Howe many?

[harrisendblue]

This is some of the biggest confirmation bias I have ever read.

You can see in pictures four and five his foot swing up and around..

Hawthorn fans are ridiculous on this.

While I don't think he deserved three weeks for it. Trying to argue he was did not trip him is silly.

The old Hawthorn supporter would have accepted it, copped it on and focussed on how dumb Howe was. If they miss finals hopefully Howe apologises to his teammates.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Calling it a broken leg is such over-dramatizing, the colloquial interpretation of "broken leg" being very different to the medical accuracy of the term.

There's a huge difference between breaking the fibula and the tibia. Fisher walked unassisted from the ground, and was hobbling around the rooms trying to 'run it out'. Despite what I believe to be very poor argument from the Hawthorn counsel, they did have a significant point. Indeed breaking the smaller bone is often just a matter of angle. In that sense - Fisher's spin may have caused - or at the very least contributed significantly - to the injury.

Well done to the poster above who posted the serious of still images - shows exactly what most Hawks have said all along, that Howe was balancing and a leg clash/tangle/etc - not a trip in the traditional sense of a Fletcher or Selwood who actually throw the leg in the air.

Howe very unlucky to get two for the punch (should have been one by the rules) - but I think most people are coming around to increasing penalties for 'niggly' hits. Again, the replay shows both Howe being the retaliator after Cripps punches him first, and Cripps bending the knees and turning away as Howe strikes, AND Cripps taking a moment to reflect before going to ground. Was clearly low impact. The trip should have been based on intent, with the argument not whether it was intentional (the replays show it wasn't IMO), but rather whether it was careless or accidental. In my mind that should have been the Hawthorn argument, but the media saturation had already convinced everyone otherwise.

Overall, any outcome from 1-3 would have probably been appropriate - with 3 weeks I would be unhappy, but could accept it was a reasonable penalty for the action. 1 week (strike and fine for trip) would have people frothing at the mouth, so 2-3 was probably the right outcome. 5 is well outside the scope and frankly quite ridiculous.

 

[harrisendblue]

Calling it a broken leg is such over-dramatizing, the colloquial interpretation of "broken leg" being very different to the medical accuracy of the term.

There's a huge difference between breaking the fibula and the tibia. Fisher walked unassisted from the ground, and was hobbling around the rooms trying to 'run it out'. Despite what I believe to be very poor argument from the Hawthorn counsel, they did have a significant point. Indeed breaking the smaller bone is often just a matter of angle. In that sense - Fisher's spin may have caused - or at the very least contributed significantly - to the injury.

Well done to the poster above who posted the serious of still images - shows exactly what most Hawks have said all along, that Howe was balancing and a leg clash/tangle/etc - not a trip in the traditional sense of a Fletcher or Selwood who actually throw the leg in the air.

Howe very unlucky to get two for the punch (should have been one by the rules) - but I think most people are coming around to increasing penalties for 'niggly' hits. Again, the replay shows both Howe being the retaliator after Cripps punches him first, and Cripps bending the knees and turning away as Howe strikes, AND Cripps taking a moment to reflect before going to ground. Was clearly low impact. The trip should have been based on intent, with the argument not whether it was intentional (the replays show it wasn't IMO), but rather whether it was careless or accidental. In my mind that should have been the Hawthorn argument, but the media saturation had already convinced everyone otherwise.

Overall, any outcome from 1-3 would have probably been appropriate - with 3 weeks I would be unhappy, but could accept it was a reasonable penalty for the action. 1 week (strike and fine for trip) would have people frothing at the mouth, so 2-3 was probably the right outcome. 5 is well outside the scope and frankly quite ridiculous.

If you cant understand that when Howe's action caused a player to sustain an injury in which he misses 5 weeks plus 3 quarters then it was always going to be rated as severe.
Re Crippa you must have been at a different game. I was there and watched them from the start because I look to see who goes to Crippa. Howe clearly was the aggressor and Crippa did not punch him.

Show some strength of character and cop it on the chin rather than moaning and groaning.

 

[Hawkforce]

Re Crippa you must have been at a different game. I was there and watched them from the start because I look to see who goes to Crippa. Howe clearly was the aggressor and Crippa did not punch him.

