How many weeks does Grey miss?

[DazalenkoUBewty]

I don’t think Cotchin had any intent of malice at all in that incident. It was a dead ringer for like a half dozen other cases that got weeks though and that’s why people were pissed off. Everyone knew he wasn’t going to get done grand final week though.

Seriously? Cotching actually knew the man was there, and he went in extremely recklessly, and with intent, imo.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

All three were lucky as buggery. Different rules for a GF...well, for certain teams - unfortunately a Port player is getting rubbed out for the same acts.

Cotch really should have copped a couple weeks regardless of the two strikes. Having two strikes and still not getting rubbed out is where it just gets absolutely laughable.

Anyway...

But it wasn't worth a strike, not in home and away, JLT or finals, it was an attack on the ball and like i said if he wasn't on two strikes it wouldn't have even been discussed and the sooner people deal with that the better.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

But it wasn't worth a strike, not in home and away, JLT or finals, it was an attack on the ball and like i said if he wasn't on two strikes it wouldn't have even been discussed and the sooner people deal with that the better.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Dude, Gray had no intention of getting the ball, he is lucky he didn't cop 2 weeks.

And roll your eyes all you want because i'm right and Michael Christian agrees with me, not fans who let dislike and emotion get in the way.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Dude, Gray had no intention of getting the ball, he is lucky he didn't cop 2 weeks.

And roll your eyes all you want because i'm right and Michael Christian agrees with me, not fans who let dislike and emotion get in the way.

Imo you're completely wrong.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Shouldn't have been any. System is rooted.

 

[asanque]

Hear Hear Charlie Dixon

"It wasn't malice, it wasn't anything – it was just an accident," Dixon told Triple M Adelaide.

"What's a player supposed to do? They're both sort of going at the ball and the ball's bounced up.

"It's a contact sport, we play a contact sport — you've got to realise that, and s--t happens."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-28/whats-a-player-supposed-to-do

 

[RonSon]

Gray is an elite midfielder/small forward. He has the ability to duck and weave as well as the top half a dozen players in the AFL.

If you want to pretend that he doesn't have the awareness to see a 6+foot tall player coming at him from a different angle, and the ability to move his body as needed, then perhaps he's not as elite as we've come to expect.

I don't think it was his intention to hit Gov in the head, but I do think it was his intention to bump Gov and cause him a bit of pain, and subsequently he was careless and hit him high. There is nothing to argue about here.

And I'm also sick of this "he was just bracing, he didn't bump". Small tip ... there's no ******* difference.

If a similar ruling was to cost Sloane a grand final appearance last year would you have had the same reaction? Because going by yesterdays ruling it would have. Dangerfield was already in possession, Sloane didn't attempt to tackle and hit him high with a raised arm. On yesterdays ruling Sloane would have received multiple weeks. Sloane had much more time to react than Gray did.

 

[HairyO]

Lol In what way did he sacrifice his opponent to protect himself?


Gov was hitting gray no matter what.

Lol. Victim blaming.

 

[stax on the mull]

Christian likely look at the fixtures and saw Port vs Fremantle at Adelaide Oval Round 1. Yep, we can suspend Gray.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Christian likely look at the fixtures and saw Port vs Fremantle at Adelaide Oval Round 1. Yep, we can suspend Gray.

 

[Port01]

I don't think Cotchin should have been suspended, and I don't think Gray should have either.
Breeding out players that protect themselves when contesting the ball is a slope the AFL continually wants to go down.

Despite all their talk, they will continually reward the player who puts themselves in danger (this isn't implying McGovern did so either, but I think Grays actions lessened the contact significantly, if he hadn't pulled up McGovern could have copped significantly worse injury from an elbow or head etc).

 

[Underdog]

Hear Hear Charlie Dixon

"It wasn't malice, it wasn't anything – it was just an accident," Dixon told Triple M Adelaide.

"What's a player supposed to do? They're both sort of going at the ball and the ball's bounced up.

"It's a contact sport, we play a contact sport — you've got to realise that, and s--t happens."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-28/whats-a-player-supposed-to-do

I actually think the whole "did he or did he not intend to bump" debate is largely irrelevant. I'd expect professional AFL footballers to possess the judgement to know whether they can fairly contest a ball. If he cannot contest fairly, then he should abort prior to being put in the position where his only option is to bump to the head. Grey had a clear view of McGovern coming across in front of him and lowering to gather. If Grey chooses to put himself into a position where the only option is to clean up his head, he should accept the risk of that action.

 

[tonygeeks]

But it wasn't worth a strike, not in home and away, JLT or finals, it was an attack on the ball and like i said if he wasn't on two strikes it wouldn't have even been discussed and the sooner people deal with that the better.

99% of non tiger supporters would say that was at least a week probably 2 with the priors but I suppose since our teams didn’t win the flag none of us have any idea and it’s all just tiger bashing
If you crash into someone’s head while he’s bending over to pick up the ball it is a pretty clear violation of the rules and has been since day dot,

Stop doing so many lines of premiership glitter


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Waspy79]

How many weeks for Harry McKay??

