Tyrone Vickery 'bump' Where will the MRP wheel of fortune land?

[Ron The Bear]

Jamison missing the same chromosome/survival instinct as Koschitzke.

 

[IronMike]

2 off the ball collisions with Vickery and Mitchell, Vickery makes accidental high contact and gets 2 weeks while Mitchell maliciously leads with his knee and gets a slap across the wrists.

So basically the MRP is saying that instead of turning sideways and bracing for contact Vickery should just charge in with his knee up next time.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Vickery will hopefully learn from this.

You think? I'd say he's second only Mitch Robinson in the idiocy stakes. And at least Robbo's hits don't come exclusively when his opponent isn't looking.

 

[Ron The Bear]

You think? I'd say he's second only Mitch Robinson in the idiocy stakes. And at least Robbo's hits don't come exclusively when his opponent isn't looking.

Would you get into a car with Jamo?

On the way to heaven he'd be saying, "Sorry man, that semi just came out of nowhere!"

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You think? I'd say he's second only Mitch Robinson in the idiocy stakes. And at least Robbo's hits don't come exclusively when his opponent isn't looking.

Well if he doesn't he will continue to get weeks, up to him.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Don't hit blokes high off the ball, simple actually.

Therein lies the problem with your argument. He didn't "hit" him high. It was an incidental clash of heads. Oddly, players do get hit high all the time by hips, shoulders, elbows, etc. and most of the time the perpetrator fails to get suspended because the victim fortunately doesn't get concussed. Buddy is a great example from recently.

 

[Tiger2709]

Pretty spot on was high, careless and he should be thankful it wasn't high impact

It wasnt high it was a head clash Carlton should teach their players a little situational awareness.

 

[Banyo Bloods]

buddy got one for trying to knock titch into next week and ty just protected him self absolute bs should wear a swans jumper

Buddy got two down to 1 with early guilty plea. Gordon got nothing. Jumper has nothing to do with it. Tough decision IMO

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It wasnt high it was a head clash Carlton should teach their players a little situational awareness.

They did teach him. He was deep in defence tracking his opponent and the play upfield. You expect that he should have been looking at the one Richmond player between him and the goals allowing Riewoldt to get a break on him if the ball came in.

 

[Brown Bottle]

They did teach him. He was deep in defence tracking his opponent and the play upfield. You expect that he should have been looking at the one Richmond player between him and the goals allowing Riewoldt to get a break on him if the ball came in.

Imagine if every player on the field ran in one direction while only ever looking in the opposite direction. Surely you have a duty of care to yourself?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Imagine if every player on the field ran in one direction while only ever looking in the opposite direction. Surely you have a duty of care to yourself?

Sure, but it's a little situational. If you are in the middle of the ground there are players leading up in different directions and you present a risk where you are and more prone to shepherding. You wouldn't find the same level of risk deep in defence with fewer players around and the danger for a full back is his opponent and where the play currently is.

Argue Vickery's position if you wish but it's just victim blaming to have a go at Jamison about it. Vickery made a decision to block him, Jamison didn't make a decision to run into Vickery. One was aware what was about to happen, one wasn't.

Jamison shouldn't have gone out wearing those clothes and that make up ... asking for trouble.

 

[no orange peeler]

You think? I'd say he's second only Mitch Robinson in the idiocy stakes. And at least Robbo's hits don't come exclusively when his opponent isn't looking.

Your seriously trolling have a look you peanut it was a block pure and simple. If he wanted to do it with malice he could have done more damage.

 

[no orange peeler]

They did teach him. He was deep in defence tracking his opponent and the play upfield. You expect that he should have been looking at the one Richmond player between him and the goals allowing Riewoldt to get a break on him if the ball came in.

Um yeah... he should he is a backman who's opponent was about to lead. Should have expected a block as they train and expect it. Your fwds would do the same.

 

[DrEvil_]

2 off the ball collisions with Vickery and Mitchell, Vickery makes accidental high contact and gets 2 weeks while Mitchell maliciously leads with his knee and gets a slap across the wrists.

So basically the MRP is saying that instead of turning sideways and bracing for contact Vickery should just charge in with his knee up next time.

Well if Vickery charge in with his knee and make head high contact I'd imagine he will have a case to answer.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Um yeah... he should he is a backman who's opponent was about to lead. Should have expected a block as they train and expect it. Your fwds would do the same.

They do expect blocks but can't always avoid them. Are you really suggesting his focus should not have been on Riewoldt or the play up field but on the 15 metres between him and the goal in case somebody was lining him up?

Again, it's victim blaming. Vickery chose to block/bump him and while I have no problem with blocks, I understand that this MRP are all about dishing out penalties for anything that results from choosing to block or bump. I don't like the physicality being taken out of the game so understand if you guys are upset that Vickery is out, but putting the blame on the guy who ran into the guy who knew he was coming does not help your argument at all.

If a midfielder ducked his head going into a tackle, it is play on and prior opportunity if tackled and that player is penalised. If he ducks his head and the opponent decides to bump when he doesn't have to, then the opponent is in trouble. Soft as it was, Vickery didn't have to bump and if he does he has to make sure there is no high contact as a result of the decision.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Sure, but it's a little situational. If you are in the middle of the ground there are players leading up in different directions and you present a risk where you are and more prone to shepherding. You wouldn't find the same level of risk deep in defence with fewer players around and the danger for a full back is his opponent and where the play currently is.

