Mitch Duncan on Aaron Hall

Remove this Banner Ad

Obeanie1 said:
So how long before the knees up in a marking contest is stopped?

Been saying it for years that the AFL is playing lip service to head injuries and concussion while they still encourage players to run, jump and knee someone to the back of the head.and we all cheer.

This action occurs multiple times in every game. Jumping and using the knee in a marking contest.

So just how far is the AFL going to take this issue?
Click to expand...
Speccies look great in marketing material and get the crowd up and about, so we can't start punishing those :drunk:

Coming at it from a player welfare perspective there's no good faith argument to allow men verging on 100kg to put their knee into the back of another bloke's head.

It's the same type of hypocritical nonsense as clubs and the AFL branding themselves as community and family friendly and then raking in untold millions from pokies and gambling advertising.
 
Obeanie1 said:
Not really like for like though. Ziebell was looking where he was going and what was coming the other way. Jumped off the ground to punch the ball and knocked him out with a side on hip and shoulder with high contact.

Saying that Ziebell's action looked reckless where as Duncan's could only be classed as careless at a stretch.

Still could get weeks but not 4. 1 or 2 at the most.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's the fact Duncan 'wasn't looking' that somehow mitigates the contact. Duncan hits him with his back precisely because he knows impact is coming and turns to protect himself. What made Ziebell's worse was that he followed through on a hit while Duncan pulled himself up and hit with significantly less force.

But on the other hand, at least Ziebell's was also in general, neutral play where the ball was in dispute, while Duncan hit a guy disposing of the ball.

Ziebell actually had a right to make a legal hit on Joseph, whereas Duncan had no right to hit Hall. A late hit is a free kick regardless of contact to the head, whereas if Ziebell avoided head contact, that's just play on. So in that important respect, Duncan's was actually worse.
 
Sttew said:
Bloody hell, if that reminds you of what happened on Sunday you have a vivid imagination. The Ziebel one is more like Dangerfield. Looks like he lined the Carlton guy for a decent bump
Click to expand...

Yes, but at least Ziebell was legally allowed to bump Joseph whereas Duncan wasn't allowed to hit Hall.

Ziebell's was a legal hit turned illegal through head contact, Duncan's was an illegal hit turned very illegal through head contact.

Pretty silly to clutch your pearls over a situation where a bump was a legal option, and then go Iraqi Defence Minister over an illegal hit that resulted in the same outcome.

Both players were liable, but Duncan actually had a greater duty of care to Hall than Ziebell had to Joseph. You can't lay late hits on guys disposing of the ball even if you don't mean to, mate.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Obeanie1 said:
So how long before the knees up in a marking contest is stopped?

Been saying it for years that the AFL is playing lip service to head injuries and concussion while they still encourage players to run, jump and knee someone to the back of the head.and we all cheer.

This action occurs multiple times in every game. Jumping and using the knee in a marking contest.

So just how far is the AFL going to take this issue?
Click to expand...
That’s up to the AFL how far they take it. The speccie is a contest with the ball essentially in dispute, but Duncan’s was a late hit on a player just having disposed of the ball. I think there’s more duty of care required from Duncan than for two players with a ball in dispute.
 
Interesting one.

I have no idea what Duncan was trying to do, but all of his motion was up and down. If he hadn't jumped, remained stationary, and Hall ran into him would there be an issue, head clash or not?

Duncan being airborne makes it kind of a weird one to evaluate. I don't know how a good MRO would see it, let alone what Michael Christian might decide.

That said, it's true that Geelong haven't generally been treated charitably by the MRP/MRO, but also true that North Melbourne heads seem to be somewhat less sacrosanct than others.
 
No charges laid. Action not considered unreasonable.


Interesting test case if nothing else. Am sure this will be referenced as a defence for a future incident where someone leaves the ground to contest the footy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

CrowInFiji said:
No charges laid. Action not considered unreasonable.


Interesting test case if nothing else. Am sure this will be referenced as a defence for a future incident where someone leaves the ground to contest the footy.
Click to expand...
If I was trying to take a player out of the game I'd:
a) Take out a superstar.
b) use a strategy which doesn't put myself at equal, or higher, risk than the target. (contact below the knees perhaps)
 
The comparison with the Ziebell one is somewhat apt.

For the reason that both Duncan and Ziebell are definitely allowed to jump for the ball.....in a marking contest....pretty well without constraint.

