Remove this Banner Ad

Player Watch Billy Frampton

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Linda Lovelace said:
No, because there was a clear, ultimately successful path to appeal for Maynard. I myself argued endlessly on here against oppo halfwits about the Maynard incident.

There is no successful appeal path here.

*Edit I realise Maynard was sent straight to tribunal. But point stands.
Click to expand...
I feel this can successfully be argued, it’s dependent on which part he’s suspended for, the first contact or the tackle.
Although you can argue against both I think if it’s because of the tackle I reckon Mihocek was out before that and had no way of protecting himself, Billy wouldn’t have know this and executed a normally fair tackle.
The arguments are there and I reckon he’s a chance to get off but with the AFL who knows.
 
domus said:
No way! Smit as a tall defender?
Click to expand...
Wasn’t he trialled there last year?

The cupboard is pretty bare. We’re probably lucky that aside from Georgiadies the Power don’t have much quality in that part of the ground, nor the Tigers
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

sideswipe said:
Well that’s the question innit? But the result will be either 3 or 0
Click to expand...
I think it’s something that has to be reviewed and argued for in Billy’s favour. Duty of care goes both ways, you can’t act recklessly and then lay blame the opposition player when you get injured (yes I know it’s the AFL and not Checkers laying blame, but you get what I’m saying)
 
Tarkyn_24 said:
Wasn’t he trialled there last year?

The cupboard is pretty bare. We’re probably lucky that aside from Georgiadies the Power don’t have much quality in that part of the ground, nor the Tigers
Click to expand...
You just know lynch will kick 10 against us
 
Apex36 said:
I think it’s something that has to be reviewed and argued for in Billy’s favour. Duty of care goes both ways, you can’t act recklessly and then lay blame the opposition player when you get injured (yes I know it’s the AFL and not Checkers laying blame, but you get what I’m saying)
Click to expand...
contributory negligence Pexy. preach!
 
Linda Lovelace said:
Regardless of your thoughts on the incident itself, there is no chance in hell they are going to overturn a suspension when someone literally broke their neck.

If the club gears up for a tribunal fight by basically blaming Mihocek, which is their only way to contest it, then it will turn into a very ugly circus. It could cause further distress to Checkers and his family and give media talking heads a chance to go afer the club for being insensitive.

It would be the PR equivalent of a prisoner smearing himself in sh*t in a futile attempt to stop the guards dragging him off to solitary confinement.

It will just be a pointless exercise in self-harm. Just accept the outcome.
Click to expand...
What an absolute joke of a comment.

This is about as shameful as any ive read.

People have the right to defend themselves. Does Frampton want to be seen as guilty of breaking his premiership mates neck?

Also guaranteed Checkers will say it was his fault and he shouldn't be suspended. Any person who has played the sport know that Checkers was responsible for his own injury by stupidly using his head to either a) break through a tackle,or b) earn a free kick.

And I absolutely love Checkers
 
Interesting that the main point that Jack Reiwoldt during "On the Couch" made about the incident was that it clearly shows how dangerous it is to "duck" with the head, even though that Checkers probably had no option as he slipped as he pushed off.
 
I don’t care any more because the rules are a joke. The AFL wants to stamp out concussions so they suspend the tackler even though there’s nothing the tackler can do because it’s the nature of the game, being a contact sport some players unfortunately are always going to get injured. I hope it doesn’t affect Frampton because he’s had his best ever season. Just enjoy the rest and train hard and come back better than ever after the suspension.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

sideswipe said:
It can't. Or at least it can only be reduced to zero. Our only argument is that it didn't constitute a reportable offence because Billy didn't breach his duty of care to Brody in the tackle. If that fails, then careless, high contact, severe impact is the only option. And that's a minimum of 3.
Click to expand...
well, that's probably it then. Billy must be feeling pretty sick about Checkers' injury as it is.
 
If the AFL want to seriously rub out "dangerous" tackling, then it's simple...come up with a rule that says a tackler must not allow the tackled player to go to ground. And that will be the end of the game as we know it. 🤨
 
Reckon this is a classic case of everyone doing their best only for an accident to still occur. Checkers did his best (when hasn't he?) to get past Billy but he then slipped and ducked into the oncoming tackle...he tried to get a free for high contact. Billy did his best to tackle someone he knew was a powerful unit, he went low but then Checkers slipped and dove forward into the tackle trying to get a high contact free. Their combined momentum (and body weight) meant that as Billy fell backwards Checkers head was already down and then they both fell on top of it. The tackle at the time was deemed to have been legal (hence the free to Billy)....but that was before the injury was taken into account.

So to that stage, everybody has done their best. Checkers tried to make the best of his slip and dove into an oncoming tackle hoping to get high contact and a free kick. Billy tried to stay low and roll Checkers but the slip/dive meant he was unable to complete the roll. The unlucky part was the combined body weights falling onto Checkers head and neck.
The umpire did the right thing as well, seeing Checkers duck and dive he awarded the free kick for a HTB.

