Vdubs
Hall of Famer
They probably don't miss the one week of less pocket money. I think the club should double the fine.
MRP / Trib. Hawkins escapes ban for elbow
- Thread starter juzcat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Mar 14, 2009
- 2,206
- 2,597
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Christian appears to have worked backwards on this one and seemed hellbent on handing out a week for what was negligible contact.
The only way to give Tom a week was to make it intentional which it clearly is not and defies explanation. It was in a contested situation and Hawkins was tackled without the ball. His action is really more a fend off to get Ryan off his back.
Careless, reckless, clumsy, yes ... but not intentional.
David the Cat
Moderator
- Moderator
- #53
You throw an elbow you risk consequences.Hawkins is a dumbass.....Love him, but he's a sandwich short of a picnic when he crosses the white line.
Seems he never learns...
Seems he never learns...
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
Christian never learns either judging by this result.
So yeo gets off for a front on hit to the neck entirely off play because it was a “push off” that accidentally brushed his neck yet he was looking at him while doing it off play... a push off from what??? They were standing off play not going for the ball, yet Hawkins has a guy land on top of him Next to the contest for no reason and swings his elbow back and brushes the same area as yeo did yet it’s 1 week.
can Tom also argue he was trying to push off and his elbow accidentally “brushed the neck”....
Some rules seem to never go both ways.
can Tom also argue he was trying to push off and his elbow accidentally “brushed the neck”....
Some rules seem to never go both ways.
Remember when Cotchin got off the jumper-punch because he wasn't looking at the guy? LOL
Funny thing though, I agreed with the posters about Yeo - week = Hawkins - week. So.....
All EVERYONE has ever wanted from these 'professional sports administrators' was CONSISTENCY. FFS
All EVERYONE has ever wanted from these 'professional sports administrators' was CONSISTENCY. FFS
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Does Hawkins risk a 2 week suspension if appeal is unsuccessful?
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Can’t argue with that assessment. The opposition players know it. Umpires know it. I feel for him in this one. The Freo guy was all over Tom and he didn’t even have the ball.
Sttew
Brownlow Medallist
Does ‘intentional’ refer to body contact generally, or contact with the head / neck? Hawkins could not have known exactly where the elbow was going to land, so you couldn’t say he intended to make head contact
- Oct 14, 2012
- 4,061
- 6,357
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- West Ham DEN Broncos BOS Celtics
My 2 bobs worth...
Tom hawkins is a habitual DUMBASS. Makes stupid people look smart.
Has cost us games and IMO a GF appearance through his peanut brain.
Love him like a cousin thats the DODO bird of the family.
Great, until he does something STUPID... again.
FFS. I can see this happening again when we can least afford it.
Cheers Boys!
Tom hawkins is a habitual DUMBASS. Makes stupid people look smart.
Has cost us games and IMO a GF appearance through his peanut brain.
Love him like a cousin thats the DODO bird of the family.
Great, until he does something STUPID... again.
FFS. I can see this happening again when we can least afford it.
Cheers Boys!
that’s great and true and all gee, but other dumbass players smacking people just get fines And the explanations why it’s different apparently are laughable.
- Banned
- #63
This suspension, the Gaz going home, all the injuries (except Clark) is all working in our favour.
Otherwise it'd be another copy of finals from the last couple of years.
Need Danger to get suspended for a couple of weeks. Same with Rohan when Danger comes back.
Otherwise it'd be another copy of finals from the last couple of years.
Need Danger to get suspended for a couple of weeks. Same with Rohan when Danger comes back.
Ridiculous that he's put himself in this position yet again.
But the delay between the 'strike' and the Freo player going all 'Robert De Niro' is actually quite noticeable.
Cats have good grounds for an appeal, especially considering the way so many other players are continually waved through in either the assessment or appeal phase of these MRO investigations. Point out the limited/negligible contact to the head, and the glacially-paced reaction to it from Ryan, and common sense (and pure decency) should win out.
On the wider issue, just what Toma 'did' to Christian, I guess we will never know. But the relentless campaign to rid the game of our #26 appears to only gather pace as time goes on.
But the delay between the 'strike' and the Freo player going all 'Robert De Niro' is actually quite noticeable.
Cats have good grounds for an appeal, especially considering the way so many other players are continually waved through in either the assessment or appeal phase of these MRO investigations. Point out the limited/negligible contact to the head, and the glacially-paced reaction to it from Ryan, and common sense (and pure decency) should win out.
On the wider issue, just what Toma 'did' to Christian, I guess we will never know. But the relentless campaign to rid the game of our #26 appears to only gather pace as time goes on.
