Nash on Miers

[lordbob]

He's allowed to tackle, striking isn't allowed. It doesn't matter if he was aiming for the chest and he hit him in the head. He still threw the arm bar so it's irrelevant.

The force he did it meant he could have been charged for a body hit had winded him for instance.

I have never heard of an arm swung into a body, that didnt connect with the fist/hand first, being called a strike. its called a tackle to most people. If you want to get technical though, the initial impact of all tackles is a strike.

 

[CakeEater]

Wow managed to open a thread about an incident in a Geelong Hawthorn game with #VICBIAS.

I suggest therapy for you.

Legit question here- can you understand my cynicism about the potential of Nash getting less than 3 weeks for a worse incident than one that got 3 weeks just last week

 

[Purple Suit]

Wow managed to open a thread about an incident in a Geelong Hawthorn game with #VICBIAS.

I suggest therapy for you.

Yep,
He forgot that the Big Vic Hawks player struck the biggest Vic behind the scenes club in the land in Geelong. He's also a no-name player so the book is about to be thrown.

I have never heard of an arm swung into a body, that didnt connect with the fist/hand first, being called a strike. its called a tackle to most people. If you want to get technical though, the initial impact of all tackles is a strike.

You need to watch some tackles. They don't start with a one arm roundhouse from 1m away.

 

[kickazz]

They could have just announced that last night

Didn't want to have to pay Michael Christian penalty rates.

 

[hawkman]

Didn't want to have to pay Michael Christian penalty rates.

Given he would have been reviewing Sunday's game anyway, it actually would have saved him some time

 

[Maddo11]

Graded as Careless High Severe, as expected.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

To me it looked like he was trying to get arm across/body check, take the running path. Tbh just watched the footage again and it didn't look like he was looking directly at Miers more so could see a cats player in his peripherals and threw his arm out.

What he did was dangerous and reckless and careless but not intentional. it shouldn't matter anyway he will get weeks for it. Glad to hear Miers is okay.

I like Nash, and I want to believe this wasn't intentional, but his arm was never aligned with a body hit to begin with. I think they'll grade it reckless, but I also think that's incorrect.

 

[lordbob]

I like Nash, and I want to believe this wasn't intentional, but his arm was never aligned with a body hit to begin with. I think they'll grade it reckless, but I also think that's incorrect.

careless. they removed the reckless option a couple years back i think

 

[CatToTheFuture]

careless. they removed the reckless option a couple years back i think

Yeah, whatever the opposite of intentional is. It's not unexpected but I still think it's incorrect.

 

[HeHateMe]

I like Nash, and I want to believe this wasn't intentional, but his arm was never aligned with a body hit to begin with. I think they'll grade it reckless, but I also think that's incorrect.

Your right it wasn't, the ball spills off the markings contest and the players are scrambling for position he throws out the arm without really looking, very stupid thing for him to do.

 

[The 747]

Legit question here- can you understand my cynicism about the potential of Nash getting less than 3 weeks for a worse incident than one that got 3 weeks just last week

No idea what the incident was last week but since you mentioned it I am sure it was #VICBIAS!

 

[CakeEater]

No idea what the incident was last week but since you mentioned it I am sure it was #VICBIAS!

Is this worse than Nashs?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Is this worse than Nashs?

God if that's 3 weeks then Nash should be facing assault charges

 

[HeHateMe]

It's equally as stupid

 

[cryptor]

Not really.

He 'intentionally' threw a roundarm at an opposition player.
He could have tackled.

Did he intend to knock him out, unlikely, but he did through his 'conduct', which was intentional.

What on earth was he doing then. And if you say trying to knock the ball out of his hands then your take will also be a brain dead take…

What was his intention?

Was always going to be graded careless. Delusional to think otherwise.

 

[kickazz]

Careless is a zealous tackle that leaves an opponent vulnerable when hitting the ground, or a reasonably intentioned bump that goes too high.

This was deliberate. Not punch in the face deliberate, but it was intentional. I can't see what other intention there was than giving him a whack. Sure, he didn't mean it to connect so well but a whack is a whack.

Anyway. If it's any less than four weeks, then the AFL will be sending a real message, one contradictory to their rhetoric of the last few years.


So I think it will be four. Five not out of the question, I recon 4 + 1 suspended would be right but they don't do that sort of thing any more.

 

[Back Pocket Rocket]

Reckon he gets 4 and deservedly so.

 

[kickazz]

Is this worse than Nashs?

Was that really three? Geez.

Good example of careless or reckless, but 3?

 

[kickazz]

Was always going to be graded careless. Delusional to think otherwise.

I don't think any prediction of what the MRP do can be called delusional, like honestly no one really knows what they'll do half the time

 

[HeHateMe]

Careless is a zealous tackle that leaves an opponent vulnerable when hitting the ground, or a reasonably intentioned bump that goes too high.

This was deliberate. Not punch in the face deliberate, but it was intentional. I can't see what other intention there was than giving him a whack. Sure, he didn't mean it to connect so well but a whack is a whack.

Anyway. If it's any less than four weeks, then the AFL will be sending a real message, one contradictory to their rhetoric of the last few years.


So I think it will be four. Five not out of the question, I recon 4 + 1 suspended would be right but they don't do that sort of thing any more.

I think the problem is the system is to ridged doesn't allow for all the grey that's in these incidents.

Careless by definition does fit but can understand your frustrations around a careless tackle vs a careless strike one is clearly worse than the other but the system doesn't take it into account.

 

[Gaborone]

Nash's hit was at a ball flying around in a pack. Careless? Yes. Intentional no. Smith's slap of the ball in Impey's face was deliberate. The AFL has got its priorities wrong. Smith should be suspended, not fined.

 

[kickazz]

I think the problem is the system is to ridged doesn't allow for all the grey that's in these incidents.

Careless by definition does fit but can understand your frustrations around a careless tackle vs a careless strike one is clearly worse than the other but the system doesn't take it into account.

Getting rid of the reckless classification was not the best move.

Call this one reckless and there wouldn't be much argument.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

How many for Atkins dropping the knee on the back of Newcombe's head?

Chrisso says nothing in it. Understandably so.

 

[HeHateMe]

Getting rid of the reckless classification was not the best move.

Call this one reckless and there wouldn't be much argument.

I'd take it further and have classifications for different acts like tackle, strike, bump ect...

 

[kickazz]

Recon Smith would definitely cop a week if he threw it a bit harder, it was a pretty soft shove so maybe they thought a week is too much.

Though I do remember Buckley getting a week for wiping blood on an opponent.