MRP / Trib. Shane McAdam Bump on Jacob Wehr

[SellarStardom]

If anyone is wondering where the AFL is heading, see what the AFL counsel just stated about the McAdam bump.

Pane continued the AFL's submission. He said the Crows simply focused on the impact to the head and ignored the impact to the body. "In doing so, they've ignored the potential of the bump to cause injury," Pane said.

So now the AFL is arguing on the potential of a bump to cause injury, that's the death of the bump.

 

[Bald]

If anyone is wondering where the AFL is heading, see what the AFL counsel just stated about the McAdam bump.

Pane continued the AFL's submission. He said the Crows simply focused on the impact to the head and ignored the impact to the body. "In doing so, they've ignored the potential of the bump to cause injury," Pane said.

So now the AFL is arguing on the potential of a bump to cause injury, that's the death of the bump.

Can’t recall a time where a bump has truly added to my enjoyment of a game. If it were to die people would forget it existed within a year.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

75 minutes of deliberation….

You can’t uphold a three week suspension if there is this much to discuss.

 

[SellarStardom]

Can’t recall a time where a bump has truly added to my enjoyment of a game. If it were to die people would forget it existed within a year.

The point you are missing here is that what the counsel is stating is that the physical contact between two players presented a potential to cause harm to the body.

If that sets a legal precedent then where does it stop. A mark in which the player raises his leg to rest on the players shoulder has the potential to cause harm if it hits the other player in the head. Two players competing for the ball collide side by side, those actions have the potential to cause harm to the body.

It's a slippery slope

 

[HairyO]

75 minutes of deliberation….

You can’t uphold a three week suspension if there is this much to discuss.

Avoiding the Carlton situation where they forgot to talk about the actual offence.

 

[Magma]

If anyone is wondering where the AFL is heading, see what the AFL counsel just stated about the McAdam bump.

Pane continued the AFL's submission. He said the Crows simply focused on the impact to the head and ignored the impact to the body. "In doing so, they've ignored the potential of the bump to cause injury," Pane said.

So now the AFL is arguing on the potential of a bump to cause injury, that's the death of the bump.

which means any bump that takes a player off the field has to be a suspension, surely? every bump has the potential to cause injury

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

which means any bump that takes a player off the field has to be a suspension, surely? every bump has the potential to cause injury

Every tackle has the potential to cause injury.

The clause is nonsensical.

Just how the AFL likes it.

 

[Magma]

Every tackle has the potential to cause injury.

The clause is nonsensical.

Just how the AFL likes it.

and it really means there's no point having all the other stuff if you can just undermine it completely with your own 'we can do what we want' clause.

 

[croweater 41]

And failed. Misses 3

 

[Crow till I die]

Absolute joke and farce of a league to allow people to make decisions that are corrupt..if McAdam has to miss 3 - then someone needs to appeal that Pickett and Franklin bans to get them upgraded to show that there is a skerrick of fairness here

 

[Danger Zone]

Geez, should have launched for the head instead, would have only gotten two for that apparently.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

and it really means there's no point having all the other stuff if you can just undermine it completely with your own 'we can do what we want' clause.

And it’s why they don’t allow precedent to be introduced.

They can make it up as they go.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

So a player has now been suspended for an act that didn’t actually cause any harm to a player.

This is no longer a sporting competition.

It’s sports entertainment.

 

[CrowToon]

Sickening. * the VFL

 

[SellarStardom]

Well that's it then, the potential to cause harm now means any injury from a physical impact is ripe for a suspension of 3 matches

Unless your are a high profile player of course

 

[NSWCROW]

If only we had this precedent when farmer kneed Doughty in the face, franklin tried to break Andy Ottens neck and viney broke Tom Lynchs jaw !

 

[pjcrows]

By now most people have moved on and the AFL mouthpieces will make sure of it.

But the actual argument by the AFL regarding impact to the body and not the head is quite extraordinary.

They've just completely made up an explanation of a verdict that was different from two days ago, out in the open, knowing that they can.

 

[Brian McGee]

So a player has now been suspended for an act that didn’t actually cause any harm to a player.

This is no longer a sporting competition.

It’s sports entertainment.

3 players this week, not just this one.

 

[ibd77]

Potential to cause harm, so is this still a contact sport?

 

[Section 5]

Not sure why it took them so long.
3 is fair as set out in the MRO guidelines.

 

[Multiballz]

The point you are missing here is that what the counsel is stating is that the physical contact between two players presented a potential to cause harm to the body.

If that sets a legal precedent then where does it stop. A mark in which the player raises his leg to rest on the players shoulder has the potential to cause harm if it hits the other player in the head. Two players competing for the ball collide side by side, those actions have the potential to cause harm to the body.

It's a slippery slope

which means any bump that takes a player off the field has to be a suspension, surely? every bump has the potential to cause injury

Virtually every interaction on a football field has the "potential" to cause injury.
Coin toss, hand shakes, warm ups, ball ups, you name it, it can take a guy out.

Flipping ludicrous.

 

[BACCS]

Not sure why it took them so long.
3 is fair as set out in the MRO guidelines.

Because they ****ed up with the Pickett suspension and needed to think of a way to justify McAdam receiving more for a lesser incident

 

[BACCS]

I could trip over and break my jaw walking into a restaurant, can I sue for the ‘potential to cause injury’, even if I just end up with a slight graze?

 

[crows dude]

Not sure why it took them so long.
3 is fair as set out in the MRO guidelines.

But it isnt fair. MRO should have been body contact. Not high contact. Should have been reckless not severe. 2 games down to one.