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

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The MRP show a total lack of understanding of what is happening on the field. The point is that blocking happens all the time during the game. You are instructed to do this as a player. This was a block that unfortunately resulted in an ACCIDENTAL head clash and resultant broken jaw. Players do have a duty of care but this was a pure accident. It happened right in front of me and I saw it clearly. There was zero intent to cause any harm. Yet Adams gets two weeks for one of the worst dog acts I have seen for a while on the field. Why? Because there was no damage!

So what the MRP are saying is that you can take a gun out and fire dozens of shots at someone trying to kill them but because you do not land a shot that hits your victim, you have no case to answer. You walk off Scott free. On the other hand, a guy is going target shooting and his licensed firearm accidentally goes off in his bag and shoots someone in the leg. The MRP gives that guy two years in jail. That is the analogy I think of with the current way of thinking of the MRP.

I agree. They are penalising genuine football incidents with zero malice. They are penalising actions that are completely necessary in order to be competitive, not just anti-social aggressive acts. They come out and say the result should be taken into account, then the next week ignore the result and look at intent. They look at intent one week then ignore it the next.

I agree. The Adams knee was terrible. Major brain snap and reaction to his frustration. Yet football incidents with zero intent are judged harshly. One guy falls one way and is knocked out, another guy turns his head an inch and is okay. Penalty decided on luck, not intent, not whether the action was justified under the circumstances.

They have made the whole system corruptible because they are able to choose how to interpret the criteria case by case.

 

[Tiger2709]

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.

Seeing as you're obviously such a brave warrior of the keyboard, why don't you head down to Richmond training and take him on yourself

 

[passmark]

Seeing as you're obviously such a brave warrior of the keyboard, why don't you head down to Richmond training and take him on yourself

No problem, as long as I can clean him up while he's not looking or he puts his arms up over his head so he can't protect himself like Dean Cox.

It's his bravery we're testing, yes?

Yours isn't in question though.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

The Richmond supporters in this thread are absolutely comical.

"he woz just standing still!" ... "Jamison runned into HIM!" ..."it ws just a blok!"

Have any of you clowns watched the actual incident? He runs away from his man in White to veer into the path of Jamison and hit him. The ball is miles away, who exactly is he blocking for? Riewoldt who is running back to the square away from where the ball is headed? Was he trying to clear a path for Simon White so he could take a defensive grab? Jamison doesn't see the hit because he is looking to his right where every other player except Riewoldt, Jamison and Vickery are headed.

It was a cowardly cheap shot that got the solitary week it deserved. The fact that Vickery gets two for previous idiocy is his own problem.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The Richmond supporters in this thread are absolutely comical.

"he woz just standing still!" ... "Jamison runned into HIM!" ..."it ws just a blok!"

Have any of you clowns watched the actual incident? He runs away from his man in White to veer into the path of Jamison and hit him. The ball is miles away, who exactly is he blocking for? Riewoldt who is running back to the square away from where the ball is headed? Was he trying to clear a path for Simon White so he could take a defensive grab? Jamison doesn't see the hit because he is looking to his right where every other player except Riewoldt, Jamison and Vickery are headed.

It was a cowardly cheap shot that got the solitary week it deserved. The fact that Vickery gets two for previous idiocy is his own problem.

Players block for different reasons. It may not be obvious to you what structure he was trying to prevent. If you cannot see it was an accident that was extremely unfortunate, then you are too biased to fairly comment. How you can say a accidental head clash is a cowardly cheap shot says more about you than it does of Vickery.

 

[Ron The Bear]

It was a cowardly cheap shot that got the solitary week it deserved. The fact that Vickery gets two for previous idiocy is his own problem.

Off you go now to start your rebuild.

 

[TiggerMan22]

It was a cowardly cheap shot that got the solitary week it deserved. The fact that Vickery gets two for previous idiocy is his own problem.

No it was a block. You know that thing thats part of the game and is what GOOD players do? Vickery didnt even get him in the head, Jamisons head smacked into Vickery.
Hes trying to get his teammate space from his opponent, he runs into Jamisons line, slows down so he doesnt knock him down, bends down so he doesnt get him in the head, braces for contact, it was so low impact that Jamison while unaware still doesnt even stumble from it, but in an unlucky turn of events Jamisons head flings forward and he hits is head of Vickery.
If Jamisons head didn't fling forward, it would've been a perfectly fine block that wouldn't even be deemed a free kick. Which means Vickerys actions were completely fine, the accidental outcome that Vickery could not have predicted is what causes him to get weeks. Which makes no ******* sense.

