Ginbey/Lalor incident

[Meteoric Rise]

That it's a push in the back, not the 'side' like you've convinced yourself.

Here's 2 later frames.

If you're going to deliberately lie to yourself and everyone else that it was in the 'side', then you need to stop posting in these threads, because you're clearly delusional.

View attachment 2231334
View attachment 2231335

If he is pushing newcombe in the back, why is Newcombe being propelled sideways? The pushing is being done with Hopper's right hand, which is contacting Newcombe's side. This is completely legal when contesting a ground ball.

Newcombe was blocking Hopper's path to the ball, Hopper is entitled to legally shove him out of the way or otherwise try to unbalance or hamper him. The player who ended up as collateral damage, Day, had choices and it was reasonable for him to expect players coming towards him from this direction with force. Lalor had all his choices made for him by Ginbey. Those were bad choices.

That is why Ginbey is Gonebey.

 

[bzparkes]

If he is pushing newcombe in the back, why is Newcombe being propelled sideways? The pushing is being done with Hopper's right hand, which is contacting Newcombe's side. This is completely legal when contesting a ground ball.

Newcombe was blocking Hopper's path to the ball, Hopper is entitled to legally shove him out of the way or otherwise try to unbalance or hamper him. The player who ended up as collateral damage, Day, had choices and it was reasonable for him to expect players coming towards him from this direction with force. Lalor had all his choices made for him by Ginbey. Those were bad choices.

That is why Ginbey is Gonebey.

His hand is square in his back when he pushes.

perhaps you need an eye check?

Nothing you say is worth even wasting time on if you're going to say it was in the side.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

His hand is square in his back when he pushes.

perhaps you need an eye check?

Nothing you say is worth even wasting time on if you're going to say it was in the side.

Pretty tough to get a free kick for push in the back in footy when you are propelled sideways by that push, lol.

 

[bzparkes]

Pretty tough to get a free kick for push in the back in footy when you are propelled sideways by that push, lol.

Did you learn anatomy in school?

Here's where the push started. Hands directly in the middle of the back.



I get that Richmond supporters have this weird thing where they think the world's out to get them but it's simply untrue, as anyone with eyes and a simple knowledge of anatomy would attest to.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Did you learn anatomy in school?

Here's where the push started. Hands directly in the middle of the back.

View attachment 2231370

I get that Richmond supporters have this weird thing where they think the world's out to get them but it's simply untrue, as anyone with eyes and a simple knowledge of anatomy would attest to.

If he was pushed in the back rather than in the side why was he propelled sideways?

You do realise the human brain is sufficiently articulated that you could place two hands in different positions and choose to press with more force with one of those hands than the other?

 

[Ralll]

A player is not a fence.

As evidence by Hopper pushing Day into a teammate and breaking his collarbone.

No suspension.

I never said a player was a fence...

There is no precedent in AFL.

FWIT I thought Hopper should have been suspended also.

 

[Ralll]

So there are examples of this rule being applied to marking contests? It seems it’s only applied when fences or umpires are involved.

I don't know if there are previous examples.
This whole pushing players into other players and causing injuries seems to be happening more often lately (Hopper on Day) and I would be doing something about it.

 

[Bald]

I don't know if there are previous examples.
This whole pushing players into other players and causing injuries seems to be happening more often lately (Hopper on Day) and I would be doing something about it.

There aren't really any previous examples. There's always something or somebody else involved.

Whether the AFL opts to do something about it or not is another discussion - at the end of the day, there'd be a stronger argument if Lalor was pushed directly into another Richmond player, I just can't imagine Ginbey intended to use his team mate as a battering ram to injure another player, and if ever there was a rule that required some common sense application around intent then it's one where you're punishing players for pushing in a marking contest.

 

[Ralll]

There aren't really any previous examples. There's always something or somebody else involved.

Whether the AFL opts to do something about it or not is another discussion - at the end of the day, there'd be a stronger argument if Lalor was pushed directly into another Richmond player, I just can't imagine Ginbey intended to use his team mate as a battering ram to injure another player, and if ever there was a rule that required some common sense application around intent then it's one where you're punishing players for pushing in a marking contest.

There doesn't need to be any previous examples, there is no mandate to say there has to be previous examples.
This is why they have a catch-all in Misconduct.

 

[Ralll]

No, you are wrong, that's not what I'm saying.
I only need to refer to your quoted interpretation: "generally is any conduct which would be reasonably regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike".

Are you saying that unacceptable or unsportsmanlike conduct can be accidental?
Pushing would happen 100s times in a game. It probably happens 20 times in the centre square before the ball is bounced and another 10 times while players are in motion competing for the ball each centre bounce. The action itself is intentional but it is not unacceptable or unsportsmanlike unless the player has the intent to push a player into a dangerous position.

