Remove this Banner Ad

Toast Round 12 = Collingwood 107-56 Hawthorn

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Mark W said:
and just to add to this. I watched the replay of the first 3 quarters last night. Hawthorn kicked 8 goals to 3/4 time; 4 of those goals were kicked when Frampton (and Chol) were rucking. When you consider that they only rucked 5-7 minutes a quarter thats pretty significant. To spell it out they kicked 4 in the 15-20 minutes that Frampton rucked and in the 60 minutes that Cameron rucked they kicked 4....

OF the 6 centre square bounces Chol and Frampton contested. The Hawks won 4, we won 1 and there was 1 draw...

The one we won the Hawks won first possession and were streaming forward but we intercepted and turned it over before it left the centre square. On the draw, there were two secondary ball ups before Billy was sent back to defence and Ned Long took over. We won the clearance after that

Now of course in this game it didnt matter we smashed em, and you could argue that one of the reasons we smashed em is cause we had an efficent and mobile forward line that wasnt clogged up by lumbering Coxy (we lose in the centre square but gain in attack, I get that)...But if its a tight finals game against a worthy opponent, Im not sure I want a strategy where we concede centre clearances so easily whenever our second ruck is playing.
Click to expand...
It was painful to watch for sure. Also a huge worry moving forward.
 
Doc1763 said:
on Fox Footy after the game, Bux was saying he'd get off or get 1 at the most. he was right.
Click to expand...
It deserved a week. The process at the moment only allows for 0 or 3
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

jmac70 said:
It deserved a week. The process at the moment only allows for 0 or 3
Click to expand...
Why did it deserve a week? I think that would be a pretty slippery slope in terms of what kind of actions we're trying to forbid vs preserve. A 50m penalty, resounding jeering from the crowd and Schultz going aggro was sufficient in my view
 
gouki88 said:
Is it a huge worry moving forward? I don't anticipate Frampton to ruck much for the rest of the season, if at all with McStay returning imminently
Click to expand...
No hopefully not but with Coxy in serious decline there’s a hole as 2nd ruck/forward combo. Members coming into the club and allowing big Dan to play that role is our only viable option now.
 
gouki88 said:
Why did it deserve a week? I think that would be a pretty slippery slope in terms of what kind of actions we're trying to forbid vs preserve. A 50m penalty, resounding jeering from the crowd and Schultz going aggro was sufficient in my view
Click to expand...
Because he was concussed.
 
jimmy35 said:
No hopefully not but with Coxy in serious decline there’s a hole as 2nd ruck/forward combo. Members coming into the club and allowing big Dan to play that role is our only viable option now.
Click to expand...
I think we'll figure it out. 2nd ruck doesn't seem to be a particularly critical role, and once we tidied up aerially in general against Hawthorn in the 2nd half it didn't matter
 
jmac70 said:
Because he was concussed.
Click to expand...
Yes... and? It's a violent contact sport, accidents and split-second decisions/instinctive reactions have these kind of consequences. The concussive impact seemed to be from his head hitting the turf hard. I don't think we need to outlaw that kind of action any more than it already is.

I would support exploring red card/sin bin type punishments maybe.
 
gouki88 said:
Yes... and? It's a violent contact sport, accidents and split-second decisions/instinctive reactions have these kind of consequences. The concussive impact seemed to be from his head hitting the turf hard. I don't think we need to outlaw that kind of action any more than it already is.

I would support exploring red card/sin bin type punishments maybe.
Click to expand...
His head hit the turf hard because Meek hit him with force late.
 
gouki88 said:
I am completely aware of that. This isn't a very compelling argument for suspending someone for a very typical football act.
Click to expand...
Meek made high contact to Lipinski’s head. A concussion resulted.
That’s a suspension.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

gouki88 said:
Except for the fact that it, rightfully, was not.
Click to expand...
I understand that under the current interpretation it’s not a suspension. I’m saying that the interpretation should be changed.

If a player breaks the rules and causes a concussion they should be suspended.
 
Mark W said:
and just to add to this. I watched the replay of the first 3 quarters last night. Hawthorn kicked 8 goals to 3/4 time; 4 of those goals were kicked when Frampton (and Chol) were rucking. When you consider that they only rucked 5-7 minutes a quarter thats pretty significant. To spell it out they kicked 4 in the 15-20 minutes that Frampton rucked and in the 60 minutes that Cameron rucked they kicked 4....

OF the 6 centre square bounces Chol and Frampton contested. The Hawks won 4, we won 1 and there was 1 draw...

The one we won the Hawks won first possession and were streaming forward but we intercepted and turned it over before it left the centre square. On the draw, there were two secondary ball ups before Billy was sent back to defence and Ned Long took over. We won the clearance after that

Now of course in this game it didnt matter we smashed em, and you could argue that one of the reasons we smashed em is cause we had an efficent and mobile forward line that wasnt clogged up by lumbering Coxy (we lose in the centre square but gain in attack, I get that)...But if its a tight finals game against a worthy opponent, Im not sure I want a strategy where we concede centre clearances so easily whenever our second ruck is playing.
Click to expand...
Hopefully McStay provides the solution we are looking for. Maybe need to keep him thresh through the game.
 
jmac70 said:
Meek made high contact to Lipinski’s head. A concussion resulted.
That’s a suspension.
Click to expand...

He didn’t really hit him directly in the head. Grazed his head at most.

Lippa’s head hit the turf, which would be where the concussion happened.

Either way, he made contact with a late spoil which resulted in a concussion. He should have been suspended
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Cousin of Daicos said:
He didn’t really hit him directly in the head. Grazed his head at most.

Lippa’s head hit the turf, which would be where the concussion happened.

Either way, he made contact with a late spoil which resulted in a concussion. He should have been suspended
Click to expand...
Not that I agree with it, but isn’t that exactly what they were meant to be changing the rules to when they lost their minds over the Maynard/Brayshaw incident?

I was under the impression that if a chosen action that results in illegal high contact happens then the player is responsible for the outcome, football action or not.
 
I think it would be worth referring all concussion related incidents straight to the tribunal, rather than meting out set penalties graded on the various factors.
Each incident has different aspects to it.
The Meek one seemed to be all (three games) or nothing, whereas a specific penalty for it might have been more appropriate, say 1 week.
It was a football action, but there was still an element of carelessness to it, like the Lobb one on Cox.
 
Apex36 said:
Not that I agree with it, but isn’t that exactly what they were meant to be changing the rules to when they lost their minds over the Maynard/Brayshaw incident?

I was under the impression that if a chosen action that results in illegal high contact happens then the player is responsible for the outcome, football action or not.
Click to expand...
The AFL changed the wording to the rule slightly and made out publicly like it was to deal with the Brayshaw thing, but I reckon the rule stayed the same (in effect) even with the new wording. I said as much at the time if anyone can be bothered finding the thread.

The wording changes were all done to make it look like they were doing something imho to stop the Melbourne bleating.
 
Apex36 said:
Not that I agree with it, but isn’t that exactly what they were meant to be changing the rules to when they lost their minds over the Maynard/Brayshaw incident?

I was under the impression that if a chosen action that results in illegal high contact happens then the player is responsible for the outcome, football action or not.
Click to expand...
Was there high contact in the incident?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Toast Round 12 = Collingwood 107-56 Hawthorn

Similar threads

TradeDraft
Player Watch Welcome to Collingwood Tyan Prindable
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
181
Views
13K
Daicos Torpedo
Daicos Torpedo

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top