Gibbs must be completely confused.
Mega Thread Oh yeah ... did you know there are 17 other teams? - General AFL discussion #9 - Blues posters only
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Jul 7, 2012
- 1,377
- 1,494
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames
Look at his most recent tweet
- Feb 11, 2015
- 5,042
- 8,321
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Tony Lynn 15
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #42,854
I am with ya Gibbsy, I have not been this confused since my first trip to Bangkok!!
- Dec 8, 2007
- 4,282
- 7,874
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
Even the phrase "The head is sancrosant" is now inconsistent. An actual concussion, a real injury to the brain occured for no punishment.
Gray was not injured, he passed and was only subbed in case a second knock would cause any injury and it's 3 down to 2?
Gray was not injured, he passed and was only subbed in case a second knock would cause any injury and it's 3 down to 2?
Mister Carlton
Better than you.
Tough crowd.
It's a strange one. Mark Evans was at great pains to justify Gibbs' suspension on the basis that Gray was knocked out & subsequently taken out of the game & yet a couple of weeks later, Richards is knocked out & taken out of the game, but now it is not about the injury, or being subbed out of the game, it is a comparison of the tackles.
If the AFL are going to behave in a corrupt way, at least stay on message.
Indeed, the AFL Tribunal should standardise offences and have a points system to regulate..................
Nah fuggit, the court of media opinion determines the outcome.
Can we ask for a please explain?
inb4 "because he doesn't play for Carlton"
...and Waite no longer plays for Carlton resulting in him escaping suspension this year for similar incidents that led to 2 week bans when playing for us. The Waite special..late spoil...OK to do this at North, not at Carlton.
Tony Lynn 15
Hall of Famer
- Banned
- #42,862
We get it, Mr Crying Game
A bit of innuendo never hurt anyone
I actually thought it was some of my best work for a while and it nearly went unnoticed so thanks Harks!
![C4[2]Yo`DooR](https://www.bigfootycontent.com/avatars/m/21/21849.jpg?1449433755){kind=avatar}
- Dec 18, 2005
- 17,223
- 23,281
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- GAVROI MOUNIA... GAMW TON PIRAEA
I dont see where the confusion lays?
The tackles are that COMPLETELY different any moron could work it out.
Schultz wasn't wearing a Carlton gurnsey, whilst Gibbs clearly was.
The tackles are that COMPLETELY different any moron could work it out.
Schultz wasn't wearing a Carlton gurnsey, whilst Gibbs clearly was.
HBF
Flying Scotsman
- Sep 24, 2002
- 156,160
- 100,963
- AFL Club
- Carlton
And Gibbs will probably get a please explain for his i'm confused tweet yesterday as well.
Oh my giddy aunt. That's scary alright!
PuffDragon89
All Australian
- Mar 15, 2014
- 878
- 546
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Minnesota Vikings, Man City
Cripes. The Giants scored on average every two and a half minutes. Being a Swans defender would have been like being under an artillery barrage.
RE the Schultz tackle: the difference was that Richards was hurt more severely and the ball was not in his arms. So it makes perfect sense that he got off and Gibbs got three down to two.
Fair dinkum that is a whole new level of farce from the MRP, and they are the masters of farce.
Fair dinkum that is a whole new level of farce from the MRP, and they are the masters of farce.
thylacine60
Premium Platinum
- Banned
- #42,870
I too feel the need to cite my mum's sister with vertigo............
For me, if you knock out the player whilst tackling him, it is an automatic one week ban, no questions asked, even if the umpire doesn't report you.
To be fair to the MRP (a one-way indulgence regrettably) Gibbs steadied himself by skipping on his toes before he brought Gray down in the tackle. Otherwise the only differences favoured Gibbs that is, less damage to Gray who still had the ball. Shultz probably didn't know Richards had dropped the ball - for which Ted should have been penalised.
It has been argued by some that by skipping in preparation for the tackle Gibbs engaged in a 2-step movement and that for this reason the tackle constituted a sling-tackle. This is nonsense. To constitute a sling-tackle there must be step 1 a tackle followed by step 2, a slinging release from the tackle. A sling tackle is obviously dangerous because of the significant acceleration force imposed on the victim upon release and the uncontrolled manner in which the victim might land.
The 2 steps of the Gibbs tackle was clearly not a sling tackle. No sling was involved. This is demonstrated by recognising that the whole way through the tackle (from go to whoa (or woe)) Gibbs is bound to Gray by his enwrapping arms.
To make any sense of the MRP decisions it must be accepted that 2 step tackles involving steadying and then grounding (irrespective of head injury) if done with sufficient force is illegal. But Gibbs only gave the 2 step because he thought (correctly in my opinion) he could only ground a strong player like Gray if he 2 stepped in order to get him off balance. According to the MRP presumably Gibbs' option was to just cuddle Gray standing up and hope whilst holding him he would not be able to break free.
More importantly the MRP changes the rules in favour of bigger, stronger players. Tony Lockett would have been able to take Gray to ground without the 2 step Gibbs required and would have been able to (and probably would have) knock Gray out a la Shultz on Richards without MRP penalty.
IMO we were wrong not to appeal the original decision to save the MRP from looking like what it is: a joke.
It has been argued by some that by skipping in preparation for the tackle Gibbs engaged in a 2-step movement and that for this reason the tackle constituted a sling-tackle. This is nonsense. To constitute a sling-tackle there must be step 1 a tackle followed by step 2, a slinging release from the tackle. A sling tackle is obviously dangerous because of the significant acceleration force imposed on the victim upon release and the uncontrolled manner in which the victim might land.
The 2 steps of the Gibbs tackle was clearly not a sling tackle. No sling was involved. This is demonstrated by recognising that the whole way through the tackle (from go to whoa (or woe)) Gibbs is bound to Gray by his enwrapping arms.
To make any sense of the MRP decisions it must be accepted that 2 step tackles involving steadying and then grounding (irrespective of head injury) if done with sufficient force is illegal. But Gibbs only gave the 2 step because he thought (correctly in my opinion) he could only ground a strong player like Gray if he 2 stepped in order to get him off balance. According to the MRP presumably Gibbs' option was to just cuddle Gray standing up and hope whilst holding him he would not be able to break free.
More importantly the MRP changes the rules in favour of bigger, stronger players. Tony Lockett would have been able to take Gray to ground without the 2 step Gibbs required and would have been able to (and probably would have) knock Gray out a la Shultz on Richards without MRP penalty.
IMO we were wrong not to appeal the original decision to save the MRP from looking like what it is: a joke.
Neither Gibbs nor Schultz was reported by an umpire, and neither tackle drew a free kick. So there are rules during the game and then rules after the game. Only the AFL could dream that one up.
- Feb 11, 2015
- 5,042
- 8,321
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Schulz had probably tweeted another apology, and so the AFL have let him off.
I also noted that the Age journo mentioned the lack of recrimination from Swans players vs Port players to Gibbs, as if that indicated a fair tackle. AS did BT and Richo. Lawyers everywhere take note.
- Status
