Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Dawes Has His Time Wasted, But Gets Cleared

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Re: Dawes has his time wasted

favourites said:
Good mate, much better after this news. Can't wait to smash those bombers... I get the feeling the pies will take out their frustration on the bombers. Watch out.

Got the internet connected properly. Should be around more often. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
How's the study going?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Re: Dawes has his time wasted

Pie eyed said:
How's the study going?
Click to expand...

I'm the one helping people study now! Secondary teacher! Been a blast, heavy workload in terms of planning and marking but geez the holidays make it worth while!

Been enjoying mars and volt picking up my slack and doing a super job! Happy to be a back seat contributer now! What a great season we have ahead of us, my dad continually is in my ear telling me to not take it for granted as you never know when the tide will turn!

Too right, sometimes I think we don't enjoy the big wins as much as we should. Some of the footy the boys are playing is beautiful! So structured so disciplined!
 
Re: Dawes a Week?

DWil6 said:
Slattery would have wanted this. At least now if we lose to the bombers they can rest easy that we have no excuse.
Click to expand...
;)
Came down to reasonable v negligent, I'm personally not entirely convinced he didn't mean (or at least foresee) a sneaky one but I can see the logic in the defence given by Burns as well.

Still leaves everyone wondering how 2 sets of blokes can so consistently disagree on the same rules within a day. MRP should not lay anywhere near as many charges that can't be defended.
 
Re: Dawes a Week?

Slattery_20 said:
;)
Came down to reasonable v negligent, I'm personally not entirely convinced he didn't mean (or at least foresee) a sneaky one but I can see the logic in the defence given by Burns as well.

Still leaves everyone wondering how 2 sets of blokes can so consistently disagree on the same rules within a day. MRP should not lay anywhere near as many charges that can't be defended.
Click to expand...
Came down to the MRP being derelict in their duty and failing to understand the pure physics of the situation. How any reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that there was any negligence involved is beyond me.
 
Re: Dawes a Week?

PieNSauce said:
Came down to the MRP being derelict in their duty and failing to understand the pure physics of the situation. How any reasonable person could arrive at the conclusion that there was any negligence involved is beyond me.
Click to expand...
I don't see or buy the physics angle and let's leave out the 'derelict' exaggerations just for a moment.

He can still choose not to follow through with the swat at the ball (yes, you can pull out of a swing in a split second even if you're big). The MRP initially said that was an unreasonable way to go at the ball (which I don't completely agree with but can see the logic in) then a day later the tribunal finds otherwise.

Why can't they figure out you'd argue/say that before laying the charge?
An indefensible charge/law may as well not exist.

For the record I still think he knew what he was doing but can completely understand and even agree with your defense.
 
Re: Dawes a Week?

Slattery_20 said:
I don't see or buy the physics angle and let's leave out the 'derelict' exaggerations just for a moment.

He can still choose not to follow through with the swat at the ball (yes, you can pull out of a swing in a split second even if you're big). The MRP initially said that was an unreasonable way to go at the ball (which I don't completely agree with but can see the logic in) then a day later the tribunal finds otherwise.

Why can't they figure out you'd argue/say that before laying the charge?
An indefensible charge/law may as well not exist.

For the record I still think he knew what he was doing but can completely understand and even agree with your defense.
Click to expand...

Pfft! Methinks that Conca was negligent for walking onto the football field. That's about as logical as your assertion. Only an idiot thinks it's acceptable to just allow the opposition to have the ball without a contest and your ridiculous assertion that Dawes "knew what he was doing" doesn't even make any sense. He knew what he was trying to do and that was clearly to smother the ball. What he could not possibly have known was how the other player would attack the situation.
 
Re: Dawes a Week?

Slattery, I think fwiw, the explanation is this.


In slo-mo, esp the last frame, all we really see is Dawes' swinging left forearm come into contact with Conca's head. It looks like a blow I agree.


Go back a few frames, clearly, unequivocally, Dawes starts taking a swing at the ball.

Now, do this yourself.

Taks a roundhouse swing in mid air with your left arm, as if you were trying to hit a ball.

See the natural follow through which happens.

There was 0.11 secs between where his hand would have hit the ball and when his arm hit Conca.