Now Michael Christian has done the right thing also. He HAS to acknowledge that a serious injury occurred and that means he HAS to apply the 3 week penalty and wait and see how it will be adjudged.

I really doubt the AFL will allow the penalty to be quashed though most if not all footy people realise this was nothing more than a terrible accident. Both of these blokes are mates, they've probably wrestled and tackled one another hundreds of times in their careers, yet now because an accident has happened, ones going to be sanctioned.

It may be old school of me to think that just maybe....the AFL judges might go and interview Checkers in hospital because I reckon he'd be the first one to admit that he (and by accident his slip and dive) had made the tackle into what it became. Only if that sort of evidence became transparent might the AFL miss this chance to remind the world just how "Conscious they are of their responsibilities to protect the head" in all aspects of our game. I think we'll just have to get used to not having Billy (and Bruzzy, and the Skipper) in the back half for a while.

(Get well soon Checkers)
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I can see why the MRO gave him 3 weeks as they matrix is pretty rigid, but I do think that there is a good case to appeal and argue it's not careless. 2 things in Billy's favour:
  • Mihocek leads with the head and trips making it a chaotic play.
  • Public and media sentiment appears to be this being more of an accident. Doesn't feel as though people are queueing up to hang him.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if he gets off.
 
Robroy22 said:
Reckon this is a classic case of everyone doing their best only for an accident to still occur. Checkers did his best (when hasn't he?) to get past Billy but he then slipped and ducked into the oncoming tackle...he tried to get a free for high contact. Billy did his best to tackle someone he knew was a powerful unit, he went low but then Checkers slipped and dove forward into the tackle trying to get a high contact free. Their combined momentum (and body weight) meant that as Billy fell backwards Checkers head was already down and then they both fell on top of it. The tackle at the time was deemed to have been legal (hence the free to Billy)....but that was before the injury was taken into account.

So to that stage, everybody has done their best. Checkers tried to make the best of his slip and dove into an oncoming tackle hoping to get high contact and a free kick. Billy tried to stay low and roll Checkers but the slip/dive meant he was unable to complete the roll. The unlucky part was the combined body weights falling onto Checkers head and neck.
The umpire did the right thing as well, seeing Checkers duck and dive he awarded the free kick for a HTB.

Now Michael Christian has done the right thing also. He HAS to acknowledge that a serious injury occurred and that means he HAS to apply the 3 week penalty and wait and see how it will be adjudged.

I really doubt the AFL will allow the penalty to be quashed though most if not all footy people realise this was nothing more than a terrible accident. Both of these blokes are mates, they've probably wrestled and tackled one another hundreds of times in their careers, yet now because an accident has happened, ones going to be sanctioned.

It may be old school of me to think that just maybe....the AFL judges might go and interview Checkers in hospital because I reckon he'd be the first one to admit that he (and by accident his slip and dive) had made the tackle into what it became. Only if that sort of evidence became transparent might the AFL miss this chance to remind the world just how "Conscious they are of their responsibilities to protect the head" in all aspects of our game. I think we'll just have to get used to not having Billy (and Bruzzy, and the Skipper) in the back half for a while.

(Get well soon Checkers)
Click to expand...
Great summary. It is such shame that a day celebrating care and the obvious care demonstrated by all to Checkers ends up in a suspension and a player labelled as careless because we can’t rule an act and its consequences as accidental.
 
My 14 year old daughter was recently tackled playing under 16s, tackled as she picked up the ball in the goal square.
She sustained these injuries:-
-Broken upper tibia, the bone was literally punched away.
-Broken lower femur
-Broken fibula
-ACL reco
-Torn meniscus
-LCL snapped and replaced with a donor ligament
-MCL, same as above
-Torn calf muscle
-Cartilage damaged
-Severe bone bruising

During some the examinations and x-rays, I asked about the bones themselves in regards to density. No problems at all.

So, do I go after the girl that tackled her? No. It was a fair tackle, my daughter actually gave away a free kick.
Was she trampled by the tackler? Nope.
Do I blame the opposition? Nope. In fact, their trainer came over to check on my daughter.
Did the tackler cause those injuries on purpose? No way.
She recently had a six hour op to fix the damage and she may not play footy for about 18 months, if at all again.
My daughter is a 14 year old girl who was playing a contact sport and got severely injured, but there is no way I can point the blame at anyone.

Did Billy intend to break Brody's neck? Hopefully not.
Did Brody intend to have his neck broken when he lead with his head? Hopefully not.

It's a contact sport that is pretty clean these days, this was purely a football incident. Did you see any Dees players remonstrating with any Pies players? Nope, they knew there was nothing in it.
If the suspension is upheld, I'm not going to bother with this game anymore, total waste of time.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

M
    • Like
Howe and Frampton importance
Replies
20
Views
1K
PieBeast
PieBeast

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom