Toby Greene boot to Luke Dahlhaus face.

[Ancient Tiger]

Using your foot has always been a legitimate way of protecting yourself and the ball, Greene has absolutely nothing to answer for, the umpire who reported him might find himself being made to reread the rule book.

What? I think you better go read the rule book yourself before making such statements.

 

[Madblue]

Absolute joke if he gets suspended for that...nothing in it whatsoever.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

The real rules? You mean if you ignore the rules and make up your own?

You can protect yourself, sure, that doesn't equate to head high contact.

Rubbish, the onus is on the player running with the flight, if you want to do that you better expect injuries.

 

[ashep]

A bed of his own making. Has a history of attacking the opponent's head so umpires and the MRP are within their rights to assume that's what he was doing.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Where do you start and end with ****ing "reckless"?
.

Studs in the face is a good place to start.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Rubbish, the onus is on the player running with the flight, if you want to do that you better expect injuries.

So running towards a player about to receive a handball, you should be expecting to avoid a boot in the face….


HAHAHAHAHAHA. You cannot be serious?

 

[E Shed]

Much like Ballantyne and Crowley did for freo and the umpires said they would be watching them closely from the start of the match.

I agree with what you're saying in principle but not sure about grouping Greene in with the 2 Freo players who despite being annoying were never dirty or violent players.
Greene has form, Crowley & Ballantyne niggled but never set out to injure.

 

[Igloo]

Can't believe there are so many people defending it. He kicked a dude in the face, for **** sake. The players getting suspended for these sling tackles and shit don't mean to drive peoples heads into the ground, because they aren't psychopaths. But they're still suspended because it's a dangerous action.
How the hell is a kick to the head not a dangerous action in a world where the head is sacrosanct? Even if it is "protecting his space", he still has duty of care. Unless he has the greatest case of tunnel vision the world has ever known, of course he knew Dahl was there. He wouldn't have stuck his foot out if he didn't.

By the time Greene jumps in the air, Dahl is just about in legs reach. There's no way for him to stop before he gets there. Hell, in this case, I think the slow mo looks better for Greene than in real time, and the slow mo looks terrible! Like Roos said, it's not a football action.
The extra little kick through at the end should just be the final nail in the coffin for it all.

And not that it will be looked at with any kind of relevance, but of course he meant it. He's a filthy ****ing campaigner of a player.

Wouldn't be surprised to see him get off with the "yeah nah m8 he's allowed to protect himself" boys club in the media going on about it all week.

 

[Moquo]

Any other player and this doesnt even get discussed. Its farked what the umpires have done to this kid.

I'm pretty sure that any player doing this will get "discussed". And I'm not sure how you could blame any umpire for this action. I've got nothing against Greene. I haven't seen his priors, although I know they have been discussed. IMO It was certainly deliberate (can't be a normal action to jump like that?), and the nicest way to describe it would be a fend off. If you fend off with the arm and make contact with the face it would be reportable. My guess is he'll get weeks under the AFLs 'not a good look for the game' 'rule', but we'll have to wait until they spin the wheel of public opinion.

 

[sherb]

Using your foot has always been a legitimate way of protecting yourself and the ball, Greene has absolutely nothing to answer for, the umpire who reported him might find himself being made to reread the rule book.

I'd suggest you do the same as well.

Have a look under section 19.2.2. Particularly (a) (ii), (a) (x) and (a) (vi).

Cheers.

 

[PhatBoy]

nothing in it. He's a c**t but at very worst it was a free kick. Nothing more.

 

[Cmarsh]

that changes it then.
He's gone

No it doesnt change it. He had his eyes for the ball just as you would going for a mark.

 

[Clems Knee]

Rubbish, the onus is on the player running with the flight, if you want to do that you better expect injuries.

This was not a marking contest.
It was a handball receive. Fending off a tackle with a straight leg and the studs of a boot is so far out of the normal for footy its mind boggling that anyone can choose to defend him. Not only that, its clear that Greene was using the fend off as a means to turn his body so he could play on, running towards his forward line. The contact was deliberate. Contact to head instead of body may have been careless.

 

[DemonTim]

Go away idiot.
If you can't be bothered reading my posts, then i have no time answering your stupid questions.

I've read it. You said it's a free kick
You also questioned a poster asking if he's ever played, and said you got injured not protecting yourself. He was suggesting what Greene did was outside the rules.
So if you agree it's outside the rules, then you not protecting yourself has no relevance

Might want to actually try making sense before calling people idiots.

 

[bullish23]

why was it a free kick?
He is allowed to go for a mark and protect himself. Just so happens the guy coming toward him stands 4ft'10 and copped a boot to the chin.

