Didak Cleared

[Murray]

Re: SEN - Didak Cleared

Agree- why is it ok for fullbacks to hold fevola? it happens every week and there was a ridiculous one near the goal post in the second quarter. I had to laugh when they didn't pay that one - even blind freddy could see it. It was easily the worst umpired match i have seen for at least 3 years.


Didak is collingwood's most important player. forget Buckley - didak is more important, but he did the crime, so he does the time. 3 weeks penalty minimum in the real world. In the afl's wacky world he will probably get a pay rise. Typical collingwood tactic. go the biff.

Fun day today.

Collingwood into the Finals
The Filth on the bottom
44 point win
Didak no charge to answer

Great day.

What about you?

 

[steviewonder36]

dreamers board..

HA HA, read the AFL website turkey.

Up yours Opposition scum!

 

[cs61]

That definately deserved weeks based on what has come before-hand.

Watching a lot of football lately, for that not to get any weeks is pretty poor considering some of the players that have had to do time.

Very very poor.

 

[earthquake]

WHAT A ####### joke

I WONDER IF THEY SAW ALL THE VIDEO ANGLES ?

WHY DOES THE TRIBUNAL LOVE COLLINGWOOD PLAYERS ?

IS THIS NOT ONE OF THE WORST DECISIONS EVER ?

GUERRA AND PICKETT SHOULD SUE THE AFL AND THE TRIBUNAL

 

[jimmy_clement#8]

Geez,I hope its not cold tonight.

Mate, i'm in a considerable deal of trouble............ but Dids was cleared, so it evens out.

 

[MarkT]

It wasnt so much the elbow itself as it was head high contact for mine.

No one is denying it was head high contact. The contact in question is the head high contact. No one thinks the contact itself was accidental and nor should it be in a contact sport that specifically allows bumps.

"Didak's action was viewed as a legitimate attempt to bump. Therefore, the contact to the head was considered accidental and the action was not considered to be a reportable offence."

If a player makes head high contact then it's a free kick. Furthermore if it's deemed to be reckless, which it was, then it becomes a reportable offence. MMM went through it on the radio and came up with the same as me, 3-4 weeks down to 1-2 weeks.

It is not reckless if something else like Scotland bending the knees late causes an otherwise legitimate bum to end up head high. I heard the MMM explanation when I got back to my car. Quartermain was justifying his earlier hysteria to a caller. What you said is essentially true but you and he overlooked one important thing. That analysis applies if the “offense” is essentially on that is reportable in the first place. The MRP ruled it wasn’t. I suspect because of the fact that Didak delivered the bump according to the rules and other than the fact Scotland dipped it would have collected his shoulder. Scotland late evasion attempt made the contact high.

You have assumed it was reckless. The MRP rules otherwise. IMO due to what I said above. That is a fundamental issue.

I’m not sure what you bare trying to show with the photos.

-So Scotland realised "oh crap, here comes Dids on a mission"... got it.

Probably.

Scotland attempted to avoid contact but unfortunately contact was made to his head.
-So Scotland tried to avoid the approaching Didak, but couldnt get away from him time... okay.

Yes and that is what made the contact end up high. Scotland tried to avoid, dipped and got hit high. The important fact here is that this makes the contact less than reckless or negligent. Had he been crouched or had he even dipped earlier Didak may have been in trouble had he gone through with it.

Of course I have only read what you have written. I am only guessing based on what I previously thought were the facts anyway.

Didak's action was viewed as a legitimate attempt to bump.
-But he caught him high and did severe damage! Isnt that reckless at least??

It may or may not be – see above.

Therefore, the contact to the head was considered accidental and the action was not considered to be a reportable offence.
-An accident? But he was running toward him from the side and behind braced for contact which was made to the head causing harm to the player.... again, see photo above.

The photo’s show nothing relevant. There is no dispute about head high contact. The elbow was tucked even by your admission. What is relevant and the after shots don’t show is why the contact ended up high. There fact that there was head high contact is not of itself a reason for a suspension and never has been and nor is damage or blood – Kosi and Cara received worse injuries from head high contact deemed accidental. Wakelin had his cheek smashed by Lynch. Personally I reckon that was deliberate but that’s another issue.

 

[goalpie]

Re: SEN - Didak Cleared

Bad both ways? The Sporn free I grant you but not much more. Fev was monstered up forward while Rocca got frees every time someone touched him. The 50/50 went against us all day but the main thing that made me sit up and take notice is that they would let one go for us and then award one merely seconds later against us. Totally killed our momentum all day.

Stop having a whinge and accept you got beaten / spanked by a better team.

 

[buddha]

Re: SEN - Didak Cleared

But Charman wasnt charged. The tribunal set the precedence with Charman, Notting, and Giasuracusa. Those cases are exactly why Didak should have got off.

if you look back timmy you will find that he was charged and did get a week!!!

 

[andypie]

houlihan bump v west coast very similar. no weeks. not the first time the bumper gets off, not the last.
still a lottery though.

 

[Grimreepah]

Re: SEN - Didak Cleared

if you look back timmy you will find that he was charged and did get a week!!!

Here was the charge:

Jamie Charman, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Anthony Rocca, Collingwood, during the second quarter of the Round 10 match between the Brisbane Lions and Collingwood, played at the MCG on Saturday June 3, 2006.

The incident was assessed as negiligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points), in play (no points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, which relates to a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction

 

[steviewonder36]

Re: SEN - Didak Cleared

Might want to review the ones that weren't cleared too.

Consistently inconsistent. But hey, in keeping with the vibe of yesterday's game, they might as well have the review panel on their side as well.

Is anybody up on a love tap charge this week or an attempted strike charge perhaps? Maybe Fev should be given a month for his open hand slap/attempted tackle to balance the equation.

