- Oct 3, 2008
- 7,407
- 7,885
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
free kick for what??
'Contact, free kick'
where is there a rule that says u should get a free kick for hitting someone in the chest????
lol
MRP Trouble For Cyril?
- Thread starter Boxhead_31
- Start date
- Tagged users None
free kick for what??
'Contact, free kick'
where is there a rule that says u should get a free kick for hitting someone in the chest????
lol
MRP says it was high.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,866
- 48,153
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,866
- 48,153
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Never thought it was high when watching. Happy to watch again though
That bump was brilliant.
Anyone that thinks he should of got suspended for that either don't have a clue or just your typical hawk hater cry babies.
If he got him in the head would be a different story. He got his body low in a split second such is the skill of the man.
Anyone that thinks he should of got suspended for that either don't have a clue or just your typical hawk hater cry babies.
If he got him in the head would be a different story. He got his body low in a split second such is the skill of the man.
He did get him in the head.
Mahlepi
Cancelled
its called corruption
got him flush up the middle, was brilliant.
Let me get this right people sook because the bump has been taken out of the game.
Then they sook after a player lays a beautiful text book bump and doesn't get suspended.
Is this for real or is just because it was a Hawthorn player got off and the haters aren't coping? just wondering.
I absolutely loved it and want to see more of it.
Then they sook after a player lays a beautiful text book bump and doesn't get suspended.
Is this for real or is just because it was a Hawthorn player got off and the haters aren't coping? just wondering.
I absolutely loved it and want to see more of it.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,866
- 48,153
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
That's what I thought too. Seriously - I thought the only charge could be rough conduct not an intentional hit to the head
They sook because the MRP labels it a head-high hit and then grades it careless when it was clearly intentional.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,866
- 48,153
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I think the problem is that it was assessed as high. The MRP are seriously all over the place with this. It was either
(A) just a great bump and he should have got nothing (which is what I think); or
(B) he elected to bump and got the head and should get at least 2 weeks (which at least he'd appeal cos it's bullshit he got him high)
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,677
- 6,862
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Lucky to get off, and no, I'm not chalking it up to some conspiracy or some 'protected species' argument, I just think they got it wrong and have had to twist their silly system around to justify it like they do every time they f*ck something up. They are just as inconsistent as they were under the old system but now they force themselves to look even sillier by arbitrarily manipulating language to deliver the outcome they want.
It was a rugby shoulder charge, and some contact was made to the head. That bump would have been sanctioned to some degree in rugby, and that's all that really needs to be said in a sport where they have all but eliminated the bump. To call that impact 'low' insults the intelligence of every single one of us. If they don't want to suspend players for good bumps any more, I'm fine with that, but do it all the time.
It was a rugby shoulder charge, and some contact was made to the head. That bump would have been sanctioned to some degree in rugby, and that's all that really needs to be said in a sport where they have all but eliminated the bump. To call that impact 'low' insults the intelligence of every single one of us. If they don't want to suspend players for good bumps any more, I'm fine with that, but do it all the time.
- Jun 28, 2013
- 31,866
- 48,153
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I think you and I agree the MRP aren't making sense but we don't agree how/why. You're avoiding answering whether YOU think it was high
- Feb 1, 2014
- 2,390
- 2,058
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Collingwood VFL
Agree with this. I mean I love the bump and want it to stay, but unfortunately with the new rules it's nearly outlawed. The problem is if others get weeks for head high contact then Cyril should too
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,677
- 6,862
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
This. People should distinguish between defending the bump itself, and defending the conduct of the MRP. Because they are not the same thing.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,739
- 237,250
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #167
#itsaconspiracy
Mahlepi
Cancelled
its a mod stalker
#freekickmaybloomers
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,739
- 237,250
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #169
He wants it to be high.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,739
- 237,250
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #170
Stalker?
There's two threads here relating to Hawthorn players and you're running with "it's corruption" in both.
Mahlepi
Cancelled
these situations would be sorted if the corrupt afl allowed previous incidents to be used when one is defending themselves
Mahlepi
Cancelled
#stalker
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,739
- 237,250
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #173
#itscorruption
Does nobody understand the classification rules? Cyril elected to bump. That was intentional but that's fine, you can bump. Cyril got him high. That wasn't intentional - it was careless.
Even Steven May's hit on Stef Martin was classified careless.
But oh no, #freekickhawthorn
Even Steven May's hit on Stef Martin was classified careless.
But oh no, #freekickhawthorn
Mahlepi
Cancelled
#STALKER
