Should we squeal like the crows did

[wart101]

I liked the part where they want to sack Hardwick

Oh heck off!!!!!!

 

[wart101]

Sorry to intrude...

Unfortunately thats not how the MRP works. They do take into account the injury. Thats how Walker got done against Geelong and Buddy got off against Port. Under the current system Walker should be fine. I personally think that the MRP will give him a couple of weeks (unless the AFL don't want to admit the ump got it wrong). I can see how it might be seen as "dangerous" but it definitely wasn't a spear tackle, and Morris definitely didn't land on his head. Two years ago that would have been classed an amazing tackle by nearly all fans and commentators, things have certainly changed.

FWIW, the way the MRP judge things should be based more about the action than the result, but currently that's not how it works, so play on...

Objectively, what would you guys think if one of your players laid a similar tackle? And how many of you come out to say that Nahas was a bad bloke and should have been suspended for his dangerous tackle earlier in the season?

Thought so.

Well ofcourse we don't want our players susspended even when they are in the wrong, what's your point?

And the Nahas tackle was different, the port player? Fell into the ground, walker drove Morris into the ground, it was a clear spear/sling tackle, lucky for you we have more dignity and won't say a thing not that we'll have to.

 

[DrMike]

Sorry to intrude...

Unfortunately thats not how the MRP works. They do take into account the injury. Thats how Walker got done against Geelong and Buddy got off against Port. Under the current system Walker should be fine. I personally think that the MRP will give him a couple of weeks (unless the AFL don't want to admit the ump got it wrong). I can see how it might be seen as "dangerous" but it definitely wasn't a spear tackle, and Morris definitely didn't land on his head. Two years ago that would have been classed an amazing tackle by nearly all fans and commentators, things have certainly changed.

FWIW, the way the MRP judge things should be based more about the action than the result, but currently that's not how it works, so play on...

Objectively, what would you guys think if one of your players laid a similar tackle? And how many of you come out to say that Nahas was a bad bloke and should have been suspended for his dangerous tackle earlier in the season?

Thought so.

We had King miss a week for a trip, tell me where that caused damage and I'll agree with you.

 

[Wilburwild]

We had King miss a week for a trip, tell me where that caused damage and I'll agree with you.

You're quite right. The trip seems to be the only one that the injury isn't taken into account. I assume the only reason King missed a week and Swan only got a reprimand is one had an existing "good" record and the other an existing "bad" record...

On tackles though it has definitely gone the way of the injury report.

 

[Coopers]

Ok, no worries. Attempted murder is fine. If they don't die you get off.
It's the act, mate, not the result that should be stopped. If we wait for medical reports to decide whether an act is against the rules then someone will get get killed.

Exactly, it's the act. If walker really had tried to slam the bloke into the goal post, he would have put him in hospital. He didn't, and the guy wasn't hurt.

 

[DrMike]

You're quite right. The trip seems to be the only one that the injury isn't taken into account. I assume the only reason King missed a week and Swan only got a reprimand is one had an existing "good" record and the other an existing "bad" record...

On tackles though it has definitely gone the way of the injury report.

It was kind of a loaded question. The potential damage is taken into consideration with a trip because of the possibility to clash shins, the damage where a player falls where they're not expecting it and also the potential to start a melee.

The Walker sling had the potential to break Morris' neck, yes he got up again but it's Morris, he has the hardest head in the competition. Tell me again how this should be allowed though:

 

[Livonski]

Exactly, it's the act. If walker really had tried to slam the bloke into the goal post, he would have put him in hospital. He didn't, and the guy wasn't hurt.

You are delusional and you are not paying attention.
Let's wait for the MRP and check back in then. My money is on 2-3 weeks.

 

[Wood_Duck]

As I have said in other threads. A lot of Crows fans are delusional on this issue. Walker is in deep trouble. I don't think he set out to hurt Morris, but the end result was a clumsy tackle that looked bad. I don't think Tex is the sharpest tool in the shed.

On the other hand, a lot of the vitriol in this thread and others is completely over the top.

 

[smasha]

It was kind of a loaded question. The potential damage is taken into consideration with a trip because of the possibility to clash shins, the damage where a player falls where they're not expecting it and also the potential to start a melee.

