Remove this Banner Ad

Minson gets a week

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

sydjackson said:
I think the result here is outrageous.
I have been following footy for 60 years and through all that time anything that came anywhere near kicking (including stomping, stamping, whatever) was regarded as the worst you could do. I recall Gordon Hynes at Geelong and Barry Pascoe at North getting 8 or more weeks for such like. I also remember John Peck flattening Brian Sawley because he believed Sawley's boot had come in contact with him.
I would have thought we all would have that inculcated into us from the time we started playing the game, so that you would instinctively avoid your boots/feet getting you into trouble. Watch any match and you will see players instinctively avoiding colliding with their feet (Mitch Robinson from Carlton hurdling a player to his own disadvantage, but ensuring that he didn't injure the opponent) ; and hear the howls of horror when someone "kicks in danger" (Milne against Jolly a week or two back; Tuohy from Carlton on the weekend).
I have no problem with Footscray trying to get Minson off under the system. That's the system and they are entitled to use it. Good luck to them.
But I do have two concerns - firstly, Minson. That was not a good look, and to a long-time fan, that was both avoidable, and unnecessary. His body language then, and his subsequent actions, suggest no remorse or apology, or any indication that he aws out of line. To anyone watching the video it looks deliberate, and many on this forum agree.
Secondly, and far more importantly, the MRP are out of order! The Hunt/Betts incident earlier this year, and this incident, should have brought a penalty in the 2 to 4 weeks range at least, without question. The game is fantastic, but anything to do with kicking/stamping/stomping is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...
Chris Judd. Chicken Wing. P!ss off and take it to the AFL forum buddy.
 
I think if you watch the footage closely it is clearly an accident. From behind it looked really bad and I was very angry at the time, but having had a chance to review the footage from other angles I can basically see why Minson contested the decision.
 
Lol'd at the last line in the Caro article. "If Minson went home relieved last night, he should be even more disappointed in himself".
I wonder if he was relieved he can play now? o_O
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

At least when Minno looks in the mirror at himself he doesn't feel the urge to vomit like Caro would.

Why we even think her opinions are even worth discussing is beyond me.
 
OK, just saw the footage, and you know what? It was an accident.

Look at this footage

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/cats-coach-gives-minson-stamp-of-approval-20120822-24lox.html

First thing - Jack was flailing around on the ground in the first place because he was playing for a free kick, but regardless...

You can clearly see from that angle that minson is waiting for a clear spot to put down his raised foot and then sees it and commits to placing his weight on it, and at the last second , Jack, doing his best Zachary Smith impersonation "the pain, the pain", rolls sideways and slides his leg underneath minsons decending foot.

Minson goes, 'oh *!*!*!*!' and gets off his leg as quick as he can.
 
Sydjackson,

Care to retract your condescending comments after hearing Chris Scott's comments and seeing it from the other angle or are you content with your opinion?
 
maddog37 said:
Sydjackson,

Care to retract your condescending comments after hearing Chris Scott's comments and seeing it from the other angle or are you content with your opinion?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am content, and no, the comments were not condescending.
The article quoting Chris Scott also quotes significant others with opposing views.
The majority of Western Bulldogs contributing to this thread have opposing views to Chris Scott.
Chris Scott isn't foolish (and perhaps you might like to consider this), he knew he would be asked by a journalist which , at first glance, seems strange given the match in question didn't involve Geelong. Perhaps, just perhaps, he was asked purely because his player Hunt got off earlier in the year. If he was to condemn Minson, he would then be asked why he didn't condemn Hunt. As I said, he is not foolish!
Finally, readers were asked to respond to a survey suggesting what penalty Minson should have got. Currently it is running at three quarters saying between 2 and 6 weeks penalty. So, what penalty, if any, do you think minson should have got for his action?
 
Funny enough sydjackson, reading your posting history you've defended Chris Judd on his multiple antics and the Carlton supporter that attacked the child.

I do wonder what your opinion of Minson would be if he played for Carlton? :D
 

Remove this Banner Ad

sydjackson you lost me when you have to rely on surveys in the paper to support your argument because people vote on the basis of the club they support and not the issue. I bet if it was a Carlton player I know how you would vote given the same circumstances.