Do you live under a rock? He wasn't going for a mark ffs

 

[Hawkers]

I have absolutely no problem with what Toby did. It was good football on his behalf

 

[AcuteWhistle]

So running towards a player about to receive a handball, you should be expecting to avoid a boot in the face….


HAHAHAHAHAHA. You cannot be serious?

Let alone that we see high fend offs free kicks paid against players with the ball EVERY WEEK, but now fending off with a boot to the face is OK.

Some laughable comments being made around here.

 

[Eski3]

It's within the rules to protect the space. I think Greene decided to exploit it and stick his boot in a bloke's face, as opposed to using his knee, so it's a free kick. Because he's a campaigner. But it's not reportable

 

[frggr]

So now the rules are wrong. Ok, they may be but this is not what is being argued. We are arguing whether he will get weeks under the CURRENT RULES whether they are right or wrong. Under the current rules he is in trouble.

Current interpretation of the rules, to be fair.

 

[DemonTim]

Let alone that we see high fend offs free kicks paid against players with the ball EVERY WEEK, but now fending off with a boot to the face is OK.

Some laughable comments being made around here.

Surely coaches should just teach players to run around with ball in one hand, and the other arm with the elbow out at head height. Protect the space and all

 

[Igloo]

I dont think the umpires needed to watch him closely to see him kick someone in the face.

 

[bobby2]

For the people saying Greene had his eyes on the ball: yes, that's true. He also had his hands on the ball, but that has nothing to do with thrusting his leg sideways. His leg was clearly not trying to play the ball. What on earth was his leg doing out there? If I watch the ball, am I entitled to go around punching and kicking people without looking at them?

For the people saying Greene was protecting himself: what was he protecting himself from? Being tackled. If there is an oncoming tackler, can you kick them to avoid a tackle? No, of course not. This is the most important point for me. There are actions you can take to prevent a tackle. You can fend off with your hand, you can evade the opponent, you can swivel your hips, but you can't raise your foot and kick your opponent, especially not in the face.

For the people saying dahlhaus ran into Greene's leg: Greene's knee goes from being bent to straight, which means he thrust his foot towards dahlhaus.

For the people saying dahlhaus is short and this wouldn't have hit a taller player in the face: this isn't someone whose bump accidentally went high because of a difference in player height. This is a foot (you know, those things that are usually under the rest of your body) being thrust sideways at a player's face. It would've hit the average afl player in the chin/throat, which is just as illegal and also quite dangerous. There is no provision in the rules that says you can make high contact with shorter players.

For the people saying this wouldn't even be looked at it it wasn't Greene: very few players in the AFL would even do this. The reason bont or Bob Murphy or any other player has never been reported for kicking an opponent in the face is because they haven't kicked an opponent in the face, not because they'd get away with it.

Greene was clearly intending to kick dahlhaus. Kicking players is not allowed. High contact is also not allowed. Kicking players forcefully in the face with studs is incredibly dangerous. Concussion, eye injuries, facial disfiguration, broken nose, broken jaw and neck injuries are all very realistic possibilities. After making contact with dahlhaus' face, Greene then pushes further into his face, enough to turn his own body in mid-air. This second action is even more damning.

Even if that was a mark rather than a handball (which it wasn't), dahlhaus wasn't close enough to contest. There's a difference between using an opponent as a stepladder to reach the ball or protecting yourself in the marking contest and stretching your leg sideways to kick an opponent who isn't even in the contest after you've already marked the ball.

This was a disgusting and dangerous act that caused injury and could've very easily caused worse injury. Greene deserves a long suspension.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I've read it. You said it's a free kick
You also questioned a poster asking if he's ever played, and said you got injured not protecting yourself. He was suggesting what Greene did was outside the rules.
So if you agree it's outside the rules, then you not protecting yourself has no relevance

Might want to actually try making sense before calling people idiots.

So i see you can read, just can't comprehend.
He has every right to protect himself, he put his leg up to do that.
IMO he didn't kick him in the head, it wasn't his intent to hit him in the head, so if he is rubbed out and fights it, he will win imo.

 

[Colonial]

If it was a natural act of protecting yourself you would see it all the time, but you don't, cos Greene is a POS and made the effort to kick him in the head.

So why didnt the moron not run into his leg?

Rewatch it. He was looking directing at Tobes while running at him. Not the ball.


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Rod Stroker]

It's within the rules to protect the space. I think Greene decided to exploit it and stick his boot in a bloke's face, as opposed to using his knee, so it's a free kick. Because he's a campaigner. But it's not reportable

That's ridiculous. Free kicks should not be paid whether the player is a campaigner or not.