Show some strength of character and cop it on the chin rather than moaning and groaning.

Huh? Cripps gave Howe a whack literally half a second before Howe hit him back.

Doesn't change the fact the Howe caught him on the chin and was rightly suspended but don't pretend Cripps didn't hit Howe. Lol

 

[Monkey King]

Huh? Cripps gave Howe a whack literally half a second before Howe hit him back.

No he didn’t. Howe was holding on to Cripps with both arms and Cripps pushed him away with an open hand to get a run at the ball. Plain as day from the footage. Stop making shit up?

 

[harrisendblue]

Huh? Cripps gave Howe a whack literally half a second before Howe hit him back.

Doesn't change the fact the Howe caught him on the chin and was rightly suspended but don't pretend Cripps didn't hit Howe. Lol

Crickey you need to look at your definition of a whack. Pushed him away yes punch no.

 

[Jeffy38!]

40 seconds later, Cripps was at a ballup almost 100m away, and played out the game without issue and never looked like leaving the field. Clearly low impact and deserves a week. Two for stupidity I could handle, but the rules don't allow that so they make it up.

The trip should be 0. Fine only, same as every other trip (other than Roughead) in the last decade. Even then he's harshly done by given so many are just simply ignored every week.

You're a peanut.

 

[Hawkforce]

Crickey you need to look at your definition of a whack. Pushed him away yes punch no.

So Cripps gone for the rest of the season for his dangerous tackle on Swallow?

ZOMGTHUGLIFEDOGACT

 

[harrisendblue]

So Cripps gone for the rest of the season for his dangerous tackle on Swallow?

Unlikely. Protected him and was going the ball. Commentators opinion, if you value that sort of thing, was play on nothing to see.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Unlikely. Protected him and was going the ball. Commentators opinion, if you value that sort of thing, was play on nothing to see.

Could be a fine because the AFL is making decisions based on outcome. Could argue there are similarities to the Nic Nat tackle on Amon which was one week, but not a sling tackle like Ryan Nyhuis on Robbie Gray which was 3 weeks.

Would expect AFL house to enact the Tom Mitchell potential brownlow clause to make it a fine only.

 

[harrisendblue]

Could be a fine because the AFL is making decisions based on outcome. Could argue there are similarities to the Nic Nat tackle on Amon which was one week, but not a sling tackle like Ryan Nyhuis on Robbie Gray which was 3 weeks.

Would expect AFL house to enact the Tom Mitchell potential brownlow clause to make it a fine only.

I think the nic nat tackle was very different because he drove him down. Crippa appeared to even use one arm to hold him up and used his other hand to punch the ball. Swallow was already going down before crippa tackled him. Would be disappointed with a fine and yes whilst they do look at outcomes they also acknowledge its a contact sport in which injuries will occur.

 

[Sleutheren]

Zac Jones clips Merrett on the chin and gets a fine.
Ok

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[harrisendblue]

Zac Jones clips Merrett on the chin and gets a fine.
Ok

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Completely different. Jones charged with misconduct whilst howe was charged with striking.

Get over it he is out for 5. Maybe Jono O'Rourke or Ricky Henderson can play his role?

 

[Jeffy38!]

Hawks fans on this thread are peanuts.

 

[Hookster]

Bye Bye Patrick Cripps or have they lost the medical report.


Consistency.

 

[Jeffy38!]

Bye Bye Patrick Cripps or have they lost the medical report.


Consistency.

Ha ha sour much?

 

[Hookster]

Carlton are embarrassing the afl, Gil will tell Michael to punish carlton.

 

[hawkman]

How did Devon Smith only get charged with attempting to trip?

 

[Vindicater]

How did Devon Smith only get charged with attempting to trip?

I did have a chuckle at that one.

Perhaps because Parker stayed upright and did not fall? I have no idea how it can be an attempt if he connects?

 

[Masqualero]

Bye Bye Patrick Cripps or have they lost the medical report.


Consistency.

Howe did that turn out?

 

[harrisendblue]

Bye Bye Patrick Cripps or have they lost the medical report.


Consistency.

Oh well just another thing that uve got wrong.