 

[TiggerMan22]

In the end a guy that does something thats part of the game, that was executed well gets 2 weeks. The person he did it to gets subbed off, but will play next week.
On the other hand Bell does something that reckless and dangerous by trying to kick the ball when someone is over it and kicks them in the back of the leg, it doesn't even get looked at. The person he did it to gets subbed off and will miss about 4 weeks from it.
If the outcome is so important, then how does this work?

 

[Tiger2709]

No problem, as long as I can clean him up while he's not looking or he puts his arms up over his head so he can't protect himself like Dean Cox.

It's his bravery we're testing, yes?

Yours isn't in question though.

Mine is non existent these days, bravery to me is to face up to the wife when Ive had a few to many

 

[Tiger2709]

The Richmond supporters in this thread are absolutely comical.

"he woz just standing still!" ... "Jamison runned into HIM!" ..."it ws just a blok!"

Have any of you clowns watched the actual incident? He runs away from his man in White to veer into the path of Jamison and hit him. The ball is miles away, who exactly is he blocking for? Riewoldt who is running back to the square away from where the ball is headed? Was he trying to clear a path for Simon White so he could take a defensive grab? Jamison doesn't see the hit because he is looking to his right where every other player except Riewoldt, Jamison and Vickery are headed.

It was a cowardly cheap shot that got the solitary week it deserved. The fact that Vickery gets two for previous idiocy is his own problem.

/
Maybe you should re-watch it yourself, this time with both eyes open?

Most commentators agreed it was obviously accidental, without the head clash Vickery would have had no charge to face, s**t happens so now he is out for two, but your comments are ridiculous the only one moving is Jamison and Vickers doesn't leave the ground, as other ex-players have commented Jamison really needed to have some situational awareness.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Most commentators agreed it was obviously accidental

He moves off his line and leaves his opponent to hit Jamison, and has his eyes on him the whole time. It wasn't an accidental clash.

the only one moving is Jamison

I just had to single this bit out to really highlight that you're either blind, or a blatant liar.

Jamison really needed to have some situational awareness.

His "awareness" was fine for the situation. The ball was miles away and he was headed back to the goal line, well away from the next contest. In no way should he be expecting a hit there.

Maybe you should re-watch it yourself, this time with both eyes open?

I strongly suggest you do the same. Supporters like you make me genuinely glad Vickery was rightfully rubbed out.

 

[Tiger2709]

He moves off his line and leaves his opponent to hit Jamison, and has his eyes on him the whole time. It wasn't an accidental clash.



I just had to single this bit out to really highlight that you're either blind, or a blatant liar.



His "awareness" was fine for the situation. The ball was miles away and he was headed back to the goal line, well away from the next contest. In no way should he be expecting a hit there.



I strongly suggest you do the same. Supporters like you make me genuinely glad Vickery was rightfully rubbed out.

Go and have another look, the head clash was an accident, supporters like you remind me of why I dislike your cheating campaigner of a club so much

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Go and have another look, the head clash was an accident, supporters like you remind me of why I dislike your cheating campaigner of a club so much

No, the head clash was incidental. It came about due to the deliberate act of bumping an unaware player behind play.

That's like deliberately hitting someone with your car then saying: "Well yes, I meant to run him over, but I didn't mean for him to hit his head and die while I was doing it. That part was accidental."

 

[Ancient Tiger]

No, the head clash was incidental. It came about due to the deliberate act of bumping an unaware player behind play.

That's like deliberately hitting someone with your car then saying: "Well yes, I meant to run him over, but I didn't mean for him to hit his head and die while I was doing it. That part was accidental."

That is rubbish. Your analogy would mean that any fair act that is done several times a game but results in an injury should be punished. A player genuinely going to punch the ball but "incidentally" elbows an opponent and causes injury gets weeks according to you. The spoil was deliberate but the elbow was an accident. Just like the block was deliberate but the head clash was an accident.

 

[Tiger2709]

No, the head clash was incidental. It came about due to the deliberate act of bumping an unaware player behind play.

That's like deliberately hitting someone with your car then saying: "Well yes, I meant to run him over, but I didn't mean for him to hit his head and die while I was doing it. That part was accidental."

If some one wanders blindly in to the traffic and gets hit by a car they usually don't punish the poor driver that expects pedestrians to be aware there are cars on the road.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Admittedly it's not an ideal analogy, but it better conveys the intent of this specific instance than your convenient spoil/elbow analogy.

TV went for the man and caused injury. In your example the player goes for the ball and causes injury.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

If some one wanders blindly in to the traffic and gets hit by a car they usually don't punish the poor driver that expects pedestrians to be aware there are cars on the road.

TV was aiming for the pedestrian though. Why can't you grasp that?