The Walker sling had the potential to break Morris' neck, yes he got up again but it's Morris, he has the hardest head in the competition. Tell me again how this should be allowed though:

What was even more mindboggling,was the umpire didn't reverse the decision.
Handed a goal scoring shot to the Crows after a wheelchair threatening spear tackle.
WTF is going on????????
That ump should be rested this week but knowing the AFL I bet he doesn't.
That looks a 5 weaker at least going by the footage.
The way his head bends when hitting the ground=sickening.

 

[smasha]

As I have said in other threads. A lot of Crows fans are delusional on this issue. Walker is in deep trouble. I don't think he set out to hurt Morris, but the end result was a clumsy tackle that looked bad. I don't think Tex is the sharpest tool in the shed.

On the other hand, a lot of the vitriol in this thread and others is completely over the top.

Richmond supporters are used to being shafted all the time by the MRP so no wonder we are OTT.

 

[Wilburwild]

It was kind of a loaded question. The potential damage is taken into consideration with a trip because of the possibility to clash shins, the damage where a player falls where they're not expecting it and also the potential to start a melee.

The Walker sling had the potential to break Morris' neck, yes he got up again but it's Morris, he has the hardest head in the competition. Tell me again how this should be allowed though:

I'm not saying I don't think he should be in trouble. I do think the tackle is dangerous, and if the AFL want to ban this type of tackle they should suspend all players who do them, not just the players who do inadvertently injure the person being tackled. For example, Buddy's tackle in the port game had more intent than Walker's against Geelong, but because Harry Taylor went down like a shot cat, Walker got suspended. Suspend all of them, not just the ones who get hurt.
My position is that the AFL have created somewhat of a precedent in which the outcome dramatically affects the result of the MRP findings. I think they need to find a better way of charging offences, still keeping some weighting on the damage done, but focussing more on the action or the intent. In this case, Franklin, Nahas and Lovett-Murray would have all sat out for dangerous tackles also.

I don't know that it should be allowed, but the umpires could have avoided this occurrence at all by blowing the whistle when it was clear Morris was holding the ball rather than stand there for an eternity waiting for the ball to eventually spill out.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Richmond supporters are used to being shafted all the time by the MRP so no wonder we are OTT.

I reckon Nahas was pretty lucky earlier this year. How many Richmond players have been suspended this year?

 

[Coopers]

You are delusional and you are not paying attention.
Let's wait for the MRP and check back in then. My money is on 2-3 weeks.

I think it's you not paying attention. If you go back and look, I said Walker will get 2-3 for the tackle on Morris. I also said he should have got no penalty for the push into the goalpost the week before because there was not enough force.

 

[Wilburwild]

What was even more mindboggling,was the umpire didn't reverse the decision.
Handed a goal scoring shot to the Crows after a wheelchair threatening spear tackle.
WTF is going on????????
That ump should be rested this week but knowing the AFL I bet he doesn't.
That looks a 5 weaker at least going by the footage.
The way his head bends when hitting the ground=sickening.

****ing terrible umpire McInerney. Awful. At the game I actually thought that was about the only one he got right all day. Not so sure now, but I'm going with it, because I'm a Crows supporter and you'd be doing the same if the situation was reversed!

 

[wart101]

****ing terrible umpire McInerney. Awful. At the game I actually thought that was about the only one he got right all day. Not so sure now, but I'm going with it, because I'm a Crows supporter and you'd be doing the same if the situation was reversed!

Being irrational? Yeah I love doing that.

 

[wart101]

I'm not saying I don't think he should be in trouble. I do think the tackle is dangerous, and if the AFL want to ban this type of tackle they should suspend all players who do them, not just the players who do inadvertently injure the person being tackled. For example, Buddy's tackle in the port game had more intent than Walker's against Geelong, but because Harry Taylor went down like a shot cat, Walker got suspended. Suspend all of them, not just the ones who get hurt.
My position is that the AFL have created somewhat of a precedent in which the outcome dramatically affects the result of the MRP findings. I think they need to find a better way of charging offences, still keeping some weighting on the damage done, but focussing more on the action or the intent. In this case, Franklin, Nahas and Lovett-Murray would have all sat out for dangerous tackles also.

