Past #43: Aaron Hall - Shinboner #1013 retires after 58 NM games - Thanks Aaron

Remove this Banner Ad

Incident assessed:
Contact between Geelong Cats’ Mitch Duncan and North Melbourne’s Aaron Hall from the second quarter of Sunday’s match between Geelong and North Melbourne was assessed. The ball is handballed to player Hall at half forward for North Melbourne who prepares to kick for goal. Player Duncan, who is positioned in front of Hall, runs quickly towards him and leaps in the air in an attempt to touch or smother the ball. While in the air, Duncan turns his body and his momentum carries him into Hall making high contact with his back. It was determined by the MRO that the action was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
 
giantroo said:
Incident assessed:
Contact between Geelong Cats’ Mitch Duncan and North Melbourne’s Aaron Hall from the second quarter of Sunday’s match between Geelong and North Melbourne was assessed. The ball is handballed to player Hall at half forward for North Melbourne who prepares to kick for goal. Player Duncan, who is positioned in front of Hall, runs quickly towards him and leaps in the air in an attempt to touch or smother the ball. While in the air, Duncan turns his body and his momentum carries him into Hall making high contact with his back. It was determined by the MRO that the action was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Click to expand...
So I guess the potential to cause injury argument that had Cunners given a week before the appeal, does not apply to anyone else but North players? Yeah sounds about right.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Horace said:
I can't see any reason why Duncan should be cited for attempting to spoil a shot at goal. The thing that should be looked at is the incompetence of the umpires in failing to pay a downfield free. Surely that warranted a free in the goal square.

I hope Aaron is okay and this does not affect him, because he was starting to play some really good football.
Click to expand...
I was at the game and wondered why it wasn't a downfield free. Did the commentators raise that question because a kick from the goal line would have been handy
 
WayneShimmiesTheBush said:
So I guess the potential to cause injury argument that had Cunners given a week before the appeal, does not apply to anyone else but North players? Yeah sounds about right.
Click to expand...
Bumping has long been recognised as carrying a substantial risk of head high contact, as such the rules don't factor in "accidental" head high contact from bumps any more. It's graded as careless or intentional.

Smothering, or trying to get a goal saving fingertip on a ball, usually doesn't carry anywhere near that risk. For all I know maybe he did mean to cannon into him, but he leapt to try and spoil then awkwardly turned around for some reason in mid air and then they collided. Unless Duncan comes out and said he meant to crash into Hall then it's about as accidental (and ******* weird, tbqh )as this kind of thing gets.
 
DesertRoo said:
Doesn’t deserve a suspension, but they all certainly missed the down field free.
Click to expand...

re the Suspension........I do think it deserves further inspection. Especially given the outcome and the current focus on concussions.

Christian actually illustrates why in his appraisal.

"Player Duncan, who is positioned in front of Hall, runs quickly towards him and leaps in the air in an attempt to touch or smother the ball. While in the air, Duncan turns his body and his momentum carries him into Hall making high contact with his back."

So....Duncan runs quickly towards Hall, leaps in the air, and while in the air turns his body and his momentum smacks him into Hall.

So......we accept that Duncan wasn't just standing still; he charges towards Hall and provides momentum......it's not just Hall running into Duncan. That's a contribution to the force/severity of the impact.

Duncan turns his body while i the air. Okay............why did he do that? Bracing for impact that he has ensured will happen. He's protected himself as best he can........but put himself recklessly into a very bad position and in doing so cleaned up the kicker.

So it's a pretty straight forward scenario. Duncan is responsible for his actions. He's recklessly jumped into the player - - late - - late enough that the controlling umpire has already taken his vision off the kicker and missed the most blatant free kick (and what was the out of area umpire looking at?!?!?! Harris, Howorth and Findlay......should get docked cash for such a mistake.).

So - - - Careless; high impact; high contact. 3 weeks down to 2 with early plea and if they want to appeal it goes to the tribunal and then they can do a proper test on this scenario.
 
Munro_Mick said:
re the Suspension........I do think it deserves further inspection. Especially given the outcome and the current focus on concussions.

Christian actually illustrates why in his appraisal.

"Player Duncan, who is positioned in front of Hall, runs quickly towards him and leaps in the air in an attempt to touch or smother the ball. While in the air, Duncan turns his body and his momentum carries him into Hall making high contact with his back."

So....Duncan runs quickly towards Hall, leaps in the air, and while in the air turns his body and his momentum smacks him into Hall.

So......we accept that Duncan wasn't just standing still; he charges towards Hall and provides momentum......it's not just Hall running into Duncan. That's a contribution to the force/severity of the impact.

Duncan turns his body while i the air. Okay............why did he do that? Bracing for impact that he has ensured will happen. He's protected himself as best he can........but put himself recklessly into a very bad position and in doing so cleaned up the kicker.

