LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Punishment based on the result of an action is ridiculous. I could punch you as hard as I can directly in the head and by some twist of fate you could be absolutely fine. But an accidental elbow could put you in a coma.
I think most people that are arguing it shouldn't be a report agree it should have been down field, in fact I haven't seen anyone argue it should have been play on.
I have to say I disagree. I actually hate the MRP using injury as a justification, as you say, millimetres can be the difference between a bad concussion or not and a heavy suspension when the intent is completely the same.
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2024
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2024
Veteran
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2023
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2023
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2022
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2022
Ahh the weekly puzzle!
I agree, but sometimes it can be the opposite, game looks good but he didn't do something that was asked of him like running the other way. In this case though, I'd say Bev gave him votes.
It does seem plausible that Bwad would give suckers the 3 votes given he almost won the game for them in 2nd qtr
PATRICK SMITH
AFL hands soccer a free kick by clearing Ziebell hit on Travis Cloke
Before we get stuck into this business about bumping players in the AFL — it’s a hot topic after Bulldog Travis Cloke had his ribs crushed into manly mulch last Friday night — we have a little message to deliver.
It is from a droolingly gracious soccer boss David Gallop and it is to be to passed on to the AFL’s boffin of boffins, Gillon McLachlan.
It is a thank you note from Football Federation Australia saying how grateful they are that the AFL gave the round-ball game — and let’s face it, the A-League is struggling — a very important leg-up yesterday.
It is believed Gallop wept with joy when he read that North Melbourne’s Jack Ziebell had been cleared of any misdemeanours when he charged into Cloke after the Bulldog forward had kicked the ball. When contact was made to Cloke’s chest by the rampant Ziebell the ball was some 10 metres on the way to its target.
However the tribunal members — Michael Christian, Nathan Burke and Jason Johnson — amazingly ruled that when Ziebell broke Cloke’s chest into little pieces he was in the act of kicking.
As much as we regard Christian, Burke and Johnson to be fine men with a mountain of football behind them, the decision to clear Ziebell is the work of ratbags.
If Cloke was still regarded as being in the throes of kicking the ball when he had already booted it at least 10 metres, then, pray, Messrs Christian, Burke and Johnson, when is the act of kicking deemed complete? Obviously not when it has left the boot. When the ball is marked maybe? When it travels 60 metres for a goal, when it finds the boundary line?
All a bit silly and arbitrary don’t you think? Might just be the ball is deemed kicked, well, when it has been kicked. Left the boot. Too simple?
Some AFL officials believe the right decision would have been to pay a free kick down field after deeming Ziebell’s hit late. Well, if deserved of a free kick then it was an illegal act by Ziebell and the match review panel would have had to take into account the damage to Cloke. But the AFL position was that Cloke’s injuries are irrelevant to the decision because the panel found the contact to be legal. Don’t judge the incident on the aftermath rather consider whether was it legal in the first place.
And here is the problem. In no way can Ziebell’s bump be deemed legal. While tribunal and AFL representatives maintain that Ziebell had hit Cloke before the ball left his boot they are clearly wrong. The vision indisputably shows Cloke kicking and then getting crunched. In fact, Ziebell seemed to have no other intention other than charging into Cloke. That he had kicked the ball did not deter him. And the tribunal guidelines state clearly that the body is sacrosanct in certain conditions.
Here is the relevant section: Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body)
“It should be noted that even if the rule relating to high bumps does not apply (for example in the case of a bump to the body), a player may still be guilty of rough conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether any bump was unreasonable in the circumstances, without limitation, regard may be had to whether:
● The degree of force applied by
the person bumping was excessive for the situation;
● The player being bumped was in a vulnerable position; and
● The player could reasonably expect the contact having regard to his involvement in play or ability to influence the contest.”
So was the force applied excessive in the circumstances? Given that Cloke had already kicked the ball, then hell yeah.
Cloke was in a most vulnerable position. He had kicked the ball clear of the contest and should not have expected contact. And finally, given that Cloke had kicked the ball on to a new contest then he had no right to expect a crunching.
And so under these guidelines it is indisputable that the tribunal made a hideously bad decision yesterday and their right to continue on the match review panel should be reviewed. Their verdict was that bad.
If a parent has any fear that his or her child will be injured badly and unnecessary playing a contact ball sport then they should immediately scrap plans for kids to play Australian Rules. Yesterday’s tribunal decision is so wretched it is a glossy, embossed invite to soccer training. Must leave you here. We still have a letter to drop off.
Not saying he doesn't believe that but he's in a difficult position to say otherwise.
