News Lindsay Thomas - Eastern Park Senior Coach

[manureid]

What AFL player intentionally hits someone in the head knowing what the outcome of that will be? None.

 

[Ateen7tee]

Yep, it's a bleak outcome predicted.
Not less than 4; not more than 6, I suspect.
Running past the footy to execute the hit - that's a problem.

No it's not. Perfectly legal if ball within 5.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

If you watch between 0.37 and 0.42 of the embedded video, watch the blonde haired lady in the background react. apparently she is an AFL official.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/vi...e/news-story/34e38a03e5ff2c85bb525d1a0fb0550a

Like turning away just a moment too late in a horror film. I didn't see that!

 

[Ford Fairlane]

If we are going to court over SPP anyway, might as well go for the QC bulk discount if LT gets more than 3.

 

[just_kick_it]

I would also suggest that where a player has been reported on the field, the official media should be stopped from editorialising on the incident. The blatant lobbying for a penalty in this case has been disgusting.

I thought it used to be the case that they couldnt show replays of incidents like this, that were on-field reports, until the matter was delt with by the tribunal. Thats obviously not the case anymore though.

Also on Duck and Browny, thank you! Probably the first sensible thing Ive heard come out of the Duck's beak for a long time.

To Mr Ling,

GAGF you ugly redheaded, dopey ****ing campaigner

Yours sincerly,
JKI

 

[Peck]

You can’t change the ****ing grading because of potential, wtf. That is just completely stupid.

Should be careless, high contact, medium severity.

He clearly lined up a prone Selwood, expecting him to stand up and go for the tackle instead of trying to dive on the ball and went in as low as he could. Selwood literally dives into the contact trying to go for the ball, which Thomas couldn’t have predicted as he would expect Selwood to predict the bump.

In retrospect he should have just picked up the ball and run off, but Selwood would have had the opportunity to tackle him if he hadn’t dived pointlessly at the ball.

Lindsay did the same exact bump 3 or 4 times throughout the game, so I’d even cop an intentional grading but he clearly has instincts from 5-10 years ago. The labelling of it as a dog act from Ling makes me absolutely sick, particularly when everyone can recall his sycophantic defence of Hodge years earlier. Maybe emotion got the better of him, but he has had the opportunity to apologise and hasn’t.

Think it’s fair to call a spade a spade here. Ling is a racist, and should be called as much forever.

 

[Chewy316]

Quite amazing Hocking can say Thomas deliberately went to hit Selwood in the head. It's shit comments like this which puts me off continuing to invest my time in this corrupt organisation that is the (A)VFL.

 

[bomberclifford]

I must have biases I'm not even aware of.

I've seen that vision many times since Saturday night and I still can't see what the angst is about. He got low, he was in the act of stopping his motion, thereby reducing the impact, the initial hit was arm on arm and at this point he turns his attention to where the ball is.

The hysteria over this as a "dog act" and calling LT a "sniper" seems so out of place to me.

 

[MrMeaner]

I must have biases I'm not even aware of.

I've seen that vision many times since Saturday night and I still can't see what the angst is about. He got low, he was in the act of stopping his motion, thereby reducing the impact, the initial hit was arm on arm and at this point he turns his attention to where the ball is.

The hysteria over this as a "dog act" and calling LT a "sniper" seems so out of place to me.

Yeah. I have the same feeling about it. As I said earlier, I am satisfied that the bump deserves games on the basis of today's rules. But the overreaction is ridiculous. There is one particular article that suggests that incidents that carried no penalty at the time should be taken into account (along with the reaction of the official on the bench) in the charge. It's ****ing mad, particularly in the same week as the Burton bump.

 

[finbarr]

What AFL player intentionally hits someone in the head knowing what the outcome of that will be? None.

 

[manureid]

But did he get done for deliberate hit to the head? (I don't actually know, that is the question), or was it careless or some such thing?

 

[1954]

Paranoid maybe , but I would love to be as sure of winning x-lotto as I am that Thomas will get at least one more match than he would normally because the club dared to question the AFL's Integrity committee ( or whatever it is those campaigners call themselves) over the f****** Blue Hills saga the ongoing SPP situation is fast becoming.

I'm with those who have suggested we play the `race card,' if we do that Gill would be the first one to crap his Bombay bloomers.