In this case perhaps there's an arguement either way..........however with the focus on head injuries then THIS incident really needs to be tested out - - argued for/against at the tribunal.

You can't give an open licence to players to jump into the path of the player with the ball; turn their back to protect themselves and let them off because they weren't trying to hurt the guy...........despite the fact they've effectively put a barrier directly in the players path.

However - - this scenario with Duncan as per the calculator fits as Careless, High impact and high contact. 3 weeks down to 2 with early plea - - or - - allow Geelong to contest at the tribunal. That would've been the right thing for Christian (MRO) to do - - in the interests of the protection of the ball player and the image of the game - be SEEN to be protecting the players.

Between the umpires in charge (100% late contact, downfield free every day of the week) who have failed abysmally; and Michael Christian - - the AFL system in this case has totally failed. And that's seriously not good enough.
 
Munro_Mick said:
The comparison with the Ziebell one is somewhat apt.

For the reason that both Duncan and Ziebell are definitely allowed to jump for the ball.....in a marking contest....pretty well without constraint.

In this case perhaps there's an arguement either way..........however with the focus on head injuries then THIS incident really needs to be tested out - - argued for/against at the tribunal.

You can't give an open licence to players to jump into the path of the player with the ball; turn their back to protect themselves and let them off because they weren't trying to hurt the guy...........despite the fact they've effectively put a barrier directly in the players path.

However - - this scenario with Duncan as per the calculator fits as Careless, High impact and high contact. 3 weeks down to 2 with early plea - - or - - allow Geelong to contest at the tribunal. That would've been the right thing for Christian (MRO) to do - - in the interests of the protection of the ball player and the image of the game - be SEEN to be protecting the players.

Between the umpires in charge (100% late contact, downfield free every day of the week) who have failed abysmally; and Michael Christian - - the AFL system in this case has totally failed. And that's seriously not good enough.
Click to expand...
Let it go. Christian has stopped reading posts for this week.
 
Sttew said:
Bloody hell, if that reminds you of what happened on Sunday you have a vivid imagination. The Ziebel one is more like Dangerfield. Looks like he lined the Carlton guy for a decent bump
Click to expand...

The Ziebell one was ideally a valid attempt for the ball; he's allowed to jump up and take it even if it's a handball. It's a contested ball situation.

It just so happened that Joseph stretch out an arm and got hands to the ball first.

It was just one of those things. Should've been left as an on field free kick (if that) and move on.

The Duncan/Hall.......we know if absolutely had to be a free downfield so fail#1.

I'd love to see a longer shot of it....the footage we see is pretty limited.

The question to ask is this..........

WHY DID DUNCAN TURN HIS BACK??

The answer is pretty simple - - he knew that impact was likely.
 
It's sad but kind of predictable. Imagine if Duncan did the same thing to Pendlebury. Would it be the same outcome?

At the very least it is careless and high contact.
Well done AFL, the hypocrisy is astounding.
Let's see if media street is all onboard with this or if someone dares to make some noise.
 
Sttew said:
Let it go. Christian has stopped reading posts for this week.
Click to expand...

It is true that the arbiter of truth, the infallible Michael Christian has spoken on this.

But the almighty will turn around and make a decision that goes against you and you will be left only to ponder his divine plan, which will remain incomprehensible to mere mortals.

Just as he giveth, he will taketh away.
 
Thing that amazed us more so why not a free kick ?

Bet my bottom dollar if it was Lachie Neale it would have been paid downfield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Grand Uncle Horace
Duncan cleared, Fox concussed
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Nebular
Nebular
danster168
Tom Mitchell staging
Replies
11
Views
807
Xtreme
Xtreme
J
Duck on in or duck on down
Replies
3
Views
333
The Hobo
The Hobo
Kreuuuzeurns
MRP / Trib. Pickett elbow on Soligo
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
170
Views
4K
sobrave
sobrave
Bunk Moreland
MRP / Trib. Seb Ross on Sam Durham
Replies
21
Views
585
HairyO
HairyO
Bald
MRP / Trib. Sam Powell-Pepper bump on Mark Keane
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
210
Views
7K
Handyandy
H
TY24
MRP / Trib. Charlie Cameron gets a week for dumping tackle on Lever - Tribunal = down to a fine.
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
252
Views
6K
Neese
Neese

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top