Griffin Logue on Will Day

[ferball]

Now show the other angle and 2 frames earlier where Logue has tucked his arm in ready for contact. He feigned an attempt to pick up the ball.

Free hit from North to attempt to get him off, but he was never getting off and the arguments in here that he was ran into are hilarious.

Fair dinkum you type some rubbish sometimes.

 

[HairyO]

Fair dinkum you type some rubbish sometimes.

The rubbish in here was Roos supporters claiming Logue went for the ball, didnt bump, didnt hit high, that it was an AFL conspiracy, and that Day wanted to get hit. And all the other garbage excuses for an obviously stupid bump.

It should have been a week and when the Roos contested it should have been increased to 2 weeks.

Dont bump when you have other choices.

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

Honestly this isn’t a complex one.

Lucky to get only one initially, probably should have gotten two when challenged.

Take your chips and get the **** out of the casino, Roos.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Even if north fans are adamant there's nothing to see, a shirtfront (moving bump to the chest) has always been against the rules, even if it stopped getting penalised in the 70s until the 2000s

 

[Outtatym]

1 is fair enough. You know if it was another club/media darling they would have gotten off though

 

[Themanbun]

My only issue with this suspension is the only option the two players had right here was to run face first into each other. I'm not sure that's good for protecting the head long term, and IMO it probably played a part in Day not bracing up for contact.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

My only issue with this suspension is the only option the two players had right here was to run face first into each other. I'm not sure that's good for protecting the head long term, and IMO it probably played a part in Day not bracing up for contact.

Because he was blindsided. You can't brace for contact if your unaware it's coming. And no it's not because he has poor spatial awareness or some other nonsense I'm guessing will come back my way. Enough with the defending already he's lucky he got a week.

 

[Themanbun]

Because he was blindsided. You can't brace for contact if your unaware it's coming. And no it's not because he has poor spatial awareness or some other nonsense I'm guessing will come back my way. Enough with the defending already he's lucky he got a week.

Lol I literally didn't insult Will. I don't think he was blindsided, he was looking directly at him. He's a brave lad, and chose to contest a ball in a way that risks no repercussions but IMO is unsafe.

 

[AlwaysHawks15]

Lol I literally didn't insult Will. I don't think he was blindsided, he was looking directly at him. He's a brave lad, and chose to contest a ball in a way that risks no repercussions but IMO is unsafe.

Yeah directly at him for a split second. He allowed himself to get whacked in the face with a shoulder is what your saying. Dermie also looked at Mark Yeates for a split second too in the 89 GF doesn't mean he wasn't blindsided and didn't have time to brace himself. Same for Will.

 

[lordbob]

Where is Day's attempt at the ball before running straight into Logue?

where is days contact with logue's head? If day hit logue in the head with his shoulder then id support him getting suspended.

Do you think the rule is that you can only not bump someone in the head if they are going for the ball? Do you think its ok to put your shoulder into people who arent going for the ball? Im not sure the point you are trying to make.

 

[Themanbun]

He allowed himself to get whacked in the face with a shoulder is what your saying.

Yep. I suspect he didn't brace because of the repercussions for doing so if it goes wrong. Contact was always happening in that situation.

 

[HeHateMe]

I can see why North might think this is unjust. The rules aren't meant to be just though. They are measures to make the game more safe and to de-incentivise contact that could harm the head.

It's a similar situation to the Burton bump a few years ago.

 

[HairyO]

I can see why North might think this is unjust. The rules aren't meant to be just though. They are measures to make the game more safe and to de-incentivise contact that could harm the head.

It's a similar situation to the Burton bump a few years ago.

Its unjust to expect player safety to be a priority ?

 

[HeHateMe]

Its unjust to expect player safety to be a priority ?

Maybe unjust was the wrong wording. I can understand why North presented their case to the tribunal.

 

[HairyO]

Maybe unjust was the wrong wording. I can understand why North presented their case to the tribunal.

Their only hope was that Logue would be considered important enough to have it lowered to a fine. It was never going to be reduced.

 

[ferball]

The rubbish in here was Roos supporters claiming Logue went for the ball, didnt bump, didnt hit high, that it was an AFL conspiracy, and that Day wanted to get hit. And all the other garbage excuses for an obviously stupid bump.

It should have been a week and when the Roos contested it should have been increased to 2 weeks.

Dont bump when you have other choices.

Dude ... Logue goes for the ball, he impacts it with his legs, changes its direction and has arm down to pick it up or knock it forward something SYL said he was faking that as cover for a bump on Day that didn't even hurt him.

Logue didn't change direction, Day did. But obviously there was no malice in it and Logue exhibited a degree of care toward day. Logue is huge and we both know that 20 or 30 years ago Day doesn't get back up after that hit. Altho maybe Day wouldn't left himself so open 20 or 30 years ago cos he wouldn't have got to that level without learning how to protect himself and ride a bump from a bigger guy.

but I was gonna bump this thread anyway to defend what Logue did because...

 

[ferball]

...


When Logue was suspended the following was part of the justification for the decision:

We are clearly satisfied that he could and should have gone lower and closer to the ball rather than choosing to bump. (From David Zita's twitter post.)

Yet today we saw the outcome of two players going lower and closer to the ball, not choosing to bump and it resulted in a shocking collision between Bews and Nash. Exactly the thing the AFL is trying to prevent.

If Logue had followed the guidelines the tribunal prefers we would have seen a similar collision during the game last weekend.

 

[Themanbun]

...


When Logue was suspended the following was part of the justification for the decision:

We are clearly satisfied that he could and should have gone lower and closer to the ball rather than choosing to bump. (From David Zita's twitter post.)

Yet today we saw the outcome of two players going lower and closer to the ball, not choosing to bump and it resulted in a shocking collision between Bews and Nash. Exactly the thing the AFL is trying to prevent.

If Logue had followed the guidelines the tribunal prefers we would have seen a similar collision during the game last weekend.

All of us defending Logue made this point, but nah bro apparently we were all here saying Day wanted to get hit LOL

 

[Boozeroo]

After tonight's events, this suspension is laughable

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

 

[roomagic1984]

...


When Logue was suspended the following was part of the justification for the decision:

We are clearly satisfied that he could and should have gone lower and closer to the ball rather than choosing to bump. (From David Zita's twitter post.)

Yet today we saw the outcome of two players going lower and closer to the ball, not choosing to bump and it resulted in a shocking collision between Bews and Nash. Exactly the thing the AFL is trying to prevent.

If Logue had followed the guidelines the tribunal prefers we would have seen a similar collision during the game last weekend.

depends on what week you go to the tribunal...

 

[ferball]

Seems that way.