Justice served, if he served weeks for that football is dead
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Meek v Lipinkski
- Thread starter Maddo11
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Sep 22, 2014
- 1,654
- 4,022
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
It wasn’t late, as it wasn’t even a mark.
Should have been a free, yes, but not 50.
He'll have to go cause it doesn't look good. He was late The main impact was the body.... Lipinski took the 50 pretty easily and thumped it into the stands. I'm sure Lipinski will be fine. Not sure about Meek.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 8,234
- 11,895
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Thread starter
- #29
Lol good news, he's already been cleared
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Jul 16, 2013
- 18,242
- 24,788
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Sanity prevails.
Surprised it was not a fine for rough conduct however.
Surprised it was not a fine for rough conduct however.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 41,846
- 48,500
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
And its zero because the AFL has backed itself into a corner where its 3 or nothing.
If they hadnt gone down that path and 1 week was an option I dont think too many complain.
Yep. If there a different grades of concussion then there can be different penalties.
Regards
S. Pete
Wow !! Can't believe the AFL aren't worried about the image of the game !Lol good news, he's already been cleared
- Jul 13, 2015
- 41,846
- 48,500
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
There should be different grades for careless football acts.
There was a time when 3 weeks meant intentional. And careless would be a fine, 1 or 2 weeks max.
Orange crush
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 12, 2017
- 6,588
- 12,116
- AFL Club
- GWS
Thank heck for that ... Whankley going for 3+ last night during the game was a farking disgrace
- Nov 12, 2014
- 8,174
- 11,446
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
So we're now going to scrutinise forceful body contact in a marking contest are we? It's a textbook 50m penalty and that's all it should be. Had the shoulder been tucked in than he would have got 3 as he's made no attempt to play the ball but if were going to suspend players coming in a touch late with forceful body contact we may as well give it up.
I’m not a fan of a suspension system that seeks to determine the level of intent. In general I support the idea of an outcome based result but the current arrangement is far too rigid.
Regards
S. Pete
Are we?
Apparently not, it would seem.
Personally, I'm Ok with it. I would have been concerned for the direction of the game (more so), in particular the Marking Contest had he been suspended.
Although having said that, I don't feel we're that far away from the AFL deciding that this is a suspendable offence.
Small club justice man.
- Nov 12, 2014
- 8,174
- 11,446
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
The concussion occured because he's head hit the ground not because Meek hit him high which is what has been adjudicated. An outcome which happened from late contact in a marking contest. It's always been 50 and that's what it always should be.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 41,846
- 48,500
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Outcome based means the exact same tackle can be no issue on a guy with a strong head and 3 weeks on a guy with a history of concussions who gets another concussion.
To me that is the worst system.
I agree it is a strong point against an outcome based system. But an outcome is a known - particularly if it is determined by independent expert evidence. A determination of intent is a guess and that doesn’t sit as well with me.
Given the HIA protocols I am also a fan of a red card system - but only for concussion.
Regards
S. Pete
So Meek will play next week and Lipinski won't !!
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 34,565
- 118,347
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Super late, high, launches himself into the air way too fast into something that was barely a marking contest. Hits Lipinski hard and gives him a brain injury that will put him out for at least 1 more game.
Love this new standard where if there was an attempt at a mark anytime in the previous few seconds you can fly in and concuss someone, giving away a free kick in the process but the MRP isn't interested.
Love this new standard where if there was an attempt at a mark anytime in the previous few seconds you can fly in and concuss someone, giving away a free kick in the process but the MRP isn't interested.
Yes. And this is a flaw in the current system. I think meek should get 1 week (and not just because it rhymes).
Looking at the way Lipinski got up and ran off the ground it seems like a grade 1 concussion to me (no medical qualms whatsoever) so 1 week would seem right.
Regards
S. Pete
I think Lipinski would be fine to play Monday week. That's the problem with protocols.
I agree he’d be fine physically and mentally. But my limited understanding is that should he take a head knock there is greater risk of more severe consequences. So perhaps not cerebrally ready?
Regards
S. Pete
(I’m not sure of cerebrally unfit means he’s not 100% physically ready).
HeHateMe
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 28, 2009
- 8,834
- 7,863
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I'll need to re-watch the footage but from memory Meek left the ground before Lipinski marked the ball he just moved through the air soooooo slowly and ended up making contact late.
It's been ruled as footy act of spoiling not a body check or bump or tackle, some of the commentary on the night were calling it a body check so have likely misread the situation which led them down the wrong path.
Think Dunstall was the only one that mentioned it was an act of spoiling not bump but wasn't sure what that would mean to the MRO.
It's been ruled as footy act of spoiling not a body check or bump or tackle, some of the commentary on the night were calling it a body check so have likely misread the situation which led them down the wrong path.
Think Dunstall was the only one that mentioned it was an act of spoiling not bump but wasn't sure what that would mean to the MRO.
- Aug 21, 2007
- 34,565
- 118,347
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
Should you be allowed to spoil if it means you're very late, high, and launch yourself into the air with enough force that you concuss your opponent?
I mean, even if Lipinski was fine, it was so late that it was one of the clearest 50s you'll ever see, so a clearly illegal act according to the laws of the game, and an illegal act that will see his opponent miss a week to give his brain a chance to heal. Surely this sort of dumb late hit that gives a player a brain injury is something we want out of the game?
Every single club has former players that are either living with the horrific effects of CTE or have died because of it. It's incredibly frustrating to come into these threads and have people applauding this sort of shit being excused by the MRP.
We 100% need to get the defence of "just a footy act" or "I had to go in hard so I didn't let my team down" out of these discussions. The duty of care to opponents when it comes to brain injuries needs to be a priority over winning the ball.
