Player Watch Mark Keane - Welcome to Adelaide

[Eagleboy2011]

Looking at some port flogs say..what else could SPP do in a second, he had no time to react. Remember a second in a 100m sprint is nearly 10 metres. Oodles of time to decide to tackle instead of bump

Do they forget Keane was being tackle at the same time. SPP was intent on following through with the shoulder bump regardless.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

Do they forget Keane was being tackle at the same time. SPP was intent on following through with the shoulder bump regardless.

I had another close look at it today. He appeared to change direction at the last moment and throw the shoulder in. Utterly deliberate no question about it.
AFL needs to throw the book at him.
Fortunately Keane has only suffered concussion and seems to be recovering from that, it could've been much worse.
Nevertheless Pepper pig should get a hefty penalty for that one.

 

[StickerMan]

I had another close look at it today. He appeared to change direction at the last moment and throw the shoulder in. Utterly deliberate no question about it.
AFL needs to throw the book at him.
Fortunately Keane has only suffered concussion and seems to be recovering from that, it could've been much worse.
Nevertheless Pepper pig should get a hefty penalty for that one.

100% he dropped the shoulder

 

[John Who]

Utter crap. He had no intention of tackling instead lined him up. Stop posting *hit John Who.

I’m not trying to defend P-P to get him off a suspension. I did make a statement saying I think he’ll get some weeks off, if you bother to read entire posts.

The issue here isn’t the fact he was in the wrong to bump (the answer is a big fat YES). The deliberation, however, should be about whether there was intent to cause bruising versus to cause a hospitalisation?

Stop your damn selective inattention or stop reading my posts.

 

[radiojake]

Looking at some port flogs say..what else could SPP do in a second, he had no time to react. Remember a second in a 100m sprint is nearly 10 metres. Oodles of time to decide to tackle instead of bump

yeah i noticed that argument - doesn't float at all

how much time does a cricket player have to deal with a ball bowled to them?

They have to locate the ball, determine where it's going to pitch, decide on an action, and execute the shot - if facing a pace bowler, it's well under 1 sec

 

[George Kramer]

I’m not trying to defend P-P to get him off a suspension. I did make a statement saying I think he’ll get some weeks off, if you bother to read entire posts.

The issue here isn’t the fact he was in the wrong to bump (the answer is a big fat YES). The deliberation, however, should be about whether there was intent to cause bruising versus to cause a hospitalisation?

Stop your damn selective inattention or stop reading my posts.

Huh? Since when is the measure whether a players intent was to cause bruising or hospitalisation?

None of them would intentionally want to cause hospitalisation but plenty still cop big penalties

 

[StickerMan]

I’m not trying to defend P-P to get him off a suspension. I did make a statement saying I think he’ll get some weeks off, if you bother to read entire posts.

The issue here isn’t the fact he was in the wrong to bump (the answer is a big fat YES). The deliberation, however, should be about whether there was intent to cause bruising versus to cause a hospitalisation?

Stop your damn selective inattention or stop reading my posts.

You've had some different views over the years, however this comment is one of the strangest things I've ever read

 

[Big Dub]

When you don't have time to do anything but work off instinct/ react, you do what you have trained yourself/ been trained to do.

By setting large (now happening) and consistently applied (not happening) punishments for dangerous techniques, players will train less dangerous techniques. So when they don't have time to do anything but work off instinct/ react, they absorb a players momentum and avoid their head, not drive a shoulder through it.

It will be more important what they do to punish the next (victorian) player who bumps a player being swung around, than the punishment they give to SPP now.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

I’m not trying to defend P-P to get him off a suspension. I did make a statement saying I think he’ll get some weeks off, if you bother to read entire posts.

The issue here isn’t the fact he was in the wrong to bump (the answer is a big fat YES). The deliberation, however, should be about whether there was intent to cause bruising versus to cause a hospitalisation?

Stop your damn selective inattention or stop reading my posts.

You clearly posted that you didn't think it was intentional. It absolutely was. HE CHOSE TO BUMP.

 

[beartoo]

yeah i noticed that argument - doesn't float at all

how much time does a cricket player have to deal with a ball bowled to them?

They have to locate the ball, determine where it's going to pitch, decide on an action, and execute the shot - if facing a pace bowler, it's well under 1 sec

1 x 70th of a second.

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[cleanhands]

I’m not trying to defend P-P to get him off a suspension. I did make a statement saying I think he’ll get some weeks off, if you bother to read entire posts.

The issue here isn’t the fact he was in the wrong to bump (the answer is a big fat YES). The deliberation, however, should be about whether there was intent to cause bruising versus to cause a hospitalisation?

Stop your damn selective inattention or stop reading my posts.

 

[GreyCrow]

I’m not trying to defend P-P to get him off a suspension. I did make a statement saying I think he’ll get some weeks off, if you bother to read entire posts.

The issue here isn’t the fact he was in the wrong to bump (the answer is a big fat YES). The deliberation, however, should be about whether there was intent to cause bruising versus to cause a hospitalisation?

Stop your damn selective inattention or stop reading my posts.