 

[Grave Danger]

How many weeks for Harry McKay??

Nine None:

 

[Waspy79]

Conspiracy confirmed

 

[LFC2010]

Well we didn’t have to wait long did we. The interstate clubs will just be sideshow for the VFL.

 

[Mundusa]

"inevitable"

 

[Doashuey]

You blokes have your hand on it.
The McKay incident was nothing alike, for a start, he had the ball and was dishing off a handball when Geary cannoned into him front on.
Look I don't think Grey should have been suspended but under the laws as they stand now, he opted (I know split second but this is how they adjudicate) to not contest the ball and bump/brace so it was always going to be a week. I dont like to see footy reduced to that with suspensions handed out for accidental collisions with no real alternative but by the law it was always going to be a week.
To compare it to the McKay incident is laughable. If you have the ball and some bloke cannons into you and comes off second best then under the current laws it is play on unless you raise the elbow/knees etc.

Conspiracy my arse.

 

[JimmyBeerCans]

You blokes have your hand on it.
The McKay incident was nothing alike, for a start, he had the ball and was dishing off a handball when Geary cannoned into him front on.
Look I don't think Grey should have been suspended but under the laws as they stand now, he opted (I know split second but this is how they adjudicate) to not contest the ball and bump/brace so it was always going to be a week. I dont like to see footy reduced to that with suspensions handed out for accidental collisions with no real alternative but by the law it was always going to be a week.
To compare it to the McKay incident is laughable. If you have the ball and some bloke cannons into you and comes off second best then under the current laws it is play on unless you raise the elbow/knees etc.

Conspiracy my arse.

*Gray

 

[Waspy79]

You blokes have your hand on it.
The McKay incident was nothing alike, for a start, he had the ball and was dishing off a handball when Geary cannoned into him front on.
Look I don't think Grey should have been suspended but under the laws as they stand now, he opted (I know split second but this is how they adjudicate) to not contest the ball and bump/brace so it was always going to be a week. I dont like to see footy reduced to that with suspensions handed out for accidental collisions with no real alternative but by the law it was always going to be a week.
To compare it to the McKay incident is laughable. If you have the ball and some bloke cannons into you and comes off second best then under the current laws it is play on unless you raise the elbow/knees etc.

Conspiracy my arse.

You also think Shuey deserved the free kick in the final despite ducking, right?

 

[Doashuey]

You need to learn the difference between shrugging off a weak tackle and ducking my friend.

If you disagree with my post about the McKay incident, feel free to put forth a reasonable argument of why the 2 incidents were comparable. So far the only rebuttal you blokes have been able to come up with is a spelling correction and a completely unrelated incident from last year.

 

[Waspy79]

You need to learn the difference between shrugging off a weak tackle and ducking my friend.

If you disagree with my post about the McKay incident, feel free to put forth a reasonable argument of why the 2 incidents were comparable. So far the only rebuttal you blokes have been able to come up with is a spelling correction and a completely unrelated incident from last year.

I think you need to read the rules - if the tackler initiates the high contact (i.e. by dropping his shoulder and/or knees - as Shuey did) then the umpire is instructed to call play on. This was the 2017 interpretation of the rule, as publicly specified by the AFL, and it wasnt applied to that incident.

As for McKay versus Gray - both players took action to brace as they either lost 'possession' (McKay) or realised they couldn't win possession (Gray) (this being the only difference) - both players got their opponent high - both players concussed their opponent and the opponent didnt return to the field - yet we have two different outcomes. Both players had no case to answer, or both players must be suspended. The inconsistency is mind-boggling.

 

[Doashuey]

OK so we will derail this thread with Ports biggest whinge for 2017. It has been done to death but as you insist.
If you can bear to look at the footage again (I've kindly linked) you will see that Shuey is in an upright position and sidesteps the tackle. If you think this is ducking as you accused originally there is no hope for you. The arm shot out, hit the shoulder and then wrapped around his neck. Done at full pace with one look at it, the decision was one that would be made by probably 90% of umpires. You want to blame someone for the loss, have a look at Charlie 2.6

Now enough of that. Re Gray v McKay. There is a difference, McKay had no options, he could not just disappear as the bloke was barrelling into him front on. Whether he turned or not, the collision was inevitable and the head high was going to occur whether Geary caught his shoulder, chest or head. Gray did have options and was coming across the bows of a bloke with his head over a ball and unfortunately the one he chose resulted in a head high. He was bloody unlucky no doubt and as I've mentioned twice now, I would rather not see someone getting rubbed out for that. I like Gray as a player, there was no malice and Gov just got an unlucky one. However as the rules stand that was always going to get a week as he opted not to contest the ball and to brace and got him high.
Anyway, I've said my bit. Think what you will, stew on it and accuse the AFL of gross bias if you like, doesn't bother me but you Port blokes are looking rather silly comparing Gray to McKay.

Oh- as promised...

.