Last week we have a Caddyshank, is this a Caddywhack?
How many weeks for Caddy?
- Thread starter 1990crow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
He’ll get none and rightly so. Players rarely go for trying to get the ball.
id love him to get suspended , but even with a biased POV, he gets off with nothing
if he was a lil bit later then maybe
if he was a lil bit later then maybe
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,413
- 118,001
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
I think thats now changed.
I can agree he may have had the ball as his intention, but so much these days is
1. Protect the head
2. The consequence of the action
Based on Mackay going off , possibly concussed, I can see a game being offered at best.
Equus
????????????
Banned for life.
Doss
Ass
- Aug 1, 2011
- 75,214
- 112,305
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I suspect he was going for the ball and for that reason I don't think he should be suspended. Or put it this way, I don't think you can be sufficiently sure that he wasn't going for the ball to be able to suspend him.
He clearly tried to get the ball, but then followed through with a lot of force, late.
You don’t need to do that to block the ball.
Interesting if they call it striking or not, probably not given the open hand, which might bring it down to 1.
Comparisons with Douglas are ridiculous. If u bump when u have other options, and get the head, you get suspended. Douglas lucky it was 1 given the concussion (even though it looked a ripper bump at full speed and some slow-mo angles)
You don’t need to do that to block the ball.
Interesting if they call it striking or not, probably not given the open hand, which might bring it down to 1.
Comparisons with Douglas are ridiculous. If u bump when u have other options, and get the head, you get suspended. Douglas lucky it was 1 given the concussion (even though it looked a ripper bump at full speed and some slow-mo angles)
- Moderator
- #35
doesn't matter he was going for the ball, too late too much force, concussed the other player.
duty of care should be applied, the fact he was going fir the ball mitigates the penalty, not abrogates it.
duty of care should be applied, the fact he was going fir the ball mitigates the penalty, not abrogates it.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,907
- 43,318
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Careless and High certainly leaves a case to answer, will be interesting to see what the decision is, whether they see it as part of contesting the ball or that the continuation of the arm (with force) was unnecessary.
1 week if he does go I’d think, similar to Mason Cox.
1 week if he does go I’d think, similar to Mason Cox.
owen87
Premium Gold
- Apr 23, 2016
- 30,907
- 43,318
- AFL Club
- Essendon
What was the Nankervis thing; I haven’t seen it?
CrowsFlag2018
Team Captain
- Dec 28, 2017
- 455
- 403
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Banned
- #38
Fell on Crouch's back leading with a knee long after ball had gone.
I havent scoured for a link yet.
LOL's
3 weeks.
Roooaaarr tiger tough my arse.
Tiger snipe
Roooaaarr tiger tough my arse.
Tiger snipe
NSWCROW
Make me an Admin!
Who was the dickhead who said this thread was a joke ?.....
- Thread starter
- #46
This comment is a joke.
A fine for Fogarty for a deliberate cheap shot and a week for Caddy for an accident when going for the ball.
I don’t get the whole outcome being the deciding aspect, just encourages dirty actions as long as you don’t hit too hard, and rubs out legitimate actions if another player happens to get hurt.
I don’t get the whole outcome being the deciding aspect, just encourages dirty actions as long as you don’t hit too hard, and rubs out legitimate actions if another player happens to get hurt.
- Thread starter
- #49
Caddy knew what he was doing.
Yes, trying to hit the ball, missed and got the head. Free kick every day of the week. Do you think he was trying to hit the guy and take him out? Didn’t look like that to me when watching it real time, but I could be wrong.
Similar threads
