News JOM offered a week

Remove this Banner Ad

Probably the most interesting thing for me is that JOM grabbed the left arm This was Spargo's arm that was holding the ball. 1.JPG

Spargo then had time to switch the ball to the right side but made no attempt to protect himself from the fall with his right arm.
2.JPG
Will that matter? Most likely not. The reality is that he hit his head, even if only lightly and with no effect. The onus is not on the person being tackled to protect himself but rather the responsibility of the tackler.
We might argue that the slinging motion was not initiated by JOM but rather that Spargo was pivoting and there was little else JOM could do.
 
Cerra used a subvariant of the Clinton Wolfe "Too unco" argument. Cerra reckoned he was too weak to have any effect on Hickey.

Not directly comparable but part of the consideration was that Hickey had one arm free and could have elected to brace in the fall.

Spargo had an arm free.

I am annoyed we are even discussing this. O'Meara had the campaigner cold holding the ball. Free kick Fremantle. That's what happened in the world before this current AFL hysteria.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Probably the most interesting thing for me is that JOM grabbed the left arm This was Spargo's arm that was holding the ball. View attachment 1701127

Spargo then had time to switch the ball to the right side but made no attempt to protect himself from the fall with his right arm.
View attachment 1701128
Will that matter? Most likely not. The reality is that he hit his head, even if only lightly and with no effect. The onus is not on the person being tackled to protect himself but rather the responsibility of the tackler.
We might argue that the slinging motion was not initiated by JOM but rather that Spargo was pivoting and there was little else JOM could do.

That second still says it all. The bent leg is undeniable proof that Spargo is the one who has collapsed his own legs and diving into the ground. JOM's positioning could not physically make Spargo's legs do that. Spargo would still have his feet grounded if he actually wanted to, and the only way he goes to ground is a bit like a tree falling. Categorical evidence of the flopping that is causing most of these "dangerous tackles". In years gone by, players would be bracing and resisting the tackler.
 
Can we talk about that campaigning snake Whately already saying that JOM is cooked before the tribunal even meets? This quote is cooked, makes it doubly hard for the AFL to reverse the decision:

“What’s a very hard case to argue I think. That has the markers of the Parker case,” Whateley said of O’Meara’s tackle, arguing the precedent to penalise such misconduct has already been set.

“The only way you can achieve the aspired fore change in behaviour is to consistently reinforce: ‘This is what you can’t do, this is what you can’t do, this is what you can’t do’.”


Where does young Gerard draw the expertise to be making those calls? Get fkd.
 
Can we talk about that campaigning snake Whately already saying that JOM is cooked before the tribunal even meets? This quote is cooked, makes it doubly hard for the AFL to reverse the decision:

“What’s a very hard case to argue I think. That has the markers of the Parker case,” Whateley said of O’Meara’s tackle, arguing the precedent to penalise such misconduct has already been set.

“The only way you can achieve the aspired fore change in behaviour is to consistently reinforce: ‘This is what you can’t do, this is what you can’t do, this is what you can’t do’.”


Where does young Gerard draw the expertise to be making those calls? Get fkd.
You mean the campaigner that has never picked up a football in his life? That campaigner?
 
To be fair to Whately, he is probably the one person in the media that over the years has been the most clued in to the MRO and Tribunal guidelines and he has a pretty good track record when it comes to whether or not a player will be suspended.
 
To be fair to Whately, he is probably the one person in the media that over the years has been the most clued in to the MRO and Tribunal guidelines and he has a pretty good track record when it comes to whether or not a player will be suspended.
True he's always well read but he's a biased phoney yes man.

I'll never forget the time he sat there silent for 4 minutes whilst that **** head David King crapped on about excuses for Mr Gaff.
 
To be fair to Whately, he is probably the one person in the media that over the years has been the most clued in to the MRO and Tribunal guidelines and he has a pretty good track record when it comes to whether or not a player will be suspended.
He also has a track record of hating Freo and being a whiny nerd who wants to marry a horse.
 
What will count against O'Meara was how he was holding the free arm (and he went off his feet first, but not sure if this is a factor). Otherwise, he was careful with the head and there was no contact with Spargo's head and the ground.
The AFL changed the rules so pinning one arm was holding the ball. Why have that rule if it a dangerous tackle if they go to ground, which the tacklee can instigate.

I recon it’s 50/50 but not too fused if JOM has an extra week rest as it might be good for a veteran come finals & we can unleash Ras/Johno for a full run.
 
He's back on us a bit since Ross left. We're not no1, but we're just another team now.
I thought it was because he’s a huge biased Geelong fan & he was bitter we had the wood over the Cats in the RTB era. Prior to that he thought we were a laughing stock and bagged us.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'm surprised there's so many females involved in this hearing - could work for him (because he is hot), or against him because they are wusses :)
 
So it reads like our argument is that O'Meara didn't pin 2 arms and that actual impact was low.

This ignores the fact the rules of having changed to upgrade for potential impact and only 1 arm needs to be pinned for it to be considered dangerous.

I don't see how he gets off here.
 
So it reads like our argument is that O'Meara didn't pin 2 arms and that actual impact was low.

This ignores the fact the rules of having changed to upgrade for potential impact and only 1 arm needs to be pinned for it to be considered dangerous.

I don't see how he gets off here.
The fact that potential impact is redcued because of the way he was tackled and the fact that he had his arm to protect himself.
 
Jury deliberating.
I cant see why they have a rating of moderate impact if there is not also a meaningful rating of low impact. What could possibly be the definition of low impact if this instance is not deemed low impact. I mean, this is as close to physically being possible of just brushing the ground. From one angle it doesnt even look like his head touched. If this goes medium impact then low impact must mean being suspended above the ground!
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top