Review Geelong defeats Hawks by 5 points

Remove this Banner Ad

goyoucatters

Premiership Player
Jan 31, 2008
4,534
10,748
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Stockport County, Chicago Cubs
True, and therein lays the cause of frustration for people like me.

Their governance has about as much method as russian roulette.
Has way more method than Russian Roulette, though. The all-powerful AFL leaves nothing to chance. Every single decision is manufactured and manipulated to within an inch of its life.
 

Ricketz

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 2, 2011
5,552
6,608
Wagga Wagga
AFL Club
Geelong
Except the Rohan suspension came as a result of the Brisbane medical report which indicated issues Neale was having as a result of the hit from Rohan, such as sore jaw and difficulties eating - hence the high contact and medium impact

So the claim would be that there was an impact from the hit by Rohan and that justifies the suspension
That is the funny thing though, isn't it?

"Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a progressive brain condition that's thought to be caused by repeated blows to the head and repeated episodes of concussion."

So it's not just about whether the impact caused medically identifiable injuries like concussion, but can be the result of repeated hits to the head.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Nankervis brothers

Premiership Player
Aug 16, 2006
4,673
5,434
Sydney
AFL Club
Geelong
Exactly as you said, the bolded is likely what saved Hartigan from a holiday

Same as last years encounter between Geelong & Hawthorn with the tackle by Burgoyne on Dangerfield - it was a heavy tackle, didn't look good but Dangerfield got back to his feet pretty quickly & play out the game. Clearly looked to be a heavier tackle than the one on Kreuzer that saw Dangerfield miss a game

Not sure if our guys are too tough, but their want or desire to play on & to not go to the bench for treatment unless necessary etc, does seem to help the opposition when it comes to the MRO
Imagine for a moment that Dangerfield didn't get up from his bump on Jake Kelly, that he too sustained an injury. With the two of them lying prone on the turf, I bet the commentary would have centred on selfless acts, putting the body on the line, 'bravery', blah-blah-blah. But Dangerfield got up, so there is a victim.

I am all for the AFL protecting the head and pleased that the thuggery of yesteryear is gone. But we are reaching a point where we penalise an action's outcome rather than the act itself. Hartigan is a good example. He punched Hawkins in the back of the head, but there is no penalty as no injury was incurred
 

Burro

Club Legend
Sep 27, 2015
1,316
1,513
AFL Club
Geelong
The penalty system needs to be run on presidents and expert evidence. It also needs to be independent. This is the only way to get a fair system and identifiable standards. The AFL just want everything to be unclear so they can manipulate the outcome. Even this new man on the mark rule can be manipulated by the umpire as to when he calls play on.
 

bombersboy

Senior List
Aug 16, 2009
161
303
AFL Club
Geelong
Disgraceful.

A blatant and deliberate fist to the head. To say it wasn't intentional is laughable. It could be argued that it was worse than Rohan's indiscretion..

Rohan's though was behind the play. Hartigan's was late.

Hartigan deserved a week in my view. It wasn't a good look.
My reference point is more with Dangers. Dangers was rated as intentional whereas Hartigan was rated as Careless. I thought Hartigan was much later than Danger and was clearly intentional. He went for the head, Danger did not.
 

CatToTheFuture

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
6,722
9,375
AFL Club
Geelong
Unpopular opinion: Watching it live, the replay on the big screen and again at home. Saw little worthy of a suspension.
It's not gut feel though, there's a gradings chat you have to follow.

Was it in the head? Yes
Was the impact worthy of the lowest possible grading? Yes
Did he intend to hit him? Yes. Or if you're the MRO apparently, no

Chart says the above is one week, unless you're the MRO, then it's a couple weeks rent
 

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
86,280
114,251
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Bushrangers, AC Milan
It's not gut feel though, there's a gradings chat you have to follow.

Was it in the head? Yes
Was the impact worthy of the lowest possible grading? Yes
Did he intend to hit him? Yes. Or if you're the MRO apparently, no

Chart says the above is one week, unless you're the MRO, then it's a couple weeks rent
Should have been negligible contact. I seriously cannot believe so many on here are baying for a suspension given the low threshold Hawkins has been suspended for and has resulted in mass outrage at him getting done for virtually nothing. That IMV should not be suspendable, and glad it wasn't. A 50m penalty was more than sufficient for that.
 

Strange Cat

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2017
17,044
27,921
AFL Club
Geelong
Should have been negligible contact. I seriously cannot believe so many on here are baying for a suspension given the low threshold Hawkins has been suspended for and has resulted in mass outrage at him getting done for virtually nothing. That IMV should not be suspendable, and glad it wasn't. A 50m penalty was more than sufficient for that.
I think people are just angry because

a) if it was a Geelong player you know that they would had been suspended and given a big lecture in the media

b) you just know that the next Geelong player that does this will get a holiday
 

Ricketz

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 2, 2011
5,552
6,608
Wagga Wagga
AFL Club
Geelong
I think people are just angry because

a) if it was a Geelong player you know that they would had been suspended and given a big lecture in the media

b) you just know that the next Geelong player that does this will get a holiday
Just like the jumper punch. Now three intentional hits to the head get off with a fine this year. The players just aren't getting the message. The AFL will need to make an example out of somebody (looks over towards Geelong team)…..
 

CatToTheFuture

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 18, 2018
6,722
9,375
AFL Club
Geelong
Should have been negligible contact. I seriously cannot believe so many on here are baying for a suspension given the low threshold Hawkins has been suspended for and has resulted in mass outrage at him getting done for virtually nothing. That IMV should not be suspendable, and glad it wasn't. A 50m penalty was more than sufficient for that.
That's all fair but there's no such thing as negligible contact. I think it's more recognition that every year, once the example has stopped being set, they back off the strict interpretation. A head clash is deemed intentional because a strict interpretation is taken for intending to make body contact so chart says 3 weeks. A clearly intentional hit to the head, which I agree probably isn't much to look at, has the grading set to careless because 1 week fails the pub test.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Cataholic

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 11, 2009
20,425
24,202
a happy wanderer
AFL Club
Geelong
Should have been negligible contact. I seriously cannot believe so many on here are baying for a suspension given the low threshold Hawkins has been suspended for and has resulted in mass outrage at him getting done for virtually nothing. That IMV should not be suspendable, and glad it wasn't. A 50m penalty was more than sufficient for that.
Agreed. To preserve some sensibility and old style play the 50m penalty should've sufficed.

BUT!

It was the AFL who made sweeping statements about 'the head being their highest priority', and noises about concussions and brain injuries.

It was the AFL who made an example of Rohan by suspending him - though virtually no contact was made - for his action being near enough to the vicinity of the head to offend their sensibilities on the matter.

It is now the AFL who've contradicted all that by deeming a deliberate and direct blow to the head as minor.

They made a rod for their own back by preaching from their soapbox and then changing their interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad