Jeremy Cameron's bump on Cheney
- Thread starter Cmarsh
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If he got the head, it would have been 3 weeks. I think he will get off with a fine.
I think if you hit the top of the shoulders not the head through luck not good management then you should still be punished because you are centrimetres from potential big disaster and a 4 week lay off.
Fine works for me. 1 week the same. 2 or more or getting off with nothing seems inadequate.
Fine works for me. 1 week the same. 2 or more or getting off with nothing seems inadequate.
The King!
Chosen One
Thought he did all he could to avoid contact
- Oct 16, 2011
- 15,336
- 38,052
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Didn't make contact with the head, probably won't get a fine. Of course had he made contact with the head he would have been facing a fortnight minimum
grouse mate
Premiership Player
Even if he hit the head it would envoke the obligatory marque player rule resulting in no case to answer.
Probably a week, Dangerous act and got him high, could have been avoided.
No malice so I'll say a week.
Btw if we didn't all love him and this was Johnson/Lewis, how many would he get?
No malice so I'll say a week.
Btw if we didn't all love him and this was Johnson/Lewis, how many would he get?
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Should be similar to Fyfe, 1 week at the absolute most. Hopefully just a fine.
I think he has escaped even that. Bizarre
Chaisa
Brownlow Medallist
- Jun 2, 2013
- 14,627
- 14,415
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- The Exers
Nah Cameron did get a fine.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Fined. Good, sensible decision.
Actually I think a week would be correct, it is the exact type of incident that leads to serious neck injuries even though it wasn't malicious.
I'll compare it to May, May was unlucky to have knocked him out but it was a bump that needs to be made.
Cameron's wasn't but because there was no injury he gets off - that's rubbish!
One act is far worse than the other.
Then there is Hodge who 'could've caused an injury' This wasn't used for Cameron.
I'll compare it to May, May was unlucky to have knocked him out but it was a bump that needs to be made.
Cameron's wasn't but because there was no injury he gets off - that's rubbish!
One act is far worse than the other.
Then there is Hodge who 'could've caused an injury' This wasn't used for Cameron.
Inches - exactly. Small amounts can't play or shouldn't play a part in a massive difference of penalties.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
He didn't even hit him in the head though, was dangerous and a fine is the right call, serves Cameron a warning whilst not outing him for something ridiculously minor.
The problem is here the way the panel looks at things is inconsistent. What Cameron did could have been one of the most serious injuries with a front on hit. Sure he just glanced the head as the player went down holding it. Yet in round 1, Deledio came off the line to bump White and aimed for the body but accidentally hit him in the head. White went down but also got back up quickly and took his kick. Yet Deledio got a week. Cameron's bump could have caused a spinal injury save for a few centimetres whilst Deledio's was very unlikely to have caused major damage. I would have thought if you look at potential injuries, Cameron's was the worse bump of the two.
My question is, should the match review panel look at the damage done or the potential for damage done? Both cases had similar damage done but I feel Cameron's had the potential to be worse. So why does he get a fine and Deledio gets a week? Both players had the choice to do something different too.
My question is, should the match review panel look at the damage done or the potential for damage done? Both cases had similar damage done but I feel Cameron's had the potential to be worse. So why does he get a fine and Deledio gets a week? Both players had the choice to do something different too.
I feel it best you direct that to a Hawthorn supporter.
So what do you think then?
So what do you think then?
Both Hodge & Lewis got heavier penalties based upon the potential to do more damage.
At this point they are the only two incidents the MRP has adjudicated did not do the maximum possible damage.
Maybe a slight bitterness on the topic from us always fair and level headed Hawthorn supporters
I actually agree that the MRP should judge on the potential to cause damage, not just the damage itself. But the Hawthorn incidents were the wrong ones to use that reasoning.Both Hodge & Lewis got heavier penalties based upon the potential to do more damage.
At this point they are the only two incidents the MRP has adjudicated did not do the maximum possible damage.
Maybe a slight bitterness on the topic from us always fair and level headed Hawthorn supporters
It's a tough one. It a perfect world I agree players should be judged on their intention and on their actions potential to do damage.
The issue is the MRP are that incompetent that letting them make these decisions is just not a reasonable course of action. Of course if they allowed the use of precedence their incompetence wouldn't be that bad as everyone would have an even playing field.
In short they need to either;
Allow the use of precedents
Employ intelligent rational human beings
Go back to assessing the incidents based upon what occurred
- May 28, 2015
- 1,125
- 5,037
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Napoli, AUFC, Lakers, Patriots
There have been worse bumps so luckily nobody was hurt. The fine was.....fine *puts on shades*
Similar threads