Add factors like the pace he was moving at, his size and momentum, preparation for his landing, avoiding landing on Conca's back, then tell me that you think it would have been easy to avoid exactly what happened.

Also, remember slo-mo is just that, it looks like he had a week to change his course of action...so suggest you also very much look at realtime.

Add to all this the likelihood that Dawes was trying to hurt Conca.

Is that his normal pattern of behaviour...was the game on a knife edge that he had to take him out...is that how MM teaches his players to play...is Dawes an ill disciplined meathead type player.

Look I know obviously everyone is equally entitled to an opinion and I completeely respect that, but I think a swinging arm, whose only motivation was block the exit of the ball, was not stoppable in that timeframe.

The only way you could stop an arm in that time was to start it off in your mind as a jab...but why would he have done this unnatural action anyway?
 
Re: Dawes a Week?

Swooop said:
Go back a few frames, clearly, unequivocally, Dawes starts taking a swing at the ball.

Now, do this yourself.

Taks a roundhouse swing in mid air with your left arm, as if you were trying to hit a ball.

See the natural follow through which happens.

There was 0.11 secs between where his hand would have hit the ball and when his arm hit Conca.
Click to expand...
Fair enough post.

The 0.11 isn't really the right number tho.
Negligence would be, continuing to swing when you knew the head was there and you were going to, or at least likely to*, connect. From stimulus to action. Not the time from ball to head.

Otherwise you'd just follow through every time you were trying to block/stop the passage of the ball and collect someone.

*(I think we can assume he's reasonably co-ordinated, has good spatial awareness, and has reasonably decent reflexes.)

I think he did have enough time. I have absolutely no way to prove this or even really make a strong case, so it's fair that he got off.

Re- pattern of behaviour etc. I've not seen him hit anyone before, no, but he's only played 30-odd and he has relevant points from last year, so a case either way can hardly be conclusive.
 
Re: Dawes a Week?

Slattery_20 said:
Fair enough post.

The 0.11 isn't really the right number tho.
Negligence would be, continuing to swing when you knew the head was there and you were going to, or at least likely to*, connect. From stimulus to action. Not the time from ball to head.

Otherwise you'd just follow through every time you were trying to block/stop the passage of the ball and collect someone.

*(I think we can assume he's reasonably co-ordinated, has good spatial awareness, and has reasonably decent reflexes.)

I think he did have enough time. I have absolutely no way to prove this or even really make a strong case, so it's fair that he got off.

Re- pattern of behaviour etc. I've not seen him hit anyone before, no, but he's only played 30-odd and he has relevant points from last year, so a case either way can hardly be conclusive.
Click to expand...


Ah well, we'll agree to disagree agreeably, as Steve Covey would say.

Thanks for your inputs here, good discussion raised. :thumbsu:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Re: Dawes a Week?

Slattery_20 said:
Fair enough post.

The 0.11 isn't really the right number tho.
Negligence would be, continuing to swing when you knew the head was there and you were going to, or at least likely to*, connect. From stimulus to action. Not the time from ball to head.

Otherwise you'd just follow through every time you were trying to block/stop the passage of the ball and collect someone.

*(I think we can assume he's reasonably co-ordinated, has good spatial awareness, and has reasonably decent reflexes.)

I think he did have enough time. I have absolutely no way to prove this or even really make a strong case, so it's fair that he got off.

Re- pattern of behaviour etc. I've not seen him hit anyone before, no, but he's only played 30-odd and he has relevant points from last year, so a case either way can hardly be conclusive.
Click to expand...

Sorry mate but you've been flogging a dead Dawes here for a long time trying to justify your stance.
A massive majority of posters, the general public, football commentators and now the Tribunal have all agreed Dawes had no case to answer, no matter how intricately constructed a case for wrong doing is imagined in the minds of those who want to see Collingwood weakened, if only for a week.
 
It took them 5 mins to throw the case out; anyone arguing otherwise obviously never played the game or has a lack of understanding of human movement and mechanics

Now let’s make the effort worthwhile and he bags a 10er on Monday.
 
Hardly reasonable to ask a footballer to assess every split-second situation in which there is a chance they may make high conduct, and then adjust their movements accordingly. Reasonableness test, anyone? :rolleyes:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Dawes Has His Time Wasted, But Gets Cleared

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top