Analysis 2017 Non-Crows Discussion Thread - Part V for Vendetta

[adelcrows]

I wonder what Swanny would be if he was not good at footy?



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Prob a comedian lol

 

[footy4ever]

The issue is the AFL ignoring their own rules to get the result they wanted. He clearly went for the bump first to then win the ball.

Shiel misses the rest of the game with concussion.

It should have been a simple decision.

Exactly. It was clearly a minimum of a fine. The ramifications of the effect of Cotchin's third fine should never have been a consideration. It was obviously considered and the result is another AFL orchestrated cluster ****.

 

[subaru]

Quite honestly I saw Sloanes forearm as a defensive action bracing for the collision and not 'armed' to attack Danger.. Also, the arm was at Danger's upper chest and then was higher only after impact and at the 'recoil' of momentum. No case. They got this one right.

Yes
They did
High contact was incidental

 

[subaru]

The issue is the AFL ignoring their own rules to get the result they wanted. He clearly went for the bump first to then win the ball.

Shiel misses the rest of the game with concussion.

It should have been a simple decision.

I don't mean to be a pain in the arse - but isn't he allowed to bump ?

I also get that he had the 2 strikes but again - if this was a Crows player - would you feel the same ?

I certainly think the A F L wriggled out of this. But sitting out a grand final - seriously

I think Bickleys idea of wiping the slate clean end if minor round is a good one.

No player would ever intentionally transgress because they would miss a final.

I also remember one D Jarmans hit on Pickett in the 98 final.
Lined him up and took him out legally - and we all cheered that !

Anyway
Obviously I'm in the minority

Nothing new there !

 

[MarcusP2]

I don't mean to be a pain in the arse - but isn't he allowed to bump ?

I also get that he had the 2 strikes but again - if this was a Crows player - would you feel the same ?

Of course you are. So long as you don't hit them in the head. Just like you are allowed to tackle so long as you don't sling.

 

[subaru]

Of course you are. So long as you don't hit them in the head. Just like you are allowed to tackle so long as you don't sling.

Ok
So from that basis - do you believe Cotchin was bumping to injur
Shiel or take him out of the contest ?

Accidental high contact - there wasn't even a free paid.

 

[Grooster24]

If they are sticking with the current MRP system etc then I think the idea mentioned by Bickley where fines from the regular season should get reset when the finals start, would be good to implement. That would avoid someone missing a GF for a offence which is just a fine (unless they get 3 fines in there finals)

 

[MarcusP2]

If they are sticking with the current MRP system etc then I think the idea mentioned by Bickley where fines from the regular season should get reset when the finals start, would be good to implement. That would avoid someone missing a GF for a offence which is just a fine (unless they get 3 fines in there finals)

Isn't this what they do at soccer cups? Yellow cards reset after the group stage.

 

[MarcusP2]

Ok
So from that basis - do you believe Cotchin was bumping to injur
Shiel or take him out of the contest ?

Accidental high contact - there wasn't even a free paid.

I don't think not having a free paid is relevant.

Intent is captured in the careless or intentional classification.

 

[subaru]

If they are sticking with the current MRP system etc then I think the idea mentioned by Bickley where fines from the regular season should get reset when the finals start, would be good to implement. That would avoid someone missing a GF for a offence which is just a fine (unless they get 3 fines in there finals)

I can just see it would be one of our boys that it happened to.

Rorys suspension last year was equally as bullshittical.

Did anyone see Selwood and Knight going for it last Friday night on the western wing ?

Pretty sure there was a bit of high contact happening there !
If Riley had 2 wanky little fines and then got caught there ... we'd all be livid ! And rightly so !

 

[subaru]

I don't think not having a free paid is relevant.

Intent is captured in the careless or intentional classification.

Sorry ?
It was high contact - wasn't it ?

See my post above

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-09-25/pain-of-prelim-loss-may-keep-danger-from-gf

Good to see the AFL website focusing on the important stories, like whether Dangerfield will be at the GF.

