Abblet high contact again

[stax on the mull]

Don't think there's any intent to cause injury in Ablett's jump at the player. Even though what he does looks like a silly show of bravado he was coming in from the side and his leading arm is across his body, not coming through with momentum and its his wrists that make the initial contact to the shoulder chest area. Pay a free kick downfield and 50m (if that behind the play rule is still in effect).

Fyfe's looks a little more dangerous, but the contact starts with the forearm on the Lynch's shoulder, slides up and contacts Lynch's head (looks more like neck) as Lynch is turning it away. He's about to go in for the ball, reaching to tap it forward with his left hand and then puts that same arm up to protect himself from the kind of head on head contact he had 5 weeks earlier.

You can freeze frame both incidents and show at a particular point that the forearm is in contact with the head, but in both examples that point of contact is during the untangling motion when the players are separating.

There's always a potential of more serious injury because the elbow is part of the arm, and when the arm is raised the elbow is raised, but people saying elbow to the head are way off the mark, and the fact that both opponents got up straight away and unscathed is evidence of that.

The MRO officer has correctly judged them both as being insufficient force.

 

[Sttew]

Different argument there old son. People will remember, but it will not define him like Judd.

Well then, sadly, you will be remembering the majority of AFL players for the wrong reasons

 

[randyzany]

^

I'm fairly certain that I posted a comment around this time. So it now looks like it's poor Baird who's being mocked for supposedly being 'drunk'. Some overzealous mod obviously doesn't like the content of my posts and routinely deletes them. I know that BF is not a democracy but nothing I've written compares to the constant abusive language GAJ cops (i.e. thug) from other posters, so it's kinda weird that my posts are targeted.

Anyway I still maintain that are large part of the reason Gaz is copping all this flak is due to the club he plays for. People need their eyes checked if they deny the initial contact between Ablett and the North player was in his chest and the force of the impact inadvertently flicked Gaza's forearms into the North player's face. All GAJ was attempting to do was to block and stop him from receiving the ball back further afield, not chop his head off in an act of thuggery.

There was nothing malicious about it or else the North player would not have got up so quickly after the collision. But jealousy fueled people can convince themselves of seeing whatever it is that they want to believe they saw. It's pointless trying to impartially describe what actually happened with individuals who are hell bent on besmirching the name of a great just because he plays for a well run club.

 

[BG32]

I'm fairly certain that I posted a comment around this time. So it now looks like it's poor Baird who's being mocked for supposedly being 'drunk'. Some overzealous mod obviously doesn't like the content of my posts and routinely deletes them. I know that BF is not a democracy but nothing I've written compares to the constant abusive language GAJ cops (i.e. thug) from other posters, so it's kinda weird that my posts are targeted.

Anyway I still maintain that are large part of the reason Gaz is copping all this flak is due to the club he plays for. People need their eyes checked if they deny the initial contact between Ablett and the North player was in his chest and the force of the impact inadvertently flicked Gaza's forearms into the North player's face. All GAJ was attempting to do was to block and stop him from receiving the ball back further afield, not chop his head off in an act of thuggery.

There was nothing malicious about it or else the North player would not have got up so quickly after the collision. But jealousy fueled people can convince themselves of seeing whatever it is that they want to believe they saw. It's pointless trying to impartially describe what actually happened with individuals who are hell bent on besmirching the name of a great just because he plays for a well run club.

LOL it did get deleted. WTF didnt know this place did censorship.

 

[Xtreme]

I'm fairly certain that I posted a comment around this time. So it now looks like it's poor Baird who's being mocked for supposedly being 'drunk'. Some overzealous mod obviously doesn't like the content of my posts and routinely deletes them. I know that BF is not a democracy but nothing I've written compares to the constant abusive language GAJ cops (i.e. thug) from other posters, so it's kinda weird that my posts are targeted.

Anyway I still maintain that are large part of the reason Gaz is copping all this flak is due to the club he plays for. People need their eyes checked if they deny the initial contact between Ablett and the North player was in his chest and the force of the impact inadvertently flicked Gaza's forearms into the North player's face. All GAJ was attempting to do was to block and stop him from receiving the ball back further afield, not chop his head off in an act of thuggery.

There was nothing malicious about it or else the North player would not have got up so quickly after the collision. But jealousy fueled people can convince themselves of seeing whatever it is that they want to believe they saw. It's pointless trying to impartially describe what actually happened with individuals who are hell bent on besmirching the name of a great just because he plays for a well run club.

If he does another head high hit this week, they shouldn't send him to the tribunal, they should send him to anger management classes!

 

[Kavliaris69]

Oh my aching sides- the irony - Luke ‘Elbows’ Hodgey.

What irony? Hodge would have got 2 weeks for that so what’s ur point? Oh I see, Ablett can’t be criticised lest Geelong fans have a sook.