Both terms in a sporting context, infer there is an element of intent to injure or put the player in a dangerous position. By the way the word is intent- careless, reckless, intentional are all levels of intent in the MRO matrix, it doesn't need to be rated intentional for there to be intent.

As I asked before, do you honestly think Ginbey had ANY intent to cause Lalor to cannon into the back of Brock?

I'll admit, it would not surprise me if the AFL do lean on that rubbery catch all of misconduct to test this out. But I think the clear lack of intent to place the player in a dangerous position but rather push him out of the way to protect his team mate will be enough for a half competent lawyer to clear him if they go down that path.

Careless conduct
A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not
intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the
Player to all other Players.

 

[flyinghi64]

It
Was
A
Marking
Contest.

Ginbey wasn't standing on the kerb alongside Lalor waiting for a car to pass to push him into.

They were jostling for position, Ginbey won the battle of strength and "nudged" Lalor out of the way so he could lean back and take the mark. Unfortunately other players got to the contest causing the collision and marked the ball in front of Ginbey.

 

[kane249]

Sanity prevails

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Common sense, eyes and brains were finally activated down at AFL house.

Guess what? INDICENTAL INJURIES HAPPEN ON A FOOTBALL FEILD

 

[tiger_tough]

ViCb1aS

 

[Bald]

Say it isn't so.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

But but we were told it was a thug act lol

Nothing in it complete footy accident best wishes to Lalor in his recovery

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Nobody would ever be able to tell this decision & blatant incompetence by the MRO apart...because there is no reasoning given.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

AFL tribunal completely failed to meet the moment, is anyone surprised?

Pierik at least called out their cowardice and negligence in the paper

But do you think they will read that article and reflect on their non-action?...I doubt it

 

[bzparkes]

 

[smasha]

Another rule change?
AFL pretty severe on head incidents but this rule changed?

 

[Obeanie1]

If he is pushing newcombe in the back, why is Newcombe being propelled sideways? The pushing is being done with Hopper's right hand, which is contacting Newcombe's side. This is completely legal when contesting a ground ball.

Newcombe was blocking Hopper's path to the ball, Hopper is entitled to legally shove him out of the way or otherwise try to unbalance or hamper him. The player who ended up as collateral damage, Day, had choices and it was reasonable for him to expect players coming towards him from this direction with force. Lalor had all his choices made for him by Ginbey. Those were bad choices.

That is why Ginbey is Gonebey.

Hold on.

Didnt you post in the other thread pushing was illegal and not a football act?

But now you are defending a Richmond player pushing someone?

You seem to be changing your mind based on the colour of the gurnsey.

Wow. How surprising.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Hold on.

Didnt you post in the other thread pushing was illegal and not a football act?

But now you are defending a Richmond player pushing someone?

You seem to be changing your mind based on the colour of the gurnsey.

Wow. How surprising.

If you reckon I said that then quote where I said it so other people can see it. Otherwise, especially with your form of mis-attributing statements to others, nobody is going to believe you.

 

[Obeanie1]

Careless conduct
A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not
intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the
Player to all other Players.

So does that mean now Petracca's perfectly legal bump on McGovern in 2018 that broke his ribs should be suspended?

Where was his Duty of Care in that situation.

Or rhe ruck who took a mark and kneed an opponent in the head concussing them?

That is pretty foreseeable and dangerous. Why is that not a breach of duty of care?

C

 

[Meteoric Rise]

So does that mean now Petracca's perfectly legal bump on McGovern in 2018 that broke his ribs should be suspended?

Where was his Duty of Care in that situation.

Or rhe ruck who took a mark and kneed an opponent in the head concussing them?

That is pretty foreseeable and dangerous. Why is that not a breach of duty of care?

C

Duty of care is further defined as what a reasonable player may think is prudent in the circumstances. It can be assumed that the scenarios you list would be considered prudent by reasonable players because they are within the rules of the game. They are legitimate choices a player has. What Ginbey did is not within the range of choices a reasonable player would consider prudent. It is pretty easy to see this by watching the sport played. You will see loads of legal bumps. Loads of players raising knees in ruck & marking contests. Almost no players choosing to push an opponent running at speed in the back with force into oncoming traffic.

 

[bzparkes]

Duty of care is further defined as what a reasonable player may think is prudent in the circumstances. It can be assumed that the scenarios you list would be considered prudent by reasonable players because they are within the rules of the game. They are legitimate choices a player has. What Ginbey did is not within the range of choices a reasonable player would consider prudent. It is pretty easy to see this by watching the sport played. You will see loads of legal bumps. Loads of players raising knees in ruck & marking contests. Almost no players choosing to push an opponent running at speed in the back with force into oncoming traffic.

You're making the ridiculous assumption Ginbey meant to push his opponent into his vulnerable teammate's back, which is the dumbest thing anyone's theorised about this incident.