Nathan Brown hit on Adam Saad

How many weeks

  • 2 weeks

    Votes: 33 28.9%
  • 3 weeks

    Votes: 34 29.8%
  • 4 weeks

    Votes: 11 9.6%
  • 5 weeks

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • 6 weeks or more

    Votes: 5 4.4%
  • 0 weeks

    Votes: 13 11.4%
  • 1 week

    Votes: 17 14.9%

  • Total voters
    114

sherb

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 28, 2003
27,976
23,118
Western Sydney
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Swans
He has been charged with rough conduct. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that is correct. I'll post the law again:
Intentionally or carelessly engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.

I'd like to see anyone argue against the charge itself. You'd be saying it wasn't rough conduct and was reasonable in the circumstances. Good luck with that.

So it's the grading which is contentious, as it almost always seems to be. Intentional - tick. High impact - tick. It's his high contact grading which could be considered debatable. Christian has gone with that, meaning it goes to the tribunal with a minimum of three weeks. If he had gone "body", it would have been a two week offer and no tribunal.

It's now up to St Kilda whether they can argue down the grading and get a penalty of less than three weeks. I can't for the life of me see how they can argue he isn't guilty of the charge itself.

 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Spursfan

Club Legend
Mar 30, 2008
1,502
1,812
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
We are punishing the action. The bump was so late he may as well punched him in the head.
Nonsense. If he wasn't knocked out from his head hitting the ground , Brown wouldn't have been cited. Old mate Saadie will have his wits about him next he steps on a footy field I am sure.
 

maskmcgee

Club Legend
Feb 25, 2017
2,962
2,935
The Windy Apple
AFL Club
Essendon
Nonsense. If he wasn't knocked out from his head hitting the ground , Brown wouldn't have been cited. Old mate Saadie will have his wits about him next he steps on a footy field I am sure.
Was the action of the bump illegal ie did it make contact with the head?
Are you both blind? Can either of you read? He's been charged with making high contact. The MRO has dozens of other angles of the incident from which he made this decision. Therefore, he's made high contact.
 

Spursfan

Club Legend
Mar 30, 2008
1,502
1,812
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
Are you both blind? Can either of you read? He's been charged with making high contact. The MRO has dozens of other angles of the incident from which he made this decision. Therefore, he's made high contact.
The initial contact was shoulder to shoulder. Christian is a clown and he consistently makes baffling decisions. It's another case of reverse engineering an outcome to punish someone for a legitimate action.
 

Bunk Moreland

Hall of Famer
Sep 22, 2011
32,530
64,626
Your girlfriend's dreams
AFL Club
Essendon
He has been charged with rough conduct. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that is correct. I'll post the law again:
Intentionally or carelessly engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.

I'd like to see anyone argue against the charge itself. You'd be saying it wasn't rough conduct and was reasonable in the circumstances. Good luck with that.

So it's the grading which is contentious, as it almost always seems to be. Intentional - tick. High impact - tick. It's his high contact grading which could be considered debatable. Christian has gone with that, meaning it goes to the tribunal with a minimum of three weeks. If he had gone "body", it would have been a two week offer and no tribunal.

It's now up to St Kilda whether they can argue down the grading and get a penalty of less than three weeks. I can't for the life of me see how they can argue he isn't guilty of the charge itself.

Spot on. It’s rough conduct and it clearly meets the criteria for it. He ran through him from behind and put him out for the game well after the ball had left the area. You’re not allowed to do that.

Intentional / high / high, straight to the tribunal, he’ll get three weeks.
 

Arctic fox

Team Captain
Mar 22, 2017
590
486
Out west
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
He was out because of the whiplash effect, not because of any head high contact.
And there is no MRP it is just Chrisso and he has made a ruling to get the case to the tribunal rather than having him dealing with it
You understand the difference between contact and impact?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tex9798

Team Captain
Sep 25, 2016
414
609
AFL Club
Adelaide
Except it is both of those.
Off the ball is debateable.

I'd say the ball is approximately 5-6m from him, the MRO had been pretty consistent that if you are within 5m of the ball then fair game.

They have also been consistent that if the initial contact is not high (which it wasn't, his head clearly hits his shoulder when his head flings forward) then it's all good.

So for this to be called intentional really does seem strange.

This really is a case of the AFL wanting to give him 3 weeks and trying to work backwards and find a grading that achieves that.

Let's not forget after the week we just had he just deemed hooker guilty of misconduct when he has clearly thrown a punch in retaliation.

Yet the bump was intentional
 

Plugger35

The umpires are always right!
Sep 27, 2008
98,936
107,188
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chelsea, Black Caps, Subiaco
To be a good bump, you actually need to be bumping somebody who is involved in the play. Gia was sheparding Kozi who was chasing a loose ball. Brown bumped Saad well after he'd disposed of it and was running down the ground. And that is why there's so much "media hysteria"; it was an off-the-ball incident. Had Saad been in possession of the ball at the time, the reaction would be very different.
It was in the play, Saad was running through the lines, if Brown didn't pick him off with a bump he would have kept running forward to create an option.

Saad had no awareness after handballing off and paid the price with Brown cleaning him up, we may as well ban the bump if Brown gets suspended.

If you don't want to get bumped then play netball or chess, if you play Aussie Rules football and cross the line into the field of play, expect to get bumped.
 

sherb

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 28, 2003
27,976
23,118
Western Sydney
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Swans
It was in the play, Saad was running through the lines, if Brown didn't pick him off with a bump he would have kept running forward to create an option.

Saad had no awareness after handballing off and paid the price with Brown cleaning him up, we may as well ban the bump if Brown gets suspended.

If you don't want to get bumped then play netball or chess, if you play Aussie Rules football and cross the line into the field of play, expect to get bumped.
"It's Saad's fault".

Lol.
 

Plugger35

The umpires are always right!
Sep 27, 2008
98,936
107,188
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chelsea, Black Caps, Subiaco
"It's Saad's fault".

Lol.
Saad was looking left the whole time, handballed left and was still looking left expecting to run on, Brown saw an opportunity and cleaned him up.

As kids you're told to look left, look right and look left again when you cross the road, Saad forgot to look right and paid the price.
 

maskmcgee

Club Legend
Feb 25, 2017
2,962
2,935
The Windy Apple
AFL Club
Essendon
Saad was looking left the whole time, handballed left and was still looking left expecting to run on, Brown saw an opportunity and cleaned him up.

As kids you're told to look left, look right and look left again when you cross the road, Saad forgot to look right and paid the price.
You forgot that you're a complete joke on this forum after your clownshow earlier this year. A great reminder to everyone on the site why you never click the 'show ignored content' button.
 

Timmy from Thomastown

TheBrownDog
May 25, 2006
53,880
28,683
Beach
AFL Club
Collingwood
Was the action of the bump illegal ie did it make contact with the head?
Answer is no it did not so all that is being punished is the consequence of the action of the bump.
Answer isnt no just because you say it is.

The answer is yes because it was a very late bump and therefore falls under the rough conduct definition. The action of the bump was illegal and the consequence of the action of the bump makes it worse.
 

Top Bottom