Christian lied as he said that part of the reason they graded it medium was from the medical report.....
Dusty Hit
- Thread starter Frank Gallagher
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That's a very low blow. I'm tempted to report this post!
- Mar 28, 2018
- 10,491
- 8,454
- AFL Club
- GWS
No he didn't.
He said it was one if the factors taken into account.
You insist your really important, but lack the cognitive skills to interpret basic things like that. Frankly it seems unlikely.
No you’re right, elbowing someone intentionally in the head is a great example for our kids. Well done AFL.
It was a bad look.
Coming from behind & Raising an elbow to 'collect' some in the head who was way off the ball & had no reason to expect any contact at all. 1 week was very very lenient by any reading of the incident.
Deliberate, ran from behind, use of an elbow, head contact, way off the play!!!!
Neil Balme saying that Martin was 'unlucky,' was a sick joke & made him look stupid. He'd have been better shutting up or saying Martin will move on & focus his talents on the ball.
Martin is very lucky & needs to be better than that.
Any hits like that need to be punished & taken out of the game.
Coming from behind & Raising an elbow to 'collect' some in the head who was way off the ball & had no reason to expect any contact at all. 1 week was very very lenient by any reading of the incident.
Deliberate, ran from behind, use of an elbow, head contact, way off the play!!!!
Neil Balme saying that Martin was 'unlucky,' was a sick joke & made him look stupid. He'd have been better shutting up or saying Martin will move on & focus his talents on the ball.
Martin is very lucky & needs to be better than that.
Any hits like that need to be punished & taken out of the game.
Incorrect. Basic principles suggest that once you list something as part of the reason you came a certain conclusion, you are imparting some significance to its value in coming to that conclusion. If it had no part in it, normally one would not even mention it. This is so obvious, only pseudo intellects like yourself who can't differentiate between your and you're and spell who's as who'se can't grasp its simplicity.
- Mar 28, 2018
- 10,491
- 8,454
- AFL Club
- GWS
Codswallop.
I do get you would be stressed in your job though, as you claim. If you were foolish enough not to seek a purely manual occupation, I can see it would be a real struggle.
00Stinger
100 - 7
I agree the system is pretty poor.
Players should be suspended on the action not the result.
Punching can get a fine but an accidental collision can cost a player weeks.
I don't necessarily have an issue with mMrtin only getting a week, I just don't like how a deliberate off the ball act can be worth the same as an accidental hit in play.
Last edited:
It is completely irrelevant that it was a "soft hit", the fact is that he threw an elbow at an opposition player which is in total contravention of the rules.
Everyone in this thread should be taking off their club colours and look at the incident independently and in an unbiased manner.
If the AFL is serious about stamping out head high hits and off the ball sniping then Martin deserved two-weeks for that whack.
captain blood 17
El Jefe
- Dec 9, 2006
- 50,321
- 111,967
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa Traralgon Football Club
I don’t disagree with you. When we were reading the live broadcasts on social media, it was seriously a piss take. We are anything but a professional sport at this point in time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Arctic fox
It's only a game
And Sydney would be saying meh....10 touches 0 tackles, no problems.
It's weak (the AFL tribunal) and opens it all up for further conjecture when it happens to someone else.
- Mar 28, 2018
- 10,491
- 8,454
- AFL Club
- GWS
It's pretty obvious a bit of old school "What happens on the field stays on the field" defence from Kenners introduced enough doubt.
I'm fine with it, but not Tigers supporters making absurd claims he was innocent or that was in any way similar to other incidents.
Last edited:
It is in contravention to the rules, but it was low impact and hence the one week holiday.
I'm not sure what people like you are trying to make this out to be....
- Jun 6, 2012
- 9,893
- 17,461
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Rampage
Can't believe Christian tried to give Jones a week for standing in front of Reiwoldt while he's not looking where he's running, then only two for Martin throwing elbows at heads off the ball like he's Reece Conca.
I would have been happy with 2 weeks if the MRO was consistent however it changes week to week. When supporters see some incidents get away with a fine and very similar incidents cop weeks it doesn’t sit well.
Fix the MRO and make all incidents consistent across the board.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
You didn't already know?
- Sep 26, 2017
- 26,612
- 43,796
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Fair enough
Tigers supporters should be fine when the next player elbows their players in the head behind play...all fair and that right?
Tigers supporters should be fine when the next player elbows their players in the head behind play...all fair and that right?
Instead of making smart arse comments like you just did, why don't you contribute to the debate?
I don't see why you think that we are delusional? The tribunal basically agreed on what the majority of Richmond supporters have been saying. He was guilty of a high hit but it was of low impact. He deserved a week and in the end that's exactly what he got. It definitely was not medium impact. The argument that it potentially could have been worse is one of the more ridiculous ones ever put up. Why have a grading system at all if potentially they can all be worse? Then there is look. Where in the rule book does it say that the look of the offence dictates its penalty? Where are the clear definitions of what a good, not so good and bad look actually look like? What about the medical report that they consistently refer to and in this case was eluded to by Christian as helping come to the conclusion that the hit was of medium severity and yet it actually contained no injury or after effect on Kennedy?
I think you will find that it's actually most other supporters that have refused to acknowledge that one week is the correct decision based on prior judgements of similar events. The majority of tiger supporters have not been delusional at all.
Of course. As long as it's low impact one week is exactly what it deserves.
boncer34
Formerly "Dos23"
Well I could waste my time but multiple others have already explained it and yet.......
So, nah. Thanks though.
Another waste of internet space....
