Isn’t he basically saying exactly what Paul Roos did?
Bloody Paul Roos. No idea about footy.
Yep couldn't agree more.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Isn’t he basically saying exactly what Paul Roos did?
Bloody Paul Roos. No idea about footy.
Obviously hasn’t played much footy either.Yep couldn't agree more.
So you want him to jump with his arms down like he's doing the silly salmon? Once again it's a fine line Cameron's elbow could've been a few inches lower and this conversation wouldn't even be happening, if you want these freak incidents out of the game you should be screaming for no contact rules.The ball ....so we are teaching players to hit the ball with their elbow
You are deluded ...sorry his intent was to injure his opponent.....he has history of being reported ....
He was not even close to hitting the ball
Agree with you on everything except the word "injure". I don't see proof of intent to injure, and benefit of the doubt, I believe it's more likely he just wanted to hit him - collect him on the way through, cause a little pain, and make him earn it.
I think the point was that he couldn't be spoiling because you don't spoil with your elbow, and he couldn't be bracing, because natural brace is to curl up into a ball (to minimise extruding areas), and you'd generally brace to take impact on your shoulder. You'd never brace by sticking up your elbow (which increases extruding areas) - the human mind just doesn't work that way.So you want him to jump with his arms down like he's doing the silly salmon? Once again it's a fine line Cameron's elbow could've been a few inches lower and this conversation wouldn't even be happening, if you want these freak incidents out of the game you should be screaming for no contact rules.
What? You stick your forearm, elbow out to avoid a head collision, it's a natural instinct.I think the point was that he couldn't be spoiling because you don't spoil with your elbow, and he couldn't be bracing, because natural brace is to curl up into a ball (to minimise extruding areas), and you'd generally brace to take impact on your shoulder. You'd never brace by sticking up your elbow (which increases extruding areas) - the human mind just doesn't work that way.
Agree with you on everything except the word "injure". I don't see proof of intent to injure, and benefit of the doubt, I believe it's more likely he just wanted to hit him - collect him on the way through, cause a little pain, and make him earn it.
You brace your arm against your body. His elbow was in line with his joint. That’s not head height. And no one, in any league, is taught to extend an elbow to protect their head. The only time you’re told to hold your arms up like that is to keep them free when you have possession.What? You stick your forearm, elbow out to avoid a head collision, it's a natural instinct.
Seriously have you ever played the game.
Pretty sure they got rid of that rulePutting my conspiracy theory hat on; where would 8 weeks have put Cameron for total weeks suspended? If I'm not mistaken 16 = deregistration according to the AFL's policy. Keeping his tally away from that as much as possible for as long as possible could have factored into the decision.
Yeah you do that when you expect impact, Imo Cameron didn't see him till the last second because he was licking his lips at the footy coming and didn't expect Andrews agility and courage to get back to the contest. it's called a reflex action not every contact is how you explain it.You brace your arm against your body. His elbow was in line with his joint. That’s not head height. And no one, in any league, is taught to extend an elbow to protect their head. The only time you’re told to hold your arms up like that is to keep them free when you have possession.
Obviously hasn’t played much footy either.
I really hope you don’t coach. If that’s how you teach kids to brace for contact you’re going to see a shitload of broken collarbones and damaged AC joints.
Yeah you do that when you expect impact, Imo Cameron didn't see him till the last second because he was licking his lips at the footy coming and didn't expect Andrews agility and courage to get back to the contest. it's called a reflex action not every contact is how you explain it.
You realise I’ve nwver said anything like the above?My playing and coaching days are well behind me now and no I would not teach anyone to do that just as Cameron was never taught to do it.
Like I said before football is not played in freeze frames and slow motion which many of you believe. All these decisions and time to make them you believe is there is not reality and if you have played any serious footy you would know this.
If you believe that when the ball was kicked out of the middle that Cameron immediately decided to take out Andrews then I can’t really help you with that. Cameron did a very reckless thing and has copped his whack, you believe he wanted to do it I don’t.
Time to move on.
That is exactly what I think happened. It was clear early that Cameron was never going to be able to contest the ball, sio he went for the man instead. I do not think he intended to injure Andrews, just make him earn the his play on the ball.
Cameron got it wrong and did more harm than he intended. That said, he certainly deserved more than 5 weeks.
At best, his actions were stupid and carried considerable risk to his opponent. With his appalling history, that sort of conduct should attract a very significant penalty.
His and GWS subsequent responses have been terribly poor. As for holding Andrews responsible for not protecting himself from what can only be described as thuggish behaviour., that is an absurd proposition
this guy understands. people can be so over-analytical but all we've seen contests like this all the time. The only difference here is that Cameron has been grossly negligent in his attempt to make a hard contest which completely falls on him.
There is a distinction to be made between gross negligence and something thats intentional
The decision wasn't "intentionally high" nor "intentionally severe". It was "intentional striking". He meant to hit him and he did. The fact that he did collect him high and severe don't count when deciding intent. I put it down as intentional striking as well, but don't think Jeremy meant to collect him high. 5 weeks is about right. It was stupid and very poor form, but it was still a 2 second decision, and I don't see that pushing it to 7 weeks would do any more than 5 weeks to convince him to change his ways.this guy understands. people can be so over-analytical but all we've seen contests like this all the time. The only difference here is that Cameron has been grossly negligent in his attempt to make a hard contest which completely falls on him.
There is a distinction to be made between gross negligence and something thats intentional
Agree with you on everything except the word "injure". I don't see proof of intent to injure, and benefit of the doubt, I believe it's more likely he just wanted to hit him - collect him on the way through, cause a little pain, and make him earn it.
I reckon he meant to hit him, and cause him a bit of pain - teach him a lesson for getting in his way... But let's not be ridiculous... I think saying that he intentionally injured Harris is just a bridge too far.Why would you stick an elbow out then...
It connected so perfectly that it was clear there was intent