Player Watch Mark Keane - Welcome to Adelaide

[jbanger]

Who is funding this interpretation of the events, do you think?

 

[AFC3000]

OMG - what drugs is this woman on?

"Biomechanist Dr. Kate Shorter said Powell-Pepper’s movements were in line with a “tackle pattern”, rather than any election to bump."

Old mate Same Assault & Pepper had 1 thing on his mind and it wasn't laying a tackle.

FMD

Like someone else said, it's funny these "split second" decisions where the player couldn't have possibly done anything else, very rarely do any damage to team mates. He knew what he was doing.

 

[50BC]

It was an odd thing I thought to bring a biomechanist as an expert witness. SPP had admitted publicly he had made the wrong decision, officially pleaded guilty to the tribunal asking for only 3 weeks and then at the same time to bring in someone to attempt to argue he wasn't guilty.

 

[GROTTO]

It was an odd thing I thought to bring a biomechanist as an expert witness. SPP had admitted publicly he had made the wrong decision, officially pleaded guilty to the tribunal asking for only 3 weeks and then at the same time to bring in someone to attempt to argue he wasn't guilty.

Once the AFL made an amendment to the tribunal rules for 2024, PIG was always getting 4+

An amendment to the Tribunal rules for 2024 reads: “In determining the classification of a reportable offence (and sanction in the case of any charge which is referred directly to the tribunal) the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year and may reasonably exercise its discretion to impose a different classification and/or sanction than may have been imposed in previous years, having regard to (among other things) evolving community standards and an increased focus on reducing instances of avoidable, forceful high contact and preventing injuries (including concussions).”

 

[50BC]

Once the AFL made an amendment to the tribunal rules for 2024, PIG was always getting 4+

An amendment to the Tribunal rules for 2024 reads: “In determining the classification of a reportable offence (and sanction in the case of any charge which is referred directly to the tribunal) the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year and may reasonably exercise its discretion to impose a different classification and/or sanction than may have been imposed in previous years, having regard to (among other things) evolving community standards and an increased focus on reducing instances of avoidable, forceful high contact and preventing injuries (including concussions).”

Yeah, agreed. I just thought it was a dangerous thing of Port/SPP to attempt to argue he didn't intend to bump, only tackle and that Keane himself contributed to the contact. It could have been viewed as a change of plea essentially and therefore risk getting more than 4.

 

[The Perfect Stranger]

Port scum. I would be okay with some form of prison sentence.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You need to cut your losses and give this away John as public opinion seems to be running against you.

 

[FR0GGY]

View attachment 1915614

Would make a great avatar for a few on here

 

[beartoo]

View attachment 1915614

Galileo?

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Apsaalooke]

Galileo?

On SM-A115F using BigFooty.com mobile app

The Catholic Church did apologise to Galileo though - 350 years later

 

[John Who]

The bump was never going to be in question. The extent of bodily harm that was intended was the main issue, and here I refer to last year’s case of a similar incidents (occurring on the same week):

Intent to cause pain without significant injury (bruising analogy):


Intent to cause serious harm (hospitalisation analogy):



Notice how how Pickett jumped off the ground, actually hitting Bailey-Smith’s head and his head then landed on the ground. The intent to do tons more harm is clear in the Pickett case. In this case, he was extremely lucky the opponent was Smith, because he’s a tough nut. Had the opponent been someone like Hamill or Parnell, then a hospitalisation was likely rather than not. We’re talking about possible whiplash, migraine, tension headache, seizure, unilateral weakness etc.

McAdam on the other hand remained on the ground and his intent was mainly to cause his opponent to be winded with some chest bruising. You can see at the end of the McAdam hit, his opponent was able to jog off the ground on his own.

TLDR - Sam P-P’s bump was similar to McAdam’s intention rather than the thug act that was the Pickett’s rocket-lift bump.

 

[cleanhands]

The bump was never going to be in question. The extent of bodily harm that was intended was the main issue, and here I refer to last year’s case of a similar incidents (occurring on the same week):

Intent to cause pain without significant injury (bruising analogy):


Intent to cause serious harm (hospitalisation analogy):


View attachment 1916583
Notice how how Pickett jumped off the ground, actually hitting Bailey-Smith’s head and his head then landed on the ground. The intent to do tons more harm is clear in the Pickett case. In this case, he was extremely lucky the opponent was Smith, because he’s a tough nut. Had the opponent been someone like Hamill or Parnell, then a hospitalisation was likely rather than not. We’re talking about possible whiplash, migraine, tension headache, seizure, unilateral weakness etc.

McAdam on the other hand remained on the ground and his intent was mainly to cause his opponent to be winded with some chest bruising. You can see at the end of the McAdam hit, his opponent was able to jog off the ground on his own.

TLDR - Sam P-P’s bump was similar to McAdam’s intention rather than the thug act that was the Pickett’s rocket-lift bump.

 

[Pugsley]

The bump was never going to be in question. The extent of bodily harm that was intended was the main issue, and here I refer to last year’s case of a similar incidents (occurring on the same week):

Intent to cause pain without significant injury (bruising analogy):


Intent to cause serious harm (hospitalisation analogy):


View attachment 1916583
Notice how how Pickett jumped off the ground, actually hitting Bailey-Smith’s head and his head then landed on the ground. The intent to do tons more harm is clear in the Pickett case. In this case, he was extremely lucky the opponent was Smith, because he’s a tough nut. Had the opponent been someone like Hamill or Parnell, then a hospitalisation was likely rather than not. We’re talking about possible whiplash, migraine, tension headache, seizure, unilateral weakness etc.

McAdam on the other hand remained on the ground and his intent was mainly to cause his opponent to be winded with some chest bruising. You can see at the end of the McAdam hit, his opponent was able to jog off the ground on his own.

