- Oct 9, 2014
- 12,153
- 21,391
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
This is just about the only decision Christian has got right in his career
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 8 Winner: bearweger
Dusty Hit
- Thread starter Frank Gallagher
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The media has gone into hysterics Dusty and the tigers. 'Dusty has lost the plot' ... 'Dusty's bad season has gotten even worse'. It's round three ffs.
And the please explain thing from the AFL about the 'taunts' from dusty, what a joke, its pretty bloody obvious isn't.. Mumford was being a ****wit and Dusty was giving it back to him. Pathetic.
And the please explain thing from the AFL about the 'taunts' from dusty, what a joke, its pretty bloody obvious isn't.. Mumford was being a ****wit and Dusty was giving it back to him. Pathetic.
- Mar 28, 2018
- 10,491
- 8,454
- AFL Club
- GWS
Fault? Who cares? They were sledging each other. I don't think what Dusty said was offensive.
- Aug 20, 2010
- 14,696
- 19,441
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Jokes about the Richmond melts aside, I’d much rather see these actions get 2+ weeks than accidental contact which happens in play.
I got the impression that when Michael Christian was talking about a player going down for a significant time or being injured he was talking about body blows which is a different kettle of fish.
2 weeks seems fair, if it was Sicily we would be saying it should have been 4+
2 weeks seems fair, if it was Sicily we would be saying it should have been 4+
"Taking into account the visual look of the incident..."
- Michael Christian
When has this ever been a factor in sentencing?
Time for Dusty to drag out his old man's Aboriginal heritage claim and take it to the AAT. He'll probably be paid compensation.
- Michael Christian
When has this ever been a factor in sentencing?
Time for Dusty to drag out his old man's Aboriginal heritage claim and take it to the AAT. He'll probably be paid compensation.
- Apr 13, 2009
- 573
- 1,315
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Personally, if it was the other way around and Dusty copped the elbow in the head, I'd be demanding 2 weeks plus. Can't expect less because it was Dusty throwing the elbow around
- Sep 28, 2007
- 19,766
- 20,691
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Was that this year?
If you are going by precedent you cant compare years. Some years gut punches are punished, yet this year it seems they are laughed at despite talk of wanting to come down hard on them.
How about Mumford's elbow to the head earlier this year?
When has "potentially could have caused more harm" ever been used recently? These are new rules. Just like a game, we want consistent decisions based on consistent rules. He should have got one week as it was low impact (player didn't even go to ground). All the decisions so far have focussed on damage done not potential damage. FFS, every blow can potentially be more harmful! That is just a lot of rot!!!
kaiserchief13
Hall of Famer
- Jul 12, 2011
- 34,169
- 24,973
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
Off the ball hit to the head deliberately. Minimum 2 weeks. Gaff did the same thing and got 8 weeks. If Martin did the same damage he'd be off for 2 months as well
- Sep 28, 2007
- 19,766
- 20,691
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Tiger fans wanting less because of the Mitchell precedent are suggesting players should be allowed to elbow to the back of the head, way off the ball any time they like.
You either think it should be punished, or you think players should get away with it.
You either think it should be punished, or you think players should get away with it.
- Jun 14, 2012
- 2,860
- 2,619
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Beautide The Tassie Terminator
A tiger supporter with commonsense.
Thought they were like the Tasmanian tiger
Michaels
Brownlow Medallist
- Feb 4, 2006
- 16,410
- 50,095
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I think in this case you can want both.
The AFL had made a rod for their own back.
All we (supporters) have done is just put forward the case that a precedent has already been set. Players getting away with it is what the AFL has shown us with their differing sanctions along the way.
So while we all accept it's a crude act and don't want it in the game, I think we are well within our rights to also expect the AFL to make consistent decisions for identical situations.
Not our fault they set the precedent as being it's ok to do it (Mitchell case). We are just following their lead.
I want less because of the Mumford precedent, the Cox precedent, the Cunnington precedent and the list goes on and on and on....
No one is saying the hit wasn't bad. It's the inconsistency in their decisions that is driving people crazy. The way it should be is once you call those decisions OK (just fines or off totally) you can't change the way you judge things. They all look bad. They all could potentially could have caused more harm and yet those words were only used for Dusty.....
- Mar 28, 2018
- 10,491
- 8,454
- AFL Club
- GWS
What Mumford precedent?
Don’t know what you’re seeing, but he’s in a headlock before pushing off with an open hand. High, yes, elbow? Don’t make me laugh.
He’s also not 80 meters off the ball
He broke the guys jaw FFS. Kennedy didn't fall to the ground, leave the ground or have a concussion test. In the AFL's own judgments that has been called low impact this year and last year. One week is the correct sentence.
You need OPSM urgently...
Look at the vid dude. He actually does a head high hit that knocks the swans player to the ground. He got suspended (correct decision) but somehow got off on appeal.
Only previously been used in four incidents AFAIK
Hodge against Swallow (very bad look, minimal impact as Swallow dived back and Hodge was more acting/intimidating)
Lewis against Goldstein (talked up incessantly by the media, increased from 2 to 4)
Rioli against <Port Player> (Rioli allegedly racially abused got up swinging, nothing actually connected - attempted to strike - forget how many weeks).
Tom Mitchell against Goldstein (below the force required for striking, however reclassified as rough conduct so "potential to cause injury" could be used and got upgraded to a fine).
Not sure how I feel about it - was easier when it was just anti-Hawk bias.
If Martin was deemed intentional, low impact, high (1 week) I probably wouldn't have a problem under the current regulations. Personally think the off-the-ball stuff should be stamped out entirely, but so much is let go it's just a "unlucky dip" the outcome - which team, how much media, star player or villian?
A hit is a hit. Do we now measure the distance between ball and player? What has that got to do with the hit? They both were not in play which is the important point.