 

[Tiger2709]

TV was aiming for the pedestrian though. Why can't you grasp that?

If you watch the incident Vickery is following his own player out, sees Jamison and blocks him to allow Reiwoldt a free run, this happens dozens of times a game and normally the other player is aware and would have ridden what was a very light bump, elbows were in and shoulder down, but as Jamison doesn't even look up the force he hits Vickery with(note it is Vickery knocked backwards as the force is from jamison) causes an accidental clash of heads, unfortunate for both players in the end, but there was bugger all in it.

http://www.carltonfc.com.au/video/2015-07-10/jamison-stunned-in-vickery-clash-r15

 

[KnaveyBlue]

If you watch the incident Vickery is following his own player out, sees Jamison and blocks him to allow Reiwoldt a free run

A free run at what? Riewoldt isn't even leading for the ball, he's just dropping back to the square behind play himself.

At any rate, you can argue with me all you want but the rules are clear and have been implemented correctly here. I'm all for hammering the MRP for being clowns, but they got this one right. If a player chooses to bump, they wear the consequences. In this case, he chose to hit a player behind play while they weren't looking. Coming out after the fact and trying to claim it's just a block, and Vickery wasn't moving (lol), etc etc is just silly, and makes it appear that your support for your player is overriding your common sense.

The fact that it's only Richmond supporters in here trying to defend him speaks volumes.

 

[SBYM]

FMD...how can you guys be fecked arguing about this?

Intentional, careless, high contact? Yep. Concussion? Yep. Bad record? Yep.

Two weeks was always gonna happen.

Would've been one, but TV is reaping what he has sown.

 

[Tiger2709]

FMD...how can you guys be fecked arguing about this?

Intentional, careless, high contact? Yep. Concussion? Yep. Bad record? Yep.

Two weeks was always gonna happen.

Would've been one, but TV is reaping what he has sown.

The one bit I would dispute is high contact it is clearly an accidental head clash not a shoulder that caused the concussion, as I said earlier unfortunate for both players.

 

[Alesana]

The Richmond supporters in this thread are absolutely comical.

"he woz just standing still!" ... "Jamison runned into HIM!" ..."it ws just a blok!"

Have any of you clowns watched the actual incident? He runs away from his man in White to veer into the path of Jamison and hit him. The ball is miles away, who exactly is he blocking for? Riewoldt who is running back to the square away from where the ball is headed? Was he trying to clear a path for Simon White so he could take a defensive grab? Jamison doesn't see the hit because he is looking to his right where every other player except Riewoldt, Jamison and Vickery are headed.

It was a cowardly cheap shot that got the solitary week it deserved. The fact that Vickery gets two for previous idiocy is his own problem.

Well said, it's like digging a hole in a marathon course and covering it, then blaming everyone who falls in for "not having enough awareness of their surroundings"

 

[Brown Bottle]

The fact that it's only Richmond supporters in here trying to defend him speaks volumes.

Gibbs deserved to get rubbed out for three and Schulz deserved to escape penalty when comparing the incidents*. What was your opinion as a Carlton supporter?

*That's not actually my view.

Of course we defend our players. Don't you defend yours? We have an interest in what happens to them. When it comes to your players we all know the MRP *s up but mostly we're not going out of our way to defend them because we don't really care about them, or we're trolling you like you're trolling us. This is a perfect case in point. The finding is clearly disproportionate to the incident which was obviously a genuine accident (i.e. TV never intended to knock Jamison out, nor could he reasonably have expected that to be the outcome). We have an Eagles fan with an axe to grind (clearly still upset by what TV did to Big Cox) and a couple of people who are either trolling, stupid or failed to watch the footage.

Like the MRP you're caught up in the outcome, rather than the intent. It's only a matter of time before someone does their MCL in a tackle and the MRP rubs out the tackler.

 

[Love the Drake]

Intentional
High contact
50 metres off the ball
Result = concussion and unable to play 99% of the game
1 week penalty with loading for a bad record
What are you Richmond supporters arguing about?

Would you be ok with an opposition player blocking Cotchin 50 metres off the ball (when he's watching the ball and his player) and 'accidentally' concussing him in the first minute of the 2015 elimination final?

Get a grip..

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Intentional
High contact
50 metres off the ball
Result = concussion and unable to play 99% of the game
1 week penalty with loading for a bad record
What are you Richmond supporters arguing about?

Would you be ok with an opposition player blocking Cotchin 50 metres off the ball (when he's watching the ball and his player) and 'accidentally' concussing him in the first minute of the 2015 elimination final?

Get a grip..

The actual hit to the head was NOT intentional. The block was. The head clash was an accident.
That is the problem.