 

[Kavliaris69]

I'm fairly certain that I posted a comment around this time. So it now looks like it's poor Baird who's being mocked for supposedly being 'drunk'. Some overzealous mod obviously doesn't like the content of my posts and routinely deletes them. I know that BF is not a democracy but nothing I've written compares to the constant abusive language GAJ cops (i.e. thug) from other posters, so it's kinda weird that my posts are targeted.

Anyway I still maintain that are large part of the reason Gaz is copping all this flak is due to the club he plays for. People need their eyes checked if they deny the initial contact between Ablett and the North player was in his chest and the force of the impact inadvertently flicked Gaza's forearms into the North player's face. All GAJ was attempting to do was to block and stop him from receiving the ball back further afield, not chop his head off in an act of thuggery.

There was nothing malicious about it or else the North player would not have got up so quickly after the collision. But jealousy fueled people can convince themselves of seeing whatever it is that they want to believe they saw. It's pointless trying to impartially describe what actually happened with individuals who are hell bent on besmirching the name of a great just because he plays for a well run club.

Too funny. I guess you would have been ok if someone tried to take Abblets head off then? Would u have defended the other player if it was the other way around?

 

[Thornton Melon]

LOL it did get deleted. WTF didnt know this place did censorship.

Lots of self-important mods on BF. They know what’s best for us.

 

[romeohwho]

What irony? Hodge would have got 2 weeks for that so what’s ur point? Oh I see, Ablett can’t be criticised lest Geelong fans have a sook.

Nope, Hodge would have been given the same outcome- careless/insufficient force - correct calls.

 

[theyellowsash]

Apparently ablett is unhappy at being called a sniper. I wonder if he cares as much about how gay people feel when he calls them evil sinners deserving eternal torture.

 

[Hubnester]

Apparently ablett is unhappy at being called a sniper. I wonder if he cares as much about how gay people feel when he calls them evil sinners deserving eternal torture.

[IMG='width:467px;']https://i.imgur.com/EuNVpk0.jpg[/IMG]

 

[Captivating]

Apparently ablett is unhappy at being called a sniper. I wonder if he cares as much about how gay people feel when he calls them evil sinners deserving eternal torture.

Wonder if Ablett was a guest speaker at an IDAHOBIT event today.

 

[deltablues]

Apparently ablett is unhappy at being called a sniper. I wonder if he cares as much about how gay people feel when he calls them evil sinners deserving eternal torture.

Awesome deflection bud.

But seeing you raised it, Ablett quotes the Bible, as did Folau. And the Q'ran says the same thing about pederasts.

Were Ablett a Muslim or Aboriginal player would you be so cavalier in your ignorant trashing of religious beliefs? Or are you just going after easy low-hanging fruit?

PS 'bigot' - a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.

 

[theyellowsash]

Awesome deflection bud.

But seeing you raised it, Ablett quotes the Bible, as did Folau. And the Q'ran says the same thing about pederasts.

Were Ablett a Muslim or Aboriginal player would you be so cavalier in your ignorant trashing of religious beliefs? Or are you just going after easy low-hanging fruit?

PS 'bigot' - a person who has strong, unreasonable ideas, esp. about race or religion, and who thinks anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong.

Lol. Gays have been persecuted for centuries but it's the campaigner perpetrating that persecution we should feel sorry for. You're part of the problem and it's a shame you get to vote tomorrow.

 

[Whiskers]

Too funny. I guess you would have been ok if someone tried to take Abblets head off then? Would u have defended the other player if it was the other way around?

I know you weren’t quoting me but YES. There are far too many suspensions for acts undeserving of them for the most minor, incidental football accidents.
Eg Durdin or Mason Cox Rd 1 or a NicNat tackle (amazing how many more people defended him over Danger who tackled an opposition ruck. Still I defended NicNat hard even after Danger got suspended.

You say if someone decides to take Ablett’s head off.
Wtf you on about? That is a huge overreaction, if you honestly think that’s what Ablett tries to do than you need help.

If someone actually tries to take Ablett’s head off than yes I’ll call for a suspension. If someone simply collects Ablett high... I will not.

 

[Kavliaris69]

I know you weren’t quoting me but YES. There are far too many suspensions for acts undeserving of them for the most minor, incidental football accidents.
Eg Durdin or Mason Cox Rd 1 or a NicNat tackle (amazing how many more people defended him over Danger who tackled an opposition ruck. Still I defended NicNat hard even after Danger got suspended.

You say if someone decides to take Ablett’s head off.
Wtf you on about? That is a huge overreaction, if you honestly think that’s what Ablett tries to do than you need help.

If someone actually tries to take Ablett’s head off than yes I’ll call for a suspension. If someone simply collects Ablett high... I will not.