 

[MarcusP2]

Sorry ?
It was high contact - wasn't it ?

See my post above

A free is paid or not paid based on the view of the umpire at the time, which is dependent on a whole host of factors. If someone was dropped behind play with no umpire in sight, and so no free paid, they should get off?

 

[BRL121]

Quite honestly I saw Sloanes forearm as a defensive action bracing for the collision and not 'armed' to attack Danger.. Also, the arm was at Danger's upper chest and then was higher only after impact and at the 'recoil' of momentum. No case. They got this one right.

Agree completely. The words of the MRP are spot-on in this case, although it pains me to cite them.
From the footage I saw, Sloane was effectively stationary and Dangerfield, head down, charged into him with the main
point of contact between Danger's head and Sloane's right shoulder. As you say, Sloane's raised right arm after that was
as a result of the impact and not relevant to anything.

 

[feenix67]

Ok
So from that basis - do you believe Cotchin was bumping to injur
Shiel or take him out of the contest ?

Accidental high contact - there wasn't even a free paid.

if you're saying Cotchin bumped then the rest of your argument falls away.

 

[chazwazza]

Isn't this what they do at soccer cups? Yellow cards reset after the group stage.

Yes.
I think this is a reasonable idea as long as it's just around minor incidents that haven't served suspensions. Maybe cap it at 5-6 warnings/fines, don't think it's fair that a repeat offender of deliberate gut punches gets his slate wiped going into finals. If you're stupid enough to get 5-6 warnings you can't be trusted in finals.

 

[feenix67]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-09-25/pain-of-prelim-loss-may-keep-danger-from-gf

Good to see the AFL website focusing on the important stories, like whether Dangerfield will be at the GF.

Their obsession is becoming unhealthy now.

 

[MatthewB]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-09-25/pain-of-prelim-loss-may-keep-danger-from-gf

Good to see the AFL website focusing on the important stories, like whether Dangerfield will be at the GF.

Danger has to keep himself in the news somehow now that he isnt playing

 

[subaru]

A free is paid or not paid based on the view of the umpire at the time, which is dependent on a whole host of factors. If someone was dropped behind play with no umpire in sight, and so no free paid, they should get off?

Not saying that at all.

I'm saying it was in play - within 5 meters of the ball - he is allowed to bump. The umpire saw nothing wrong with it at the time.


How would you feel if Knighter got cited for his behind play scuffle and he had carry over points?

 

[subaru]

Danger has to keep himself in the news somehow now that he isnt playing

"I shot (ex-Adelaide teammates) a text earlier in the week, but they've got a game to focus on, so I'll let them focus on that, because there are some pretty special stories."

I'm sure they appreciated it

 

[subaru]

Yes.
I think this is a reasonable idea as long as it's just around minor incidents that haven't served suspensions. Maybe cap it at 5-6 warnings/fines, don't think it's fair that a repeat offender of deliberate gut punches gets his slate wiped going into finals. If you're stupid enough to get 5-6 warnings you can't be trusted in finals.

True
And if you're stupid enough to get reported for something that gets matches, then yes , you deserve to miss.

 

[subaru]

if you're saying Cotchin bumped then the rest of your argument falls away.

He's allowed to bump

And initially the contact seemed to be Shiels shoulder that was causing him the problem
It's a thing of centimeters at full throttle

 

[MarcusP2]

He's allowed to bump

Not in the head. I'm not sure why this is complicated.

 

[dogs105]

He's allowed to bump

And if you choose to bump and make contact with the head, there will be consequences.

Except in Grand Final week

 

[subaru]

Not in the head. I'm not sure why this is complicated.

Then why no free
It was always going to be a penalty that copped a fine - except for his record ( which having seen those incidents were pretty soft) - I am astounded people think he should have been suspended.



Sloane hit Dangers head.


Knighter went at Selwood's everything !

For once , finally , the MRP show common sense and we're all way wahing it!

Not one of you have said what if it was one of our players ?