I don't know that it should be allowed, but the umpires could have avoided this occurrence at all by blowing the whistle when it was clear Morris was holding the ball rather than stand there for an eternity waiting for the ball to eventually spill out.

No offence but I think your overall opinion is baseless.

 

[DrMike]

I'm not saying I don't think he should be in trouble. I do think the tackle is dangerous, and if the AFL want to ban this type of tackle they should suspend all players who do them, not just the players who do inadvertently injure the person being tackled. For example, Buddy's tackle in the port game had more intent than Walker's against Geelong, but because Harry Taylor went down like a shot cat, Walker got suspended. Suspend all of them, not just the ones who get hurt.
My position is that the AFL have created somewhat of a precedent in which the outcome dramatically affects the result of the MRP findings. I think they need to find a better way of charging offences, still keeping some weighting on the damage done, but focussing more on the action or the intent. In this case, Franklin, Nahas and Lovett-Murray would have all sat out for dangerous tackles also.

I don't know that it should be allowed, but the umpires could have avoided this occurrence at all by blowing the whistle when it was clear Morris was holding the ball rather than stand there for an eternity waiting for the ball to eventually spill out.

I get the feeling that Morris would probably have whiplash the day after, medical report would not be in Walkers favour.

 

[Livonski]

I think it's you not paying attention. If you go back and look, I said Walker will get 2-3 for the tackle on Morris. I also said he should have got no penalty for the push into the goalpost the week before because there was not enough force.

Ok, see what you're getting at. Sorry, I'll change my forecast.
He should have got 2 for the goalpost, now 2-3 for Morris.
Watch him get 4-5 weeks. A lunatic that must be stopped before he does real damage.

 

[SA TIGER]

Ok, see what you're getting at. Sorry, I'll change my forecast.
He should have got 2 for the goalpost, now 2-3 for Morris.
Watch him get 4-5 weeks. A lunatic that must be stopped before he does real damage.

At least it should even things out next week for the Showdown game against Port who already have Schulz sidelined.
I am hoping the careless ******* gets a minimum of 3 weeks, particulalrly after last week's incidents were not reviewed.
It will really hurt their structure if he is unavailable for the R17 clash against the WC at AAMI!

 

[Wilburwild]

No offence but I think your overall opinion is baseless.

And what do you base that on?

Ok, see what you're getting at. Sorry, I'll change my forecast.
He should have got 2 for the goalpost, now 2-3 for Morris.
Watch him get 4-5 weeks. A lunatic that must be stopped before he does real damage.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story will you Livonski

 

[tugga]

Walker can accept a three-match penalty. Penalty impacted by bad record.
Jackson has copped two weeks. I can't remember any incident.

 

[Livonski]

And what do you base that on?



Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story will you Livonski

Worth a try.

 

[kickavic]

Being irrational? Yeah I love doing that.

3Qt-Time Free Kicks For Crows 6 - Tige's 18... all I'm sayin..

 

[Livonski]

Walker can accept a three-match penalty. Penalty impacted by bad record.
Jackson has copped two weeks. I can't remember any incident.

I think he punched someone in the guts. Very soft, and the sook stayed down. But totally unnecessary, yet again.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

According to the match review panel, he can accept three weeks. Although I could probably look through rose coloured glasses and argue that the decision was too harsh, I think that the penalty is the correct one. His weight distribution was all wrong as he made the tackle and his momentum caused him to lift Morris in the air rather than "pull" him to the side. I would be interested to look at the MRP's review of the actual incident, as I didn't think the formula would produce more than one or two weeks, but on face value, three weeks is very fair judgement as Taylor got it wrong mechanically and he must work in his technique. Could have caused a serious injury!

What I do not like however, is the personal attacks on Walker as being a thug and a lunatic that seemingly "hunts to injure opponents". He is nothing of the sort and such statements couldn't be further from the truth. He has got two very deserved suspensions this year, for mechanical issues with his tackling that MUST be rectified, but insinuating that he is a dangerous or thuggish player?? Play the ball, not the man.

Hope you guys don't mind me coming over here, a couple of the Crows posters have been dillusional- some perspective on the incident is required.