MRP / Trib. Caminiti hit on Murphy

[L_W_P]

We have to protect the head and punish dog coward king hits which concuss victims.

4 weeks for the punch and another 4 for the punch causing a concussion.

How many weeks should Pickett have been suspended for? Or Lynch when he blindsided Keath?

Murphy was front on.

In fact, if Murphy doesn't duck into the contact we aren't even talking about this. I thought the AFL had issues with players deliberately putting themselves in danger...

If the argument is for the 'potential to cause harm' then clubs should bring in ex boxers to talk about the damage that rabbit punches do to your kidneys. Then maybe the AFL can do something about the repeated off the ball punches and forearms that seem to go unnoticed, even with 4 umpires!

 

[LongSerong]

"St Kilda: Did you strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No.
St Kilda: Was it ever your intention to strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No."

"St Kilda: If someone said you were retaliating, what would you say to that?
Caminiti: Not at all. That was definitely not my intention."

Does anyone buy this crap?


PS: All you one-eyed Sainters in this thread REMEMBER you've been arguing for 18 pages that this is a retaliatory strike!

 

[bergholt]

"St Kilda: Did you strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No.
St Kilda: Was it ever your intention to strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No."

"St Kilda: If someone said you were retaliating, what would you say to that?
Caminiti: Not at all. That was definitely not my intention."

Does anyone buy this crap?


PS: All you one-eyed Sainters in this thread REMEMBER you've been arguing for 18 pages that this is a retaliatory strike!

Yeah seems a weird line to take

 

[my name was taken]

"St Kilda: Did you strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No.
St Kilda: Was it ever your intention to strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No."

"St Kilda: If someone said you were retaliating, what would you say to that?
Caminiti: Not at all. That was definitely not my intention."

Does anyone buy this crap?


PS: All you one-eyed Sainters in this thread REMEMBER you've been arguing for 18 pages that this is a retaliatory strike!

"The Tribunal isn't convinced denying the text message as evidence would hamper Caminiti's case, so it has not been permitted as evidence.

It centres around Murphy slipping slightly, which the Tribunal says is already apparent from the vision."


when both parties have commented, id be more likely to go with those involved than whats been said on here by anyone

 

[LongSerong]

"The Tribunal isn't convinced denying the text message as evidence would hamper Caminiti's case, so it has not been permitted as evidence.

It centres around Murphy slipping slightly, which the Tribunal says is already apparent from the vision."


when both parties have commented, id be more likely to go with those involved than whats been said on here by anyone

I'm merely commenting on your own clubs cross-examination here bud

 

[my name was taken]

I'm merely commenting on your own clubs cross-examination here bud

yes, it goes hand in hand to saying the intention was not to strike him in the head

 

[danielnajdek]

The creating separation excuse seems strange considering we had the ball when Murphy went down.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

"St Kilda: Did you strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No.
St Kilda: Was it ever your intention to strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No."

"St Kilda: If someone said you were retaliating, what would you say to that?
Caminiti: Not at all. That was definitely not my intention."

Does anyone buy this crap?


PS: All you one-eyed Sainters in this thread REMEMBER you've been arguing for 18 pages that this is a retaliatory strike!

He sounds like Jesse Pinkman on legal advice from Saul Goodman

 

[Moonatic77]

I just hope this incident gives Caminiti pause to reflect on his actions and apologise to the victim collingwood player.

I think you're here just to stir things up mate. You do realise Murphy punched him first, or did you miss that bit

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

"St Kilda: Did you strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No.
St Kilda: Was it ever your intention to strike Murphy?
Caminiti: No."

"St Kilda: If someone said you were retaliating, what would you say to that?
Caminiti: Not at all. That was definitely not my intention."

Does anyone buy this crap?


PS: All you one-eyed Sainters in this thread REMEMBER you've been arguing for 18 pages that this is a retaliatory strike!

Hey dude, I've read that post about 18 times now and I still can't make any sense of it.

Could you help me out here please?

 

[LongSerong]

Hey dude, I've read that post about 18 times now and I still can't make any sense of it.

Could you help me out here please?

I'm still wondering myself

 

[Bald]

So he claims he wasn't retaliating, he was preparing to get space despite the fact that the opposition had the ball, and to do that he turned away from the ball, looking in the completely wrong direction and struck Murphy.

This is a terrible defence. Can't blame him for the defence though, clearly he's been sold up s**t creek by the below-par legal team at the Saints.

 

[LongSerong]

AFL asking for 5 matches, yikes

 

[Toump Ass]

LOL Saints will appeal on the grounds their lawyers were sniffing glue.

 

[Bald]

AFL asking for 5 matches, yikes

I suspect St Kilda would take 3, so it'll meet in the middle and be 4.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Seems like both players involved are abiding by the player's code and not snitching on each other.

 

[my name was taken]

LOL Saints will appeal on the grounds their lawyers were sniffing glue.

Dont think he has won anything in the tribunal for a long long time. Generally has made it worse lol

 

[Whiskers]

AFL asking for 5 matches, yikes

That’s about right, could’ve asked for 6. Doesn’t mean he will get 5, I’m guessing 4?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So he claims he wasn't retaliating, he was preparing to get space despite the fact that the opposition had the ball, and to do that he turned away from the ball, looking in the completely wrong direction and struck Murphy.

This is a terrible defence. Can't blame him for the defence though, clearly he's been sold up s**t creek by the below-par legal team at the Saints.

Well the moment he says he was retaliating he's admitting he whacked a bloke in the head behind play and concussed him!

Which obviously, we all know is what happened.

But it'd be pretty stupid to just admit it, wouldn't it? Especially given there's no real conclusive footage of it.

 

[BF Tiger]

You can give him a week if you like

CTE lasts longer than a week.

 

[Mat Mann]

So he claims he wasn't retaliating, he was preparing to get space despite the fact that the opposition had the ball, and to do that he turned away from the ball, looking in the completely wrong direction and struck Murphy.

This is a terrible defence. Can't blame him for the defence though, clearly he's been sold up s**t creek by the below-par legal team at the Saints.

the balls on the ground in dispute
forget the squiggles but the ball is on the ground right in front of the StKilda player circled in yellow facing away from the camera, Murphy is in the process of hitting Caminiti

 

[Bald]

the balls on the ground in dispute
forget the squiggles but the ball is on the ground right in front of the StKilda player circled in yellow facing away from the camera, Murphy is in the process of hitting CaminitiView attachment 1664212

Just rewatched, you're right. My memory of the incident had Steele Sidebottom gain possession of the ball a couple of seconds prior to when he actually did.

 

[Bald]

Three weeks.

Downgraded to careless. Happy for him.

 

[Saint12]

Deserved 2 but got the obligatory 1 week extra for playing for a battling club and being a no name

 

[projectv]

Caminiti probably would have been dropped for Membrey returning anyway, so missing a few weeks doesn't hurt us that much.

Three weeks seems fair. I wonder if the AFL will appeal.