For mine elbows are a no go.... if we are serious about preventing head injury ..just throwing one is a cheap dangerous act. Tom is lucky its not more than one, just like Rohan was extremely lucky a game or two ago with what he did, not an elbow but it was a raised forearm,
Having said that ..it looks like this is the third or fourth time the recipient of the Hawkins action , has put Mayo on it.
To me Im not fussed , in a way there is some justice in this. He infringed against WC in the finals last year.. he probably should be repent from playing against them if the suspension model had any sense.
To me the unavailability of some of bigger names is a chance to have a look at where we are. Some don't agree, but most have talked about what happens when the A graders retire ... having a taste of it while they are still here is good and in a way it is highlighting weakness on our list Rucks and KPF.. are roles that have been discussed for ages.
Do we bring in Krueger , he probably will be killed because we have failed to give him chances till now? Kruger and Rohan.?
Do we go small... the way Nic Nat was playing the other day ..id say the backline needs the best we have so im not sure moving anyone from there is the way to go
Having said that ..it looks like this is the third or fourth time the recipient of the Hawkins action , has put Mayo on it.
To me Im not fussed , in a way there is some justice in this. He infringed against WC in the finals last year.. he probably should be repent from playing against them if the suspension model had any sense.
To me the unavailability of some of bigger names is a chance to have a look at where we are. Some don't agree, but most have talked about what happens when the A graders retire ... having a taste of it while they are still here is good and in a way it is highlighting weakness on our list Rucks and KPF.. are roles that have been discussed for ages.
Do we bring in Krueger , he probably will be killed because we have failed to give him chances till now? Kruger and Rohan.?
Do we go small... the way Nic Nat was playing the other day ..id say the backline needs the best we have so im not sure moving anyone from there is the way to go
- Feb 12, 2017
- 16,363
- 42,845
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Tribunal will probably readjust and give him three now. 
Pardon the intrusion but to answer your question - Yeo's evidence was that Wills pushed him 2 or 3 times prior while he was on his haunches trying to get a breather, and he was just pushing him back. Anyway, Yeo didn't argue careless v intentional - he conceded it was intentional.
Hawkins does have a bit of an argument for careless rather than intentional, but he did appear to look at Ryan while he did it, so he may be given a hard time by Gleeson there.
I think Hawkins should get off based on the precedent set last night. The Chairman said the jury "consider that the initial contact was to the chest and subsequent contact was made above the shoulders with the open hand and in the view of the jury the impact above the shoulders was negligible."
From the footage, I think that if there was any high contact made (doesn't look like it - and is the neck high? I assume so) it was after inital contact to the body and any "impact above the shoulders was negligible".
I'd argue open hand v elbow doesn't matter when you are looking at force/impact. But the Tribunal may try and use that disctinction against Hawkins.
Good luck! I'm going to the game on Saturday and would prefer not to watch the Geelong twos.
Phill Hendo
Debutant
- Jul 16, 2015
- 148
- 425
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I have a good deal of sympathy for Tom. It must get very frustrating with the Umpires allowing the opposition defenders to ride him like a pony without penalty every game. The Cats are challenging but I don't think there is a lot of hope here. 2 areas to challenge, first is intentional or reckless, but it appears that Tom is actually looking a Ryan so not hopeful that this works. The second is area of contact. Ryan's head comes forward when contact is made which it would not do if contact was to the head. So it comes down to upper chest or neck. If its neck that is still high.
On the positive side we get a look at Kruger. I have high hopes for Nathan. Unfortunately he wont be coming in to be picked up by the 3rd tall defender which would have reduced the pressure on him.
On the positive side we get a look at Kruger. I have high hopes for Nathan. Unfortunately he wont be coming in to be picked up by the 3rd tall defender which would have reduced the pressure on him.
- Jul 28, 2012
- 11,059
- 10,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- QPR, Buffalo Bills
Geelong fans are sheep...
FreeTK
Premiership Player
- Oct 2, 2019
- 4,781
- 8,822
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #73
It will be interesting to see what the cats defense is. Surely they have to go with downgrading the intentional conduct down to careless.
I've seen the reverse angle footage from behind Hawkins and it is much clearer that the contact was indeed high. High contact is considered anything above the shoulders. You can clearly see Ryan grabbing his throat from impact.
Good luck tonight.
Whats with the kantian rubbish? He didnt connect so doesnt get suspended.
The what ? OK...
...Kantian ethics are deontological, revolving entirely around duty rather than emotions or end goals. All actions are performed in accordance with some underlying maxim or principle, which are vastly different from each other; it is according to this that the moral worth of any action is judged.
What did I say that you think resonates with that?
You may have to give me some examples cause id not heard of this before ....
but we are now fully of the danger that head damage can cause , reckless actions will be judged on potential , not just outcome. If Tom didnt hit , then he is lucky. As I said I felt the reaction was delayed ..but the throw of the elbow was far from a smart action in this day and age.
Last edited:
