Search results for query: *

The thing about the 'accidental head clash' line is that the head clash is really an entirely foreseeable consequence of the choice to bump. Just because something is an accident, that doesn't mean no one is at fault. That it's accidental is why it is graded 'careless' rather than 'intentional'.

careless, high contact, high impact Don't really see how it can be anything else. Explanation on Fox Footy right now is actually really good.

Intentional low impact was my first thought which would be a week. Think medium impact is a decent chance now since Cripps does seem to have been affected by the hit. Probably depend on the medical report. Clearly going to go for it, though.

Ideally somewhere short of leaving someone paralysed from the neck down o_O

I don't really see the relevance of the Sicily incident (which I only became aware of 10 minutes ago). On topic, though, it's not bull. Actions that have the potential to result in say, a broken neck, but by luck do not ought to be punished more harshly than actions that do not have that...

Probably looking at 4+ weeks on the sidelines then, between the week for striking and having the bump graded as severe impact. Rare to see them pull out 'severe' but probably warranted here given the potential for injury.

The point of Thomas' shoulder clearly gets Selwood in the head. Intentional since he ran past the ball to instead clean up Selwood, high impact since Selwood was concussed, and high contact obviously.

I liked how the commentator was just about to say 'belted' and then checked himself. But honestly, the Staker punch wasn't ever out of character for Barry and this pretty much an unsurprising event.

Cotchin's 2 fines unlikely to affect the outcome - it's clearly at least a week if it's a reportable offence. However, I don't think it is since he was going for the ball rather than trying to lay a bump.

Was going for the ball. No case to answer. There's no automatic suspension for head-high contact.

Were you concussed when you wrote this? Jesus.

Could you clarify which facts you are referring to? In my view Grundy didn't rotate, lift, or sling Brown. The Dangerfield tackle was clarified as 'careless' as I understand it, because Kruezer didn't have the ball. Driving him into the ground was not reasonable in any way. Grundy tackles Brown...

Yeah, it's when the umpire recognises the siren. That's presumably why you can't have a review as well since there is no means of reviewing when the umpire became aware that the siren went. Just another second... This season has thrown up some amazing finishes to matches!

The problem with your position is that it's not at all clear that Bugg did have a lawful excuse.

It seems fairly crazy that they decided that the incident was intentional and worth 4 weeks but then gave him only 2 because he's such a next level good bloke. They simultaneously accepted that he is such a good guy that he would never do anything like that and that he did do it. It's...

It is factual - Hodge has no applicable record. I guess you just don't know the rules. Or what the word 'applicable' means.

When was the last time something was graded intentional/severe/head? Can't see it being less than 5 weeks and anything up to 8 would not surprise me.

Intentional, high, severe. Straight to the tribunal. Not sure what replay you've been watching because those gradings seem pretty clear to me. There is no way that was a late spoil, very clearly a deliberate act. Will be 4 weeks at a minimum and I think 5 is more likely.

Wrong decisions go against all teams at times. People notice it more when a strong team benefits than when a weak team benefits. Add to that, that in any game decided by less than a kick you could find some contentious decision, look at it in isolation, pose a counterfactual about what would...

Interesting - none of the three from the WCE vs North game get a gig. Not surprising, honestly.

If he gets any weeks he will get +1 for having been suspended twice last year. Careless high contact gets you 2 weeks for high impact, 1 week for medium. So unless they decide it wasn't a bump at all or some such he's looking at 2+ weeks. He could end up getting more than Adams which doesn't...

Just looking at it without considering MRP gradings, he should be looking at least a month. That is one of the worst things I have seen for a while. That last knee in particular was really bad. I would think the 'potential to cause injury' clause will apply here and see that last one be graded...

Reckless doesn't exist anymore. Careless, medium, body doesn't get you suspended. But I think in a way that is the point you are trying to make - you don't miss games in the current system for minor offenses. Look at Varcoe on Rioli, he made some effort to reduce the contact and so they graded...

I agree that that is a poor definition of cheating. It should be something more like 'acting dishonestly in order to gain an unfair advantage' - which is what Harvey did on the weekend. Whether Priddis should have given the ball back immediately isn't relevant to the discussion of Harvey's act...

Do you think that you're winning arguments when you respond by simply looking at a poster's supported team and bringing up something competely unrelated to the actual topic being discussed? This kind of s**t posting is all too common on this board.

They have 4, actually. You appear to be confusing the subject (the competition currently known as the AFL and previously known as the VFL) with the referent. When you change a thing's name, it doesn't magically cease to be the thing that it is.

Equivalent to a cricketer claiming a catch that he 100% knows he didn't take. Disgraceful behaviour and should be cited.

Players have to take into account the heights of various players. It's been made abundantly clear - if you elect to bump when there is another option and you make head high contact - you are liable.

Not a fan of this. I still don't know what his reasonable alternative was.

2 weeks is the right outcome, and I am not surprised at all that he accepted the penalty. I would have gone with intentional/medium myself, but I can see why they would give the benefit of the doubt regarding intent. As for impact, I've seen a lot of hits like that in the past where I've thought...