So it's a pretty straight forward scenario. Duncan is responsible for his actions. He's recklessly jumped into the player - - late - - late enough that the controlling umpire has already taken his vision off the kicker and missed the most blatant free kick (and what was the out of area umpire looking at?!?!?! Harris, Howorth and Findlay......should get docked cash for such a mistake.).

So - - - Careless; high impact; high contact. 3 weeks down to 2 with early plea and if they want to appeal it goes to the tribunal and then they can do a proper test on this scenario.
Click to expand...
Mrp made the correct call
 
Munro_Mick said:
re the Suspension........I do think it deserves further inspection. Especially given the outcome and the current focus on concussions.

Christian actually illustrates why in his appraisal.

"Player Duncan, who is positioned in front of Hall, runs quickly towards him and leaps in the air in an attempt to touch or smother the ball. While in the air, Duncan turns his body and his momentum carries him into Hall making high contact with his back."

So....Duncan runs quickly towards Hall, leaps in the air, and while in the air turns his body and his momentum smacks him into Hall.

So......we accept that Duncan wasn't just standing still; he charges towards Hall and provides momentum......it's not just Hall running into Duncan. That's a contribution to the force/severity of the impact.

Duncan turns his body while i the air. Okay............why did he do that? Bracing for impact that he has ensured will happen. He's protected himself as best he can........but put himself recklessly into a very bad position and in doing so cleaned up the kicker.

So it's a pretty straight forward scenario. Duncan is responsible for his actions. He's recklessly jumped into the player - - late - - late enough that the controlling umpire has already taken his vision off the kicker and missed the most blatant free kick (and what was the out of area umpire looking at?!?!?! Harris, Howorth and Findlay......should get docked cash for such a mistake.).

So - - - Careless; high impact; high contact. 3 weeks down to 2 with early plea and if they want to appeal it goes to the tribunal and then they can do a proper test on this scenario.
Click to expand...
Huh?
is this a revenge thing for Cunnington?

do you really want a player suspended because of that? he jumped to smoother the ball and basically went limp in the air to try and not do any damage. That action happens a few times a game, it was unlucky to cause injury.

Cunners was rubbish, and rightfully should’ve never been sighted, same as the above.

It’s still a high paced contact sport accidents happen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DesertRoo said:
Huh?
is this a revenge thing for Cunnington?

do you really want a player suspended because of that? he jumped to smoother the ball and basically went limp in the air to try and not do any damage. That action happens a few times a game, it was unlucky to cause injury.

Cunners was rubbish, and rightfully should’ve never been sighted, same as the above.

It’s still a high paced contact sport accidents happen.
Click to expand...

It's because it's a high paced contact sport that you can't let guys just go in recklessly.

Note that Hall is smashed into the instant his feet land back on the ground.

Seriously - is was NOT a reasonable attempt to smother given the momentum that Duncan carried directly towards Hall. It was entirely UNreasonable and the outcome illustrates why.

It's not like we see guys smashing into kickers like this every week with nothing happening. The vast majority of players DO NOT do this. This incident is an outlier and needed to be treated as such.......not normalised as has happened.

And we KNOW it's dangerous. That's why as umpires we are instructed to hold our vision on the kicker; to protect him because he is wide open/vulnerable. There's no blank cheque allowing players to barrel into the kicker.
 
Munro_Mick said:
It's because it's a high paced contact sport that you can't let guys just go in recklessly.

Note that Hall is smashed into the instant his feet land back on the ground.

Seriously - is was NOT a reasonable attempt to smother given the momentum that Duncan carried directly towards Hall. It was entirely UNreasonable and the outcome illustrates why.

It's not like we see guys smashing into kickers like this every week with nothing happening. The vast majority of players DO NOT do this. This incident is an outlier and needed to be treated as such.......not normalised as has happened.

And we KNOW it's dangerous. That's why as umpires we are instructed to hold our vision on the kicker; to protect him because he is wide open/vulnerable. There's no blank cheque allowing players to barrel into the kicker.
Click to expand...
Yeah nah...

It’s a game of football, not a courtroom.
 
Munro_Mick said:
It's because it's a high paced contact sport that you can't let guys just go in recklessly.

Note that Hall is smashed into the instant his feet land back on the ground.

Seriously - is was NOT a reasonable attempt to smother given the momentum that Duncan carried directly towards Hall. It was entirely UNreasonable and the outcome illustrates why.

It's not like we see guys smashing into kickers like this every week with nothing happening. The vast majority of players DO NOT do this. This incident is an outlier and needed to be treated as such.......not normalised as has happened.

And we KNOW it's dangerous. That's why as umpires we are instructed to hold our vision on the kicker; to protect him because he is wide open/vulnerable. There's no blank cheque allowing players to barrel into the kicker.
Click to expand...
No no no
 
DesertRoo said:
Yeah nah...

It’s a game of football, not a courtroom.
Click to expand...

No.....it's a game of football that includes a punitive review system that can progress to a pseudo courtroom in the form of the tribunal.

