument is that ' Behind the Play ' incidents shouldn't be condoned - and thankfully the AFL is treating this matter seriously.
Surely the definition of an injured player should be pretty simple if a player is being attented to by trainers, needs attention by trainers, of if he is off the ground then he injured.
If he is on the field and has declared himself fit to play then he is fair game. Not injured
Oh My God !
So you are condoning ' behind the play ' incidents.
S.Johnson has a damaged hand - I would try every trick in the book when contesting the ball to put the utmost pressure on johnson's arms
Or do we want to be like some Junior Football Leagues - where piss weak players his players behind the play - but the same player fails to put his head over the ball.
Longy413
1 Jul 2010, 08:32
Pears was coming back from injury.
He wasn't coming back, he was back.
He later showed during the game that he was still suffering from the injury.
He did?
I just saw a player low on confidence.
Johnson came back onto the ground from injury. He showed during the game he was still suffering from the injury.
Correct.
I'm assuming you're going to argue that Riewoldt didn't know Pears was injured or returning from injury, which is bollocks, because otherwise he wouldn't have targeted his hand. So he didn't know Pears was sore?
I'm not arguing that at all. Of course that's the reason that Riewoldt tried to target it.
But he wouldn't have known whether or not Pears was sore. Tayte didn't appear in anyway sore before contact or as a result of the contact. He didn't make any obvious flinching movement like Johnson did.
Johnson came back on, deemed fit enough to play by the medical department, so how is that any different; Baker, for all we know, was just as aware as Riewoldt.
Johnson had a broken hand. Pears had recovered from a broken arm.
Completely different.
You've got this one wrong, as have the MRP.
One was an attack on a broken hand that occurred during the game. Misconduct.
One was an attack, with lesser force on a previously injured arm. A recovered arm.
The only thing that is the same is the motivation. But Baker had intent to hurt, Riewoldt had intent to annoy. Pears also made first contact.
The MRP got this 100% right. Riewoldt couldn't have been looked at under the rule of misconduct in making unreasonable contact with an injured player, because it happened before the bounce. Pears under the rule is not an injured player, the MRP have the right to expect any player on the field at the first bounce, is fit and uninjured.
I'm sure there are other variations of the misconduct rule that Riewoldt could have been charged under, in the end they went with a strike and deemed the force not be reasonable enough. There is a big difference in the level of force between Baker and Riewoldt.
Again -
Baker - Charged with misconduct in making unreasonable contact with an injured player. Steve Johnson broke his hand during the game.
Riewoldt - Hit Pears before the first bounce. Under any reasonable conclusion, a player cannot be considered injured before the first bounce of a game.
Duckworth
1 Jul 2010, 09:06
But he wouldn't have known whether or not Pears was sore. Tayte didn't appear in anyway sore before contact or as a result of the contact. He didn't make any obvious flinching movement like Johnson did.
Well, when he retaliated he was clearly protecting his hand and hitting Riewoldt with his forearm. I have no doubt that it hurt him.
Longy413
1 Jul 2010, 09:21
Well, when he retaliated he was clearly protecting his hand and hitting Riewoldt with his forearm. I have no doubt that it hurt him.
So you're saying he hit him with the forearm that he had just returned from having broken?
Must have been in a world of pain.
Duckworth
1 Jul 2010, 09:29
So you're saying he hit him with the forearm that he had just returned from having broken?
Must have been in a world of pain.
No. I'm saying that his hand was sore. That's why he was using his forearm to retaliate, as opposed to grabbing him. He was protecting his hand because it was obviously sore.
bombers2011
1 Jul 2010, 10:00
Sorry Longy, I too am with Womb on this.
There was difference between the two incidents despite what you are trying to prove. Johnson is deemed fit whilst he is on the ground the same as Pears is.
It's all semantics, coming back? already back? whichever it is it doesn't look good for the AFL and they want to stamp it out.
What Baker AND Reiwoldt did IMO was pathetic, unsportsmanlike and childish.
You can give me the fair game crap all you like, sure, go harder in a tackle, spoil harder all you like, if you re-injure yourself during the normal course of play, no sympathy from me, but going out of your way like that is pathetic.
The MRP got this 100% right. Riewoldt couldn't have been looked at under the rule of misconduct in making unreasonable contact with an injured player, because it happened before the bounce. Pears under the rule is not an injured player, the MRP have the right to expect any player on the field at the first bounce, is fit and uninjured.
I understand what you are trying to say Longy in that Pears was returning from injury, whilst Stevie J sustained the injury during the game, therefore they are treated differently. I agree the MRP also prob got this right by this definition, but I think the interpretation of this rule is incorrect.
It should not matter if Stevie J had a sore finger, broken hand or leprocy. Once he has either decided to stay on the field or return to the field from treatment, he has declared himself fit in just the same way Pears did in the lead up to the Richmond game. For me this rule should be applied strictly to players who have just been injured, being attended to by trainers, or who are leaving the field due to injury and no one else. There is absolutely no place for a rule that provides some players special consideration over others, when all have declared themselves able to be there.
Longy413
1 Jul 2010, 16:14
I understand what you are trying to say Longy in that Pears was returning from injury, whilst Stevie J sustained the injury during the game, therefore they are treated differently. I agree the MRP also prob got this right by this definition, but I think the interpretation of this rule is incorrect.
The interpretation was 100% correct the MRP.
I don't like their work, they get a lot wrong.
But I think they got this one right, based on the rules they operate under.
The comparison is moot based on the rules of the game, that isn't the fault of the MRP.
Either the rule is wrong and should have catered for Riewoldt being charged, or the rule is right and Riewoldt should have got off. But not the MRP.
Because Pears, regardless of what he did or didn't do during the game, cannot have been judged to be injured before the bounce of the ball and therefore can't have been charged under the same rule as Baker.
The interpretation was 100% correct the MRP.
I don't like their work, they get a lot wrong.
But I think they got this one right, based on the rules they operate under.
The comparison is moot based on the rules of the game, that isn't the fault of the MRP.
Either the rule is wrong and should have catered for Riewoldt being charged, or the rule is right and Riewoldt should have got off. But not the MRP.
Because Pears, regardless of what he did or didn't do during the game, cannot have been judged to be injured before the bounce of the ball and therefore can't have been charged under the same rule as Baker.
I wan't putting the MRP panel at fault, I'm pretty sure I said i agreed with you that they were right.
It is the rule that is wrong.
Longy413
2 Jul 2010, 08:12
I wan't putting the MRP panel at fault, I'm pretty sure I said i agreed with you that they were right.
It is the rule that is wrong.
Sorry, your use of the word interpretation had me confused.
Interestingly enough, I caught a bit of SEN on the way home from work last night.
They were talking about the Baker incident and how it compared to the Pears one. Mark Robinson was very quick to point out that the difference was that Pears wasn't injured.
His words were, "it was an interesting argument (Pears not being injured) and one I agree with"
Wonder if Robbo has been reading Bigfooty.