Argue Vickery's position if you wish but it's just victim blaming to have a go at Jamison about it. Vickery made a decision to block him, Jamison didn't make a decision to run into Vickery. One was aware what was about to happen, one wasn't.

Jamison shouldn't have gone out wearing those clothes and that make up ... asking for trouble.

How did I know you'd go there?

Yeah, you're right. Jamison should never have expected that he might get screened / blocked / picked. That never happens.

You and I both know the contact was incidental and that Vickery didn't do anything you wouldn't expect your own players to do. All match forwards work to free each other up.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

How did I know you'd go there?

Yeah, you're right. Jamison should never have expected that he might get screened / blocked / picked. That never happens.

You and I both know the contact was incidental and that Vickery didn't do anything you wouldn't expect your own players to do. All match forwards work to free each other up.

Well I reckon I've said what you said in that last line. It's all overkill these days. However I did not say that Jamison should never have expected contact, that's you getting a little carried away to try to belittle what I am saying. I AM saying that it was reasonable for Jamison to be focussing on Riewoldt and the play up field given he was deep in defence and there weren't too many bodies around AND I AM saying that blaming Jamison's lack of awareness is victim blaming and clutching at straws.

 

[no orange peeler]

They do expect blocks but can't always avoid them. Are you really suggesting his focus should not have been on Riewoldt or the play up field but on the 15 metres between him and the goal in case somebody was lining him up?

Again, it's victim blaming. Vickery chose to block/bump him and while I have no problem with blocks, I understand that this MRP are all about dishing out penalties for anything that results from choosing to block or bump. I don't like the physicality being taken out of the game so understand if you guys are upset that Vickery is out, but putting the blame on the guy who ran into the guy who knew he was coming does not help your argument at all.

If a midfielder ducked his head going into a tackle, it is play on and prior opportunity if tackled and that player is penalised. If he ducks his head and the opponent decides to bump when he doesn't have to, then the opponent is in trouble. Soft as it was, Vickery didn't have to bump and if he does he has to make sure there is no high contact as a result of the decision.

He didnt bump he stood in the path which was a block. So how exactly is he to ensure no damage is done. There was no force, no malice. Was he suppose to say "hey Jamo im about to block you make sure you keep your noggin out of the way".
Not entirely victim blaming but jamieson lack of awareness and lack of game sense at that time contributed to the outcome.

 

[Bobblefighter]

Buddy got two down to 1 with early guilty plea. Gordon got nothing. Jumper has nothing to do with it. Tough decision IMO

That's more of a punishment to us.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Therein lies the problem with your argument. He didn't "hit" him high. It was an incidental clash of heads. Oddly, players do get hit high all the time by hips, shoulders, elbows, etc. and most of the time the perpetrator fails to get suspended because the victim fortunately doesn't get concussed. Buddy is a great example from recently.

Head clash, you are kidding me...and Buddy copped a week (and I agreed with that one, 2 weeks down to 1). Not as if Vickery just clashed heads, his elbow and shoulder was there too. Unfortunate Jamison got injured sure, but it isn't as if this is his first suspension. He has to start learning.

 

[Brown Bottle]

that's you getting a little carried away to try to belittle what I am saying

says the guy talking about victim blaming and analogizing the incident with rape.

Considering the best mechanism available to a forward to get freed up to lead is a screen, would you (as a backman) ignore the possibility that someone might look to screen you? It was a screen. Vickery made no effort to hurt Jamison in any way.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

He didnt bump he stood in the path which was a block. So how exactly is he to ensure no damage is done. There was no force, no malice. Was he suppose to say "hey Jamo im about to block you make sure you keep your noggin out of the way".

It's the way the AFL want to play this. Doesn't matter if it is a bump or a block. He didn't stand there and let Jamo run into him, he turned sideways and dropped the shoulder. That's all players do when they bump. If a player shepherded during general play and got an opponent high, he'd be in trouble. Again, I'm all for incidental contact to be let go. I think the game is over umpired and suspensions out of control when there is so much at stake for teams. I know why he went up for it according to the AFL rules and precedent, though I'd be okay if they let him off too as long as they are consistent.

Not entirely victim blaming but jamieson lack of awareness and lack of game sense at that time contributed to the outcome.

Feels like we are going around in circles here. Already stated, already answered. We disagree.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Head clash, you are kidding me...and Buddy copped a week (and I agreed with that one, 2 weeks down to 1). Not as if Vickery just clashed heads, his elbow and shoulder was there too. Unfortunate Jamison got injured sure, but it isn't as if this is his first suspension. He has to start learning.

Spot on mate. Here, I found the footage for you

 

[passmark]

Just glad the coward got suspended.

Has he ever fronted anyone?

I remember him taking on 70kg of bone crushing power in Dylan Buckley and shitting himself.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

says the guy talking about victim blaming and analogizing the incident with rape.

Jamo was injured and failed to return to the field after the incident ... i.e he was the victim. You are focussed on his lack of awareness ... i.e you are blaming the victim. The other bit, clearly a joke and I didn't mention rape. Lighten up.

Considering the best mechanism available to a forward to get freed up to lead is a screen, would you (as a backman) ignore the possibility that someone might look to screen you? It was a screen. Vickery made no effort to hurt Jamison in any way.

Right. It was a screen, a block ... whatever it was. No problem, Haven't argued that. Did Jamison receive accidental high contact as a result of that screen? Yes. That's why the AFL have looked at it. You might have me confused with someone posting in here to bury Vickery and wave a flag for soft suspensions .... I'm not. I just think the 'it's Jamison's fault' defence doesn't fly.