TLDR - Sam P-P’s bump was similar to McAdam’s intention rather than the thug act that was the Pickett’s rocket-lift bump.

Stop now.

 

[Big Dub]

The bump was never going to be in question. The extent of bodily harm that was intended was the main issue, and here I refer to last year’s case of a similar incidents (occurring on the same week):

Intent to cause pain without significant injury (bruising analogy):


Intent to cause serious harm (hospitalisation analogy):


View attachment 1916583
Notice how how Pickett jumped off the ground, actually hitting Bailey-Smith’s head and his head then landed on the ground. The intent to do tons more harm is clear in the Pickett case. In this case, he was extremely lucky the opponent was Smith, because he’s a tough nut. Had the opponent been someone like Hamill or Parnell, then a hospitalisation was likely rather than not. We’re talking about possible whiplash, migraine, tension headache, seizure, unilateral weakness etc.

McAdam on the other hand remained on the ground and his intent was mainly to cause his opponent to be winded with some chest bruising. You can see at the end of the McAdam hit, his opponent was able to jog off the ground on his own.

TLDR - Sam P-P’s bump was similar to McAdam’s intention rather than the thug act that was the Pickett’s rocket-lift bump.

As crazy as it sounds, the current system was introduced to REMOVE the need for umpires/ mro to determine intent of infringing players.

There still remains the intentional/ careless grading of an offence, but this is in relation to contact not injury.

The tribunal did try to half bring back intent with the McAdam case, by arguing the potential to cause injury should be considered (yeah, contact to the head wasn't severe, but it COULD have been). But again, intent to cause harm wasn't a factor.

I'd prefer that intent was a factor, but the AFL seem hell bent on keeping it out.

 

[Big Dub]

As crazy as it sounds, the current system was introduced to REMOVE the need for umpires/ mro to determine intent of infringing players.

There still remains the intentional/ careless grading of an offence, but this is in relation to contact not injury.

The tribunal did try to half bring back intent with the McAdam case, by arguing the potential to cause injury should be considered (yeah, contact to the head wasn't severe, but it COULD have been). But again, intent to cause harm wasn't a factor.

I'd prefer that intent was a factor, but the AFL seem hell bent on keeping it out.

John Who , we might owe you an apology.

 

[John Who]

As crazy as it sounds, the current system was introduced to REMOVE the need for umpires/ mro to determine intent of infringing players.

There still remains the intentional/ careless grading of an offence, but this is in relation to contact not injury.

The tribunal did try to half bring back intent with the McAdam case, by arguing the potential to cause injury should be considered (yeah, contact to the head wasn't severe, but it COULD have been). But again, intent to cause harm wasn't a factor.

I'd prefer that intent was a factor, but the AFL seem hell bent on keeping it out.

Like I said in a previous post, the AFL/tribunal’s take on intent varies from week to week and club to club. They’re trying to dumb down the procedure to penalise a player, while showing their biases in certain comparable cases.

In that last paragraph of yours, by diminishing the issue of intent, then that’s a fail in any form of justice/legal system.

 

[Danger in Texas]

Game winning mark today

Him and Murray is our KPD duo for at least the next few years, no arguments

 

[huludicidal]

A month ago, it really seemed like getting Petty as a FA at the end of 2025 would be an urgent need, to bring him in as the 2nd key defender to play alongside Murray, Worrell and Max down back. Curtin to either play on a flank or maybe further up the ground.

But now, how can Keane possibly not be part of the best 22 plans? Looks absolutely fantastic and one of the real positives from a horrid 2024 season thus far.

 

[Sanders]

The bump was never going to be in question. The extent of bodily harm that was intended was the main issue, and here I refer to last year’s case of a similar incidents (occurring on the same week):

Intent to cause pain without significant injury (bruising analogy):


Intent to cause serious harm (hospitalisation analogy):


View attachment 1916583
Notice how how Pickett jumped off the ground, actually hitting Bailey-Smith’s head and his head then landed on the ground. The intent to do tons more harm is clear in the Pickett case. In this case, he was extremely lucky the opponent was Smith, because he’s a tough nut. Had the opponent been someone like Hamill or Parnell, then a hospitalisation was likely rather than not. We’re talking about possible whiplash, migraine, tension headache, seizure, unilateral weakness etc.

McAdam on the other hand remained on the ground and his intent was mainly to cause his opponent to be winded with some chest bruising. You can see at the end of the McAdam hit, his opponent was able to jog off the ground on his own.

TLDR - Sam P-P’s bump was similar to McAdam’s intention rather than the thug act that was the Pickett’s rocket-lift bump.

Don’t think anyone is buying your medical “credentials” these days

And frankly, your crows allegiance seems a bit shaky

 

[AFC979810]

Don’t think anyone is buying your medical “credentials” these days

And frankly, your crows allegiance seems a bit shaky

Weren't you chastising others for feeding the troll?

 

[John Who]

Don’t think anyone is buying your medical “credentials” these days

And frankly, your crows allegiance seems a bit shaky

You’re an old broken record. Frankly I don’t give a s**t what you think. End convo for rest of the season.

 

[Sanders]

Your an old broken record. Frankly I don’t give a s**t what you think. End convo for rest of the season.

No one cares more than someone flouncing off muttering “I don’t care”

And you’re a fraud

 

[Samcro24]

No one cares more than someone flouncing off muttering “I don’t care”

And you’re a fraud

End convo.
Come back, 1 year.

 

[FR0GGY]

You’re an old broken record. Frankly I don’t give a s**t what you think. End convo for rest of the season.

You think we’ll lose the rest of our games?

 

[Sanders]

You think we’ll lose the rest of our games?

I see what you did there!