It was clumsy and the tribunal supported his case. End of story move on.
 
sydjackson said:
Yes, I am content, and no, the comments were not condescending.
The article quoting Chris Scott also quotes significant others with opposing views.
The majority of Western Bulldogs contributing to this thread have opposing views to Chris Scott.
Chris Scott isn't foolish (and perhaps you might like to consider this), he knew he would be asked by a journalist which , at first glance, seems strange given the match in question didn't involve Geelong. Perhaps, just perhaps, he was asked purely because his player Hunt got off earlier in the year. If he was to condemn Minson, he would then be asked why he didn't condemn Hunt. As I said, he is not foolish!
Finally, readers were asked to respond to a survey suggesting what penalty Minson should have got. Currently it is running at three quarters saying between 2 and 6 weeks penalty. So, what penalty, if any, do you think minson should have got for his action?
Click to expand...

I think it was Reckless and that a reprimand was sufficient. With regards to your arguement, all I am seeing is an opinion clouded by bias supported by alot of supposition.
 
Ant_ said:
Funny enough sydjackson, reading your posting history you've defended Chris Judd on his multiple antics and the Carlton supporter that attacked the child.

I do wonder what your opinion of Minson would be if he played for Carlton? :D
Click to expand...
Oh dear!
We seem to be reacting a little upset. You will note I attacked the AFL , not Footscray.
My opinion on the penalty Minson should have got would be unchanged. I have offered no opinion on Minson as a person other than the actions were not a good look, and avoidable and unnecessary. Perhaps , even as a moderator, you should actually read the posts before you jump.
Which leads to....defending a Carlton supporter who "attacked the child". This I have NEVER done, and again, perhaps a little reading might be useful before you jump in! I am also not aware where I have defended any Judd wrongdoing but feel free to point out the posts which most concern you.
Now, lets get back to the central issue - what penalty did you think the MRP should have issued, and what stance should they take on the type of action Minson displayed?
 
Dogs54 said:
sydjackson you lost me when you have to rely on surveys in the paper to support your argument because people vote on the basis of the club they support and not the issue. I bet if it was a Carlton player I know how you would vote given the same circumstances.

It was clumsy and the tribunal supported his case. End of story move on.
Click to expand...

I don't rely on surveys. I formed my view before any survey started.
If "people vote on the basis of the club they support" how would the voters of all the other clubs (other than swans/Bulldogs) have voted?
Of more interest is that the majority of Bulldogs supporters contributing to this thread thought him guilty. Isn't that fairly compelling?
 
maddog37 said:
I think it was Reckless and that a reprimand was sufficient. With regards to your arguement, all I am seeing is an opinion clouded by bias supported by alot of supposition.
Click to expand...
Go back and read my original post. Then tell me:
Bias towards or against what?
"a lot of supposition" - what is that I "supposed"?
 
Total non-event. Looking at that footage he was just trying to get over the bloke.

If he wanted to stomp the guy some damage would have been done.

Great call by the AFL.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

W
sydjackson said:
Go back and read my original post. Then tell me:
Bias towards or against what?
"a lot of supposition" - what is that I "supposed"?
Click to expand...

Why would I reread your posts? I would rather poke hot needles in my eyes. I answered your question on what I thought he should get and it appears the MRP agrees so perhaps you should consider that perhaps you are wrong in condemning Will.

Notice I used your favorite word perhaps a couple of times just to perhaps make you feel more open to perhaps opening your mind to others views.
 
who_let_the_dogs_out said:
Total non-event. Looking at that footage he was just trying to get over the bloke.

If he wanted to stomp the guy some damage would have been done.

Great call by the AFL.
Click to expand...

Yep agree however it didn't look good, you can see why the average dumb bogan would be outraged.
 
Having not seen the side angle (only the above/behind), I'm starting to waiver my original thought on Will's actions. The original angle does not show Jack's leg following/moving in the line of Wills descending leg. Will definitely placed his leg/foot in a position which would have cleared Jack, if Jack had stayed in his current position.

There definitely was no "stomping" action in the slightest, Will did "step" on his leg though and am therefore happy with the tribunal downgrading to reckless. Having said the above, Will could have taken a larger stride to completely clear the area.

All this talk about "Stomping" is outrageous!
 
maddog37 said:
W

Why would I reread your posts? I would rather poke hot needles in my eyes. I answered your question on what I thought he should get and it appears the MRP agrees so perhaps you should consider that perhaps you are wrong in condemning Will.

Notice I used your favorite word perhaps a couple of times just to perhaps make you feel more open to perhaps opening your mind to others views.
Click to expand...
Notice you didn't respond to the points raised. perhaps you should!
Where is the bias?, what was supposed?
 
Ant_ said:
Yep agree however it didn't look good, you can see why the average dumb bogan would be outraged.
Click to expand...
Well there you go - you really are a moron after all!
Check again - i didn't say I was outraged. i said the decision taken by the MRP was outrageous.
Why would i be outraged - I am not related to keiron Jack.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Minson gets a week

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top