Remove this Banner Ad

Roast Crameri Gets Off

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TradeDraft

TradeDraft

Post-Human
Veteran Collingwood - Beau McCreery Player Sponsor 2023 10k Posts 30k Posts Collingwood - Caleb Poulter Player Sponsor 2022 HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts Collingwood - Josh Daicos Player Sponsor 2021 Collingwood - Tyler Brown Player Sponsor 2020
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Posts
160,860
Reaction score
92,007
Location
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Collingwood
The collision between Crameri and Thomas was the only incident from the weekend's games that was assessed by the match review panel.

In its finding, the MRP declared that Crameri had tried to stop before colliding with Thomas and had only "tucked his arm in to protect himself".

It also found that the umpire had correctly paid a free-kick to Thomas, but Crameri had used insufficient force to make the incident a reportable offence.
Click to expand...

BS Cameri knock Daisy Backwards and Daisy could of been badly hurt. Also he got him in the Head and Yet Still get's off :evil:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/109291/default.aspx
 
Re: Cameri Get's Off

Right call. Worthy of a free kick, but didn't deserve to be rubbed out for it. You could tell the hit wasn't malicious.
 
Re: Crameri Get's Off

Yeah I agree. It was a free kick only.
 
Re: Cameri Get's Off

It was a lot harder than anything Buddy Franklin did last year. Not saying it deserved a suspension but the MRP is so inconsistent it isn't funny and you can never tell what they're going to do. I did think he'd get in trouble for it though but I'm not complaining about it.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Re: Crameri Get's Off

Thomas deliberately kept his head down to draw the free kick. Fair decision.
 
Re: Crameri Get's Off

if he was injured by the hit, Crameri would have been suspended for sure.

which is why the system is so sh#thouse. Assess the incident, not the result imo
 
Re: Crameri Get's Off

No malice in it, correct decision.

Need less people being rubbed out for incidents like those ones, not more.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: Crameri Get's Off

Unotuchable said:
He kind of overemphasised the contact. There was a free for high contact but Thomas did try to milk it.
Click to expand...


Yes I agree he did appear to make an exaggerated response to make sure he got the free.

However, the free was definitely there.

Thomas doesn't usually do this, and watching it at the time, my first thought was I didn't like to see him do that, it was a bad look.

My next thought was that from the way the game was being umpired, he probably had no confidence in the umps, and just was trying to help them get one right!
 
Bay Pie said:
Right call.

However, if that was Leroy Brown, Barry Hall etc do you think he'd get off?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point actually.

Should a novice rookie be judged the same way as a seasoned, experienced campaigner, or should he be cut some slack.

And if the experienced campaigner has multiple priors, should he be judged the same way as a fellow long term player with a previously impeccable record?

In reality, I think Leroy or Barry would have been in trouble in answer to your question.
 
Swooop said:
That's an interesting point actually.

Should a novice rookie be judged the same way as a seasoned, experienced campaigner, or should he be cut some slack.
.
Click to expand...

the sentencing is where the "Slack" is, not the verdict of guilty or not guilty, that is what the match loading is for and frankly it's an excellent system. The only fault is in what gets decided guilty or not guilty which seems to sometimes be at the whim of the MRP.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Re: Crameri Get's Off

smiddaz123 said:
Some clowns on the essendon board wanted Thomas penalised for diving. Utter nutcases.
Click to expand...
Wonder if they think the same about Monfries pretty much every single time he plays a game of football? They actually have quite a few players who were playing for free kicks last week. Winderlich took a dive when Swan bumped into his shoulder (after being pushed by Heppell). Thomas acted it up but he didn't take a dive, he was hit fairly strongly. The rule to fine players for acting was brought in for when players faked to fool the umpires, kind of like when Ballantyne faked being hit in the head last year (and he didn't even get fined anyway apart from by the Freo playing group).
 
It always looks worse when a big bloke, perhaps a little reckless in his enthusiastic approach to the game, bumps a smaller player. Buddy Franklin and Brown both play the game in the manner expected of big, courageous men, but if they happen to connect with some sacrosanct area of the body, it can look ugly at times. However, there is such close scrutiny of each incident prior to a charge being laid that the big guys don't get treated too unfairly because of their size or demeanour. And, yeah, Crameri should not have been charged.
 
C'mon, this is a soft thread. If anything more than a free was paid for this I'd have gone off my head.

Hunter's one in the WCE game should have been more severe, though, IMO.

With Thomas/Crameri both players saw it coming, braced and then allowed the impact to happen.

In the Hunter collision, play had stopped and Hunter wasn't aware of the oncoming player - it should be a key point in determining the severity and worthiness of a charge.
 
rose jam said:
the sentencing is where the "Slack" is, not the verdict of guilty or not guilty, that is what the match loading is for and frankly it's an excellent system. The only fault is in what gets decided guilty or not guilty which seems to sometimes be at the whim of the MRP.
Click to expand...
Correct.
The system's there to cope with all of this stuff. The faults & inconsistencies in the old system are also still there.

DWil6 said:
Hall would have got off and been given a berth in the grand final.
Click to expand...
Correct. A flag basically decided at the tribunal.
Disgrace.
 
This incident happened right in front of me, i was only a few rows back. It was pretty obvious to me and all those around me that Thomas not only exaggerated the contact but also intentionally ran into him with his head down. There is no doubt he ducked into it and therefore Crameri deserves some slack, there was nothing he could do to avoid the contact.

It would have looked alot worse from the other side (which is where the umpire happened to be).

Ultimately it's a sign that they have gone too far with 'protecting the head'. The umpires now say it doesnt matter if he ducked, its still too high and a free kick. So players are now intentionally putting themselves in harms way, making it more dangerous, just to get a free.

Id be very interested to see if the stricter interpretation of the rule has resulted in less head high hits because players are more careful, or more head high hits because players are ducking. Unfortunately it is a stat that isn't really measured.
 
cobbly said:
Ultimately it's a sign that they have gone too far with 'protecting the head'. The umpires now say it doesnt matter if he ducked, its still too high and a free kick. So players are now intentionally putting themselves in harms way, making it more dangerous, just to get a free.

Id be very interested to see if the stricter interpretation of the rule has resulted in less head high hits because players are more careful, or more head high hits because players are ducking. Unfortunately it is a stat that isn't really measured.
Click to expand...

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

Daniel Cross seems to lead with his head a lot and gets frees, but I see a serious injury coming for players diving into the legs/knees of opponents.

Should not be a free if the other player can do nothing about the contact.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

magpielicious
    • Like
Membership Rip Off
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
BillyElliott
BillyElliott
TradeDraft
News VPN'S = Total Rip Off?
Replies
9
Views
1K
TradeDraft
TradeDraft

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom