Michael Christian... Please explain - The Cunnington bump

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I don't think it's suspendable, but why is he bumping someone after they've disposed of the ball? Tackle or smother. That is the team thing to do.
 
Scratching my head at this. It was barely even late, and it doesn't look like he got him high. Laird came back on and played well, I think Cunnington just winded him. Surely North will appeal.
 
Trial by media this one

Kane Cornes mentioned it and Christian jumped like a cheerleader

This isn’t a core issue really, his actual problem is he is a s**t stain of a human
 
Trial by media this one

Kane Cornes mentioned it and Christian jumped like a cheerleader

This isn’t a core issue really, his actual problem is he is a sh*t stain of a human

Weren't you the one who started the Hawkins thread...which was an accident? Might want to maintain some consistency

EDIT: Yep checked and it's you. Maybe like many others, you just don't like Hawkins...but apparently everything else is a trial by media, lol.

'Accident or not, that is reckless, high damage and really could have cost Demons the game 2 weeks I think'
 
I don't think it's suspendable, but why is he bumping someone after they've disposed of the ball? Tackle or smother. That is the team thing to do.

Yep agreed. It was a down field free kick which is exactly what it should have been.

I assume there is another angle that shows a head clash or something, because otherwise I can't see where the high grading comes from.

I reckon they've just pinged him after he got off on all those little stomach jabs.
 
Weren't you the one who started the Hawkins thread...which was an accident? Might want to maintain some consistency

EDIT: Yep checked and it's you. Maybe like many others, you just don't like Hawkins...but apparently everything else is a trial by media, lol.

'Accident or not, that is reckless, high damage and really could have cost Demons the game 2 weeks I think'

Yes. That was a suspension because he severely hurt the person. In this case the player is fine. Not the same
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Also why wasn't Kyle Langford cited for a dangerous tackle on Warner and a quasi tunnelling of McInerney?
 
Yes. That was a suspension because he severely hurt the person. In this case the player is fine. Not the same

So if an accident that's outside of their control hurts someone, they get suspended - is that the precedent you want to set? Even if Cunnington had broken his ribs, it's still a legal bump with no contact to the head - do you still want to suspend him then? What if Daniel had of slung Berry into the ground, and Berry's elbow had knocked out Daniel in the process - do both get suspended? Or do you want to suspend someone for falling into someone's back and injuring them as well? May as well get rid of the speccy on that basis, as that's intentional, causes injury a fair bit, and is not offering a 'duty of care' to the other player.

You sound like Christian himself. You are exactly what is wrong with some supporters these days, who want all of the grunt but none of the outcome that results from it. It's a contact sport, accidents happen. If we're citing Hawkins or Cunnington for actions such as those on the weekend, then the game is dead.
 
Last edited:
And people are still here saying 'the bump isn't dead - you just have to execute it properly' :tearsofjoy:

Nothing in it, play on.

Except the Cunnington bump happens weekly, Christian has pulled this one from the clouds yes but obviously we don't remember all the bumps that were executed well (or just late) and were a free at worst.
 
Let's take a look at the newly available evidence in comparison to the assessment:

1618222491720.png

The ball had literally just left the boot when Cunnington braces to bump.

1618222511084.png

Cunnington kept his feet on the ground - didn't jump into Laird.


1618222537356.png

Contact is made shoulder to shoulder - importantly, Cunnington never raises or elevates his elbow.



You tell me, folks.

You tell me...
 

Attachments

  • 1618222262496.png
    1618222262496.png
    45.3 KB · Views: 28
  • 1618222308499.png
    1618222308499.png
    49.8 KB · Views: 26
  • 1618222355599.png
    1618222355599.png
    50.8 KB · Views: 27

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top