Ablett has plenty of time to NOT hit him high in the head with feet off the ground. Player got rid of the ball with plenty of time to spare. Lucky he didn’t break his jaw. Twice in 2 weeks.

And don’t give me the same crap that due to his size that was his technique to stop him. He could have just hip/shouldered and move on.

Not an over reaction at all so take off the GAJ glasses.

 

[Kavliaris69]

Nope, Hodge would have been given the same outcome- careless/insufficient force - correct calls.

That wasn’t careless. It was deliberate and reckless. Lucky he didn’t break a jaw.

 

[romeohwho]

That wasn’t careless. It was deliberate and reckless. Lucky he didn’t break a jaw.

Well, the tribunal deemed it to be careless and they, unlike you, have got it right-it’s very easy to throw hyped up words around, but if you look at the Shiel incident properly, the careless is a reasonable call. Moving on.

 

[ltchyba11s]

Cats fans will tell you he was trying to smother a looping handball and his old age meant his reactions are a bit slower these days.

Cats fans are full of it too.

 

[ltchyba11s]

That wasn’t careless. It was deliberate and reckless. Lucky he didn’t break a jaw.

What about Martin? Careless because initial contact was made with the upper arm and DeBoers reaction lifted Martins forearm up which contributed to the head high contact. DeBoer felt NO pain so contact was minimal. These are DeBoers own admissions and Martin still initially got two weeks. Yet some 'people' profess that Martin is looked after, and they condone what Ablett, Cox and Dangerfield did. Where do they get their brains? And when will they begin to see the inconsistency and incompetence of the AFL?

 

[Kavliaris69]

Well, the tribunal deemed it to be careless and they, unlike you, have got it right-it’s very easy to throw hyped up words around, but if you look at the Shiel incident properly, the careless is a reasonable call. Moving on.

If that help u sleep better then good luck to you.

 

[deltablues]

Lol. Gays have been persecuted for centuries but it's the campaigner perpetrating that persecution we should feel sorry for. You're part of the problem and it's a shame you get to vote tomorrow.

Bud, if there's any "problem", it's your regrettable inability to comprehend plain English..

You've missed my point entirely.

And just FYI, I am not in favor of homosexuals being persecuted - I don't care what folk do behind closed doors.

PS I am an American - so don't fret about me voting in Oz.

 

[BF Tiger]

Bud, if there's any "problem", it's your regrettable inability to comprehend plain English..

You've missed my point entirely.

And just FYI, I am not in favor of homosexuals being persecuted - I don't care what folk do behind closed doors.

PS I am an American - so don't fret about me voting in Oz.

Even worse... we have to fret about you voting in the US.

 

[theyellowsash]

Bud, if there's any "problem", it's your regrettable inability to comprehend plain English..

You've missed my point entirely.

And just FYI, I am not in favor of homosexuals being persecuted - I don't care what folk do behind closed doors.

PS I am an American - so don't fret about me voting in Oz.

Leave it to an American to proclaim that freedom of speech means you're allowed to go around spouting hateful crap in the name of religion, and that to speak out against it is an oppression of freedom of speech and religion.

Except when it comes to Muslims. Utter the word hejab and it's time for pitchforks.

 

[deltablues]

[QUOTE="theyellowsash, post: 60927556, member: 74768"]Leave it to an American to proclaim that freedom of speech means you're allowed to go around spouting hateful crap in the name of religion, and that to speak out against it is an oppression of freedom of speech and religion.

Except when it comes to Muslims. Utter the word hejab and it's time for pitchforks.[/QUOTE]

Bud, you have no clue.

Back in the day I was posted for a total of 14 years to various Muslim countries in the Gulf and North Africa. Learned Arabic, liked the stoical sense of humor, and mixed comfortably with the locals in business, socially and in the souqs. Felt safer in e.g. Kuwait City than NYC.

Re the hijab, the Q'ran requires women to dress modestly. It does not specifically require women to cover their hair. I lived for 3 years in Libya, pre-Ghadaffi murder, where the locals wore jeans/Western dress, and none of the women covered their hair.

And freedom of speech does indeed allow you to spout "hateful crap". Who decides what is "hateful"? You?

It is the difference between the Anglo-Saxon concept of freedom of speech as per John Stuart Mill (i.e. you can test opposing ideas, and mock, expose and refute them, but not use the law to asphyxiate debate, because in the silence that follows a dreadful conformism would set in - aka PC speech), and the American legal philosopher Joel Feinburg's "offense principle" - which espouses that the law [i.e. Big Brother government] should stop freedom of speech which causes/is likely to cause offense.

The latter is a hallmark of totalitarianism. And breeds glass-jawed snowflakes who have been indoctrinated and have never been taught how to debate issues objectively.