Graham offered a week for his high hit. He's either unlucky or Caddy is extremely lucky to only get 1 week for his hit 2 weeks ago. Similar incidents but Caddy knocked out the player. How do they get the same penalty?
Graham offered 1 week. Jack Graham that is....
- Thread starter THECHIEFTON
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Was more surprised to see Kamdyn McIntosh got a fine for rough conduct, would like to see footage of that incident.
Graham probably deserved a week for a forearm to the back of the head, was a bit silly but nothing too major. I think Caddy was very unlucky and was another example of punishing the outcome rather than the action, which just seems totally stupid to me and has no deterrence value and therefore does nothing to protect players, or their heads or anything else.
Graham probably deserved a week for a forearm to the back of the head, was a bit silly but nothing too major. I think Caddy was very unlucky and was another example of punishing the outcome rather than the action, which just seems totally stupid to me and has no deterrence value and therefore does nothing to protect players, or their heads or anything else.
Last year Dangerfield and now Jack Graham. Makes a hollow mockery of the Brownlow.
- Jun 23, 2013
- 10,735
- 12,859
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Los Angeles Clippers
its fair enough. close thread.
Foley#41
Tin Foil Hat
I’m surplrised. Didn’t look like enough force on the vision I saw.
telsor
Hall of Famer
and it's been appealed....
I'm in 2 minds over it...
Going by the precedent/rules from this year (and last), it should only be a fine...careless, high, low impact...
But as a general comment, I think a forearm to the head should be worth a week and way too much weight is put on the impact in such decisions....but as I said, that's not the way they've been calling it thus far.
I'm in 2 minds over it...
Going by the precedent/rules from this year (and last), it should only be a fine...careless, high, low impact...
But as a general comment, I think a forearm to the head should be worth a week and way too much weight is put on the impact in such decisions....but as I said, that's not the way they've been calling it thus far.
What we don't know is his intention. Zorko on the footage was a little low in his posture. Did he mean to hit him in the head or the shoulder? If it was the latter, it is a fine as it was careless. If it was the former it should be a week. Does the player get to give evidence here? It is crucial to a fair outcome. Zorko bounced right up again so there was not much force in the contact.
telsor
Hall of Famer
If I had my way, I'd change the scale they use for punishments and make it harsher, with, among other things, more emphasis on potential for damage rather than actual damage, so a forearm to the head would be a week.
As it stands though, I agree...it should be careless/high/low impact = fine.
Thus the 'in 2 minds' bit.
Appeal dismissed. I'm not sure the tribunal has ever found in Richmond's favour on appeal, outside of melee fines. Media usually reports we've mounted a decent case, to no avail.
Oh well, we had a bit of luck after the Preliminary Final...
Oh well, we had a bit of luck after the Preliminary Final...
Feel it’s the correct decision but worth a crack to protect his rising star eligibility. Gives someone else an opportunity.
- May 16, 2014
- 12,163
- 15,984
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Felt he deserved a week more so than Caddy did tbh.
Similar threads