And ever since Leigh Matthews on Bruns there's been that fine line understood that could see you end up in a courtroom.

After all.....it's a game of football........not a UFC arena.
 
Munro_Mick said:
No.....it's a game of football that includes a punitive review system that can progress to a pseudo courtroom in the form of the tribunal.

And ever since Leigh Matthews on Bruns there's been that fine line understood that could see you end up in a courtroom.

After all.....it's a game of football........not a UFC arena.
Click to expand...
that jumping up trying to smoother, collecting the kicker, happens right throughout juniors to the professional level. It happens all the time, probably a couple of times a game. Generally it’s a down field free, player gets up and plays on.

he never choose to bump, or even braces for contact. I don’t believe their was any malice intended. It was an accident.

So what’s your angle here?
Do you really want someone rubbed out for that?
Are you up for more afl half baked rules and interpolations? Because that what it seems like.
 
DesertRoo said:
that jumping up trying to smoother, collecting the kicker, happens right throughout juniors to the professional level. It happens all the time, probably a couple of times a game. Generally it’s a down field free, player gets up and plays on.

he never choose to bump, or even braces for contact. I don’t believe their was any malice intended.

What’s your angle here?
Do you really want someone rubbed out for that?
Click to expand...


Actually no - - watch the initial footage here.

Note that Duncan doesn't just jump "up". If that's all he did - - fine.

However - he's running towards Hall and launches from about 48 metres and collects Hall at about 51 metres......noting that Duncan has so much momentum towards Hall that he lands beyond Hall.

Duncan launched at the moment that Hall is committing to kick.

So.....we've all played enough footy......we know that Hall isn't changing direction now that he's kicking the ball.

Again - - had Duncan just jumped up.....fine. But he has seriously launched himself with force and momentum straight at the kicker.

That's where it's even possible to assert it was worse than careless.
 
Munro_Mick said:
Actually no - - watch the initial footage here.

Note that Duncan doesn't just jump "up". If that's all he did - - fine.

However - he's running towards Hall and launches from about 48 metres and collects Hall at about 51 metres......noting that Duncan has so much momentum towards Hall that he lands beyond Hall.

Duncan launched at the moment that Hall is committing to kick.

So.....we've all played enough footy......we know that Hall isn't changing direction now that he's kicking the ball.

Again - - had Duncan just jumped up.....fine. But he has seriously launched himself with force and momentum straight at the kicker.

That's where it's even possible to assert it was worse than careless.
Click to expand...
Dooode give it up, he jumps up and forward trying to affect the kick.
100% should’ve been a down field free. That’s all. I’m glad the tribunal agrees with me and not you, what do you want to turn our game into, injury outcome relative to suspension?
 
DesertRoo said:
Dooode give it up, he jumps up and forward trying to affect the kick.
100% should’ve been a down field free. That’s all. I’m glad the tribunal agrees with me and not you, what do you want to turn our game into, injury outcome relative to suspension?
Click to expand...

Never made it to the tribunal.

That's my issue with this. I think Christian has dismissed it too readily. We'll agree to disagree.
 
Munro_Mick said:
Never made it to the tribunal.

That's my issue with this. I think Christian has dismissed it too readily. We'll agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Picking and choosing what makes to the tribunal is a massively different argument to whether the above should’ve been a suspension..

I completely agree with you it’s a chook lotto, they’ve turned the whole process into a jk.
 
Munro_Mick said:
Never made it to the tribunal.

That's my issue with this. I think Christian has dismissed it too readily. We'll agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

It'd be interesting if a similar incident happens again with the player being concussed as with Hall. Going on the fairly contradictory and inconsistent record of the tribunal the next bloke to do it would likely get a week. The tribunal/Christian does like a knee-jerk response.
For me, it was a dogs balls obvious downfield free kick with a possible fine given the importance the league wants to put upon protecting the head.
 
DesertRoo said:
Picking and choosing what makes to the tribunal is a massively different argument to whether the above should’ve been a suspension..

I completely agree with you it’s a chook lotto, they’ve turned the whole process into a jk.
Click to expand...

I just reckon that people letting Duncan off 'cos he jumped up and it was innocent and happens all the time.

That's not so.

We don't see this happen all the time.

If you look at the images below......you can see just from how far inside the 50m arc that Duncan has launched at Hall and where first he collects Hall and even then he still lands how far outside the arc.

That was more than an innocent jump up to smother......had that been the case then in all likelihood the momentum would have been mostly from Hall and it would be more like a 'blocking' action by Duncan and that could be argued "what more could Duncan do".

But this wasn't that case. And the umpire looks in perfect position to see it but I suspect fell into the rank amatuer "ball watching" mode.
1618879620259.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

giantroo
Past #15: Daniel Howe - #31 in '14 ND to HFC - delisted end '22 - #33 in '23 RD to NM -retires from AFL & NM end '23 - 107 AFL games / 11 NM games
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
399
Views
28K
r00boy96
r00boy96

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top