Strike the words negligent or incidental from the rating in future. It only works when the panel reckon they get into someone's head and can tell what they were thinking.

I don't care that he got off, I just care that other teams get screwed big time for far less.

I don't need a box of tissues either thanks very much, I'll blow my nose on a Pies jumper instead.

Fair enough, because i use the Carlton jumper to wipe my arse with!

**** sticks remember.

 

[morgoth]

Ha ha ha ha suck **** all you Collingwood hating a holes!

When Wakes had his cheek caved in by Lynch it was fair according to you lot, when Carra got his kneck broken it was part of the game.

Welcome to reality a holes it goes both ways, just cos we wear black and white does not mean we get burnt when others do not. The AFl has set the precedent the head can be hit by incidental contact and that is exaclty what it was.

What was even better was giving Carlton back to back spoons.

 

[andypie]

Re: SEN - Didak Cleared

Here was the charge:

Jamie Charman, Brisbane Lions, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Anthony Rocca, Collingwood, during the second quarter of the Round 10 match between the Brisbane Lions and Collingwood, played at the MCG on Saturday June 3, 2006.

The incident was assessed as negiligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points), in play (no points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, which relates to a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction

in all honesty i reckon they got that one right, and would have been happy,no, relieved if didak got the same.

 

[steviewonder36]

WHAT A ####### joke


WHY DOES THE TRIBUNAL LOVE COLLINGWOOD PLAYERS ?

Gee does 2002 or 2003 Prelims come to mind?

 

[steviewonder36]

Who gives a **** wat club he is from, what he did was absolutely disgusting and deserved to be rubbed out for atleast 2. it is an absolute disgrace that he got cleared of anything, he almost killed scotland and they deemed it accidental IS THE MATCH REVIEW PANEL F****** BLIND. Bannister's crappy little jumper punch added up to a 3 match ban but because of clean record got taken down to 1 and didak got nothing. I am absolutely appalled with that descision. Ofcourse Collingwodd player gets off with nothing!

Clearly like a lot posters on this forum, you grew up watching the soft version of the game.

The Hip and Shoulder bump has not been ruled out of the game.

Follow netball if you dont like it.

 

[Truetiger]

on sen b4 the 4pm news doran said pies fans stay tuned to find out what the match review panel think should happen to didak.....my god im hoping this rumour is true

Should not of been Cleared. Its bull **** another Collingwood player gets off.

 

[buddha]

it is a lottery these days with these incidents with players getting off and players getting suspended,i think the bigger picture that we need to look at here is the match review panel.every week there seems to be an issue of some sort with the panel and if this is the case surely the A.F.L have to do something about it,but of course this wont happen because of that little ferret adrian anderson who brought this system in and he wont admit that it is flawed!

 

[andypie]

Who gives a **** wat club he is from, what he did was absolutely disgusting and deserved to be rubbed out for atleast 2. it is an absolute disgrace that he got cleared of anything, he almost killed scotland and they deemed it accidental IS THE MATCH REVIEW PANEL F****** BLIND. Bannister's crappy little jumper punch added up to a 3 match ban but because of clean record got taken down to 1 and didak got nothing. I am absolutely appalled with that descision. Ofcourse Collingwodd player gets off with nothing!

houlihan v west coast?

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Re: SEN - Didak Cleared

So accidental head high contact is not grounds for suspension? Tell that to players rubbed out for attempting a spoil and getting the head. And while you are at it, give Chris Grant back his ****ing Brownlow.

Chris Grant's wasn't accidental. I know everyone loves Chris Grant, and no one wants to let facts get in the way of a good story, but in my opinion he deliberately hit Holland and got his right whack for it.

 

[>A<]

In conclusion to all of this, those who hate Collingwood are on here to whinge, those who love Collingwood are here to celebrate/rub it in, and those that are intellegent, who don't barack for Collingwood but can see from an unbiased viewpoint, would not get on here to argue for Didak.

We could go on for weeks, but neither party is about to agree with the other party, so it is all a bit stupid getting photos, analysing this and that, taking time away from friends and family, when all your doing is senseless. (Trying to convince a convinced mind).

The match review panel got this particular incident correct in my opinion, but that is only my opinion. It is never going to be the opinion of people on here that had the player had a different colour jumper on, that matches the jumper they idolise, they would be on the other side of the fence.

THE END

 

[derro]

great news suck it down u anti didak ****

 

[Bueller]

You bloody beauty. Sanity prevails. The end of soft football?

 

[mediumsizered]

In what is the most controversial match review decision of the 2006 season so far, the panel ruled that Didak's contact on Scotland was accidental.

Is this some kind of sick joke?

This is the real issue. If it was accidental contact why was Didak braced for the hit. Was he expecting Scotland, while in possession of the ball, to lay a bump on him? If, as the match review panel states, he came from 2 metres away why wasn't he trying to lay a tackle? An opponent has the ball, he can't see you, wouldn't you grab the opportunity to lay a tackle and either get a holding the ball decision or a stop play?

I suppose though, you wouldn't expect anything else from a panel led by someone who thought the Hawks were a premiership chance 2 years ago. Does this guy know anything about football at all, or is it just his surname that continues to get him a gig in AFL circles?

 

[Bueller]

This is the real issue. If it was accidental contact why was Didak braced for the hit.

Errr...maybe because he was going to bump him.

 

[FIGJAM]

[/I]

Wow...you've just shown a few photos after the bump!

Where's the actual bump which would show the true intention of the bump (which was fair)??

Here's one for you photo-troll!

Didak's guilty for raising the arm after he put in a fair hip and shoulder. Goes to show how stupid some members of this board really are!