 

[Peck]

I must have biases I'm not even aware of.

I've seen that vision many times since Saturday night and I still can't see what the angst is about. He got low, he was in the act of stopping his motion, thereby reducing the impact, the initial hit was arm on arm and at this point he turns his attention to where the ball is.

The hysteria over this as a "dog act" and calling LT a "sniper" seems so out of place to me.

It’s because Ling is a racist campaigner.

 

[bomberclifford]

This reminds me... what happened to the Geelong player that gave Neade a coathanger on the eastern wing on Sat night?
Didn't that used to be a reportable offence?

 

[just_kick_it]

This reminds me... what happened to the Geelong player that gave Neade a coathanger on the eastern wing on Sat night?
Didn't that used to be a reportable offence?

I was just thinking this myself. I think it was Rhys Stanley I could be wrong though. Talk about a dog act hey Lingy

 

[charcolechaddy]

Yep, it's a bleak outcome predicted.
Not less than 4; not more than 6, I suspect.
Running past the footy to execute the hit - that's a problem.

He will get 5/6 , Selwood will get of and sically will get 1 because Hawthorn

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Yeah. I have the same feeling about it. As I said earlier, I am satisfied that the bump deserves games on the basis of today's rules. But the overreaction is ridiculous. There is one particular article that suggests that incidents that carried no penalty at the time should be taken into account (along with the reaction of the official on the bench) in the charge. It's ******* mad, particularly in the same week as the Burton bump.

It's like journos are trying to second-guess every possible reaction they might see on social media to cover themselves.

 

[Coobk001]

I'll have another look.

Yeah I'm with you, those angles don't show any definitive head contact, there may be a tiny smidgeon of head contact, but unlike the Douglas one where there was a clear head to shoulder and then the head bounced away, there is zero reaction from Selwoods head, indicating that it really wasn't hit.

I also can't remember Selwood bleeding from the face, which would also indicate light contact if any.

So I think it is possible that some part of the shoulder connected with the head, but it would've barely been a touch. The concussion almost certainly came from the impact with the ground, or the sheer whiplash effect. And when you look at that video it looks like his body is really only brought to a halt from the hit to his mid section which brings his body to a halt before it springs backwards.

He's certainly being hung out to dry, because that bump is millimeters off being a fantastic fair bump.

 

[finbarr]

This reminds me... what happened to the Geelong player that gave Neade a coathanger on the eastern wing on Sat night?
Didn't that used to be a reportable offence?

I’d be disappointed if a reflex coahanger that didn’t hurt anyone was made a reportable offence.

More concerning was the coat hanger Neade got 25 out from the northern goal that was waved play on. It was almost like the umpire looked at him and said “look how small you are, what did you expect?”.

 

[Coobk001]

I must have biases I'm not even aware of.

I've seen that vision many times since Saturday night and I still can't see what the angst is about. He got low, he was in the act of stopping his motion, thereby reducing the impact, the initial hit was arm on arm and at this point he turns his attention to where the ball is.

The hysteria over this as a "dog act" and calling LT a "sniper" seems so out of place to me.

Yeah it's definitely not a dog act, IF and only IF he has hit the head, which we aren't certain of, then it is an illegal bump. Otherwise it was a sensational bump.

 

[MrMeaner]

It's like journos are trying to second-guess every possible reaction they might see on social media to cover themselves.

The problem is that the author of that piece is the brother of the often counsel assisting the tribunal. I don't know if he is appearing tonight.

 

[MrMeaner]

More concerning was the coat hanger Neade got 25 out from the northern goal that was waved play on. It was almost like the umpire looked at him and said “look how small you are, what did you expect?”.

That, along with Dangerfield on Westhoff, leading to a free to Dangerfield, are the kinds of things that are...um...perplexing.

 

[TeeKray]

It'll be 4.

Funny to think he would've been better off biting Selwood on the neck, because that only attracts a 3 match suspension apparently.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

It'll be 4.

Funny to think he would've been better off biting Selwood on the neck, because that only attracts a 3 match suspension apparently.

We would probably get done for sexual assault for that.

 

[TeeKray]

The potential to cause serious injury thing is just a load of rubbish. What is defined as a serious injury? What are the actions that can cause these serious injuries and where is the evidence to suggest that they do cause serious injury on anything nearing a regular basis? Total wank if you ask me.