So I decided to read this post and came to the conclusion you dont know anything

I mean the bolded is the stupidest thing I have read this year ( to be fair I have stopped reading the covid and politics threads) and just highlights your inability to gain any ground in your desire to be taken seriously

 

[cmndstab]

I’m not trying to defend P-P to get him off a suspension. I did make a statement saying I think he’ll get some weeks off, if you bother to read entire posts.

The issue here isn’t the fact he was in the wrong to bump (the answer is a big fat YES). The deliberation, however, should be about whether there was intent to cause bruising versus to cause a hospitalisation?

Stop your damn selective inattention or stop reading my posts.

When the MRP talks about "intentional", they're talking about the action, not the outcome.

They're not judging whether the intention was to injure Keane. They're judging whether the intention was to bump, or if it's something that just happened in the spur of the moment as some Port posters have argued.

If they decide he elected to bump, it is by definition "intentional". From there, they then go on to look at how the bump was executed (high or not) and what the outcome was.

If they decide it was just something that happened in the spur of the moment, they would likely judge it "reckless" since he didn't take any care to avoid bumping. Careless seems too low a grading to me.


Whether or not SPP intended to injure Keane is entirely irrelevant.

 

[StickerMan]

When the MRP talks about "intentional", they're talking about the action, not the outcome.

They're not judging whether the intention was to injure Keane. They're judging whether the intention was to bump, or if it's something that just happened in the spur of the moment as some Port posters have argued.

If they decide he elected to bump, it is by definition "intentional". From there, they then go on to look at how the bump was executed (high or not) and what the outcome was.

This is why I can't understand that the charge was classed as 'Careless' rather than 'Intentional'

 

[cmndstab]

This is why I can't understand that the charge was classed as 'Careless' rather than 'Intentional'

I imagine they will argue to increase it at the tribunal.

 

[StickerMan]

I imagine they will argue to increase it at the tribunal.

Major change to tribunal guidelines allows AFL to push for heavier Powell-Pepper ban

Throw the book at him!

Seriously, if there was any week that you don't choose to bump, it was last weekend.

What a moron.

 

[Coopers]

It will be more important what they do to punish the next (victorian) player who bumps a player being swung around, than the punishment they give to SPP now.

Well s**t, better hope it's not a player from a big 4 club on the eve of, or during finals.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So I decided to read this post and came to the conclusion you dont know anything

I mean the bolded is the stupidest thing I have read this year ( to be fair I have stopped reading the covid and politics threads) and just highlights your inability to gain any ground in your desire to be taken seriously

It's why I usually skip his posts as feel dumber for reading them!

 

[radiojake]

The whole argument that 'he didn't mean to concuss/hit him in the head is irrelevant - there wouldn't be a player in the entire league who would be stupid enough to 'try' to hit someone in the head as it's auto-suspension

Whether he meant to or not is irrelevant -

 

[El Doederino]

I’m not trying to defend P-P to get him off a suspension. I did make a statement saying I think he’ll get some weeks off, if you bother to read entire posts.

The issue here isn’t the fact he was in the wrong to bump (the answer is a big fat YES). The deliberation, however, should be about whether there was intent to cause bruising versus to cause a hospitalisation?

Stop your damn selective inattention or stop reading my posts.

I don't think you wield that sort of power

 

[Pugsley]

Major change to tribunal guidelines allows AFL to push for heavier Powell-Pepper ban

Throw the book at him!

Seriously, if there was any week that you don't choose to bump, it was last weekend.

What a moron.

Has always been a thug. Hopefully he gets the penalty he deserves.

 

[Pugsley]

I don't think you wield that sort of power

I usually stop after the first sentence with his posts.

 

[skam85]

I usually stop after the first sentence with his posts.

I see the blue telephone box and keep scrolling.
Then I can't help myself and scroll back for a giggle

 

[John Who]

You clearly posted that you didn't think it was intentional. It absolutely was. HE CHOSE TO BUMP.

Choosing to bump doesn’t mean there was intent to cause serious harm.
Bruising = wreckless
Hospitalisation = intentional (serious harm)

I sometimes use random words which may not be appropriate, but it’s not like I said “P-P doesn’t deserve to get weeks”!

 

[John Who]

When the MRP talks about "intentional", they're talking about the action, not the outcome.

They're not judging whether the intention was to injure Keane. They're judging whether the intention was to bump, or if it's something that just happened in the spur of the moment as some Port posters have argued.

If they decide he elected to bump, it is by definition "intentional". From there, they then go on to look at how the bump was executed (high or not) and what the outcome was.

If they decide it was just something that happened in the spur of the moment, they would likely judge it "reckless" since he didn't take any care to avoid bumping. Careless seems too low a grading to me.


Whether or not SPP intended to injure Keane is entirely irrelevant.

Honestly the MRP is all airy fairy s**t. They pick and choose who they want to penalise harder and depends on what month of the year too probably.

I guess what I saw of the video footage, while P-P elected to bump, it’s arguable that there were external forces at play which was beyond his control (namely the Rioli tackle, and the split second to react from that).

It’s not a simple scenario where it’s just a player lining up an opponent without other players involved.