Nathan Brown hit on Adam Saad

[sherb]

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.

And that's the problem here.

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.

And that would be great advice for Saad if he were indeed crossing a road and Brown was coming at him in a motor vehicle. But this incident occurred on a football field.

 

[Aeglos]

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.

So next time Jack Stevens is running down the wing watching the play and gets blindsided by a bump 30m off the ball and ends up getting KO’d that’s ok?

 

[Plugger35]

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.

Not sure what you're talking about but you're softer than Saad.

Quoting the only correct part of your post.

Nothing wrong with saying Brown cleaned him up, if he was wearing a Pies jumper you would be cheering him on.

 

[Plugger35]

So next time Jack Stevens is running down the wing watching the play and gets blindsided by a bump 30m off the ball and ends up getting KO’d that’s ok?

30 metres off the ball?

It's Jack Steven, not Jack Stevens btw, and he was awareness, that's why he has won multiple Trevor Barker medals.

 

[Aeglos]

30 metres off the ball?

It's Jack Steven, not Jack Stevens btw, and he was awareness, that's why he has won multiple Trevor Barker medals.

30m, 150m, 15m
It’s all arbitrary.
You also completely ignored the question. I believe psychologists refer to that as evasion

 

[Phone]

There seems to be some confusion, so I thought I would try to explain careless/intentional in simple terms. And this is simplistic and doesn't always apply to some actions, but it's a decent enough guideline that I think works for bumps

When a player is graded with Careless conduct, it usually means they have accidentally committed a reportable offence. That is, the action they have tried to do can be legal in that situation, but it has been applied carelessly and they have committed a reportable offence. When a player is graded with Intentional conduct, it means the player has intentionally committed a reportable offence. That is, the action the player has used is not legal in the situation they were in, so by deciding to use that action, they have intentionally committed a reportable offence (even if they are ignorant of the laws)

So yes, almost all bumps are graded as careless, because the MRP almost always takes the view that the contact to the head was not deliberately applied, and that the player's actual decision to bump was perfectly legal in that situation. In this situation, the MRP has clearly decided that Brown applying a bump to Saad was not a legal or reasonable action in the situation, presumably because of the distance the ball from Saad. Brown obviously could have avoided contact on Saad or even at least attempted to slow down and lesser the contact in some way, but he did not, he just basically went full steam ahead.

So the MRP basically sees it as: Saad was in a situation where he shouldn't be bumped, and Brown has decided to bump Saad. So Brown has intentionally committed a reportable offence. If the ball had been within 5 meters of Saad, as is typical with the bumps we see cited by the MRP, the MRP would have seen it as: Saad was in a situation where he can be bumped, but when Brown has applied the bump, he has made contact to the head, so he gets careless conduct.

With all that said, the actual tribunal case will be very interesting to hear.

(i suppose i should put this in as a disclaimer: I thought there was a good chance Brown was going straight to the tribunal as soon as it happened)

 

[eddiesmith]

This is the problem with set penalties, if they don’t suit they make it up

Intentional, no doubt
High impact, easily
High contact? No chance

But they clearly want more than 1 or 2 weeks so only option was to say it was high contact. St Kilda should just argue it’s body contact and see if they can produce this special footage that shows high contact

 

[Boxhead_31]

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.

Where is late in the classification table that the MRO is meant to use to classify actions?

 

[sherb]

Where is late in the classification table that the MRO is meant to use to classify actions?

It's not.

The lateness of the bump is relevant to the laying of the charge itself, not determining the penalty.

 

[Stopher]

I'm amazed at the level of sympathy for what was a cheap, late snipe against as fair a player as you're likely to find in the league.

 

[Andrew Mc]

IF the AFL want to take matters like this direct to the tribunal, they'd earn a bit more respect if they just said "it's going straight to the tribunal" instead of saying contact was high, when it clearly was not.

I have no issues with them taking it to the tribunal, but show some integrity ffs, don't just make stuff up.

 

[Aeglos]

I'm amazed at the level of sympathy for what was a cheap, late snipe against as fair a player as you're likely to find in the league.

Players block players all the time after they’ve disposed of the ball.
It’s just normally done with more subtlety than a sledgehammer.

 

[Bigjobss]

And that's the problem here.

And that would be great advice for Saad if he were indeed crossing a road and Brown was coming at him in a motor vehicle. But this incident occurred on a football field.

Played with a straight bat and found the boundary, shame I can't like this twice.

 

[Captivating]

Waite's hit is head high.

Brown makes shoulder contact. The whiplash is what knocks out Saad.

And if it's late or off the ball, then it's borderline both. Brown hits Saad less than a second after he disposes the football.

 

[Great8]

I can’t believe all the hysteria over it. Yes it was late but Saad has to show some awareness. In today’s climate it’s probably worth a week or two at most but no doubt with trial by media he will get 4-5

 

[Phone]

he doesn't need to show any awareness in regards to be illegally bumped because he was no longer in a position where he could have been legally bumped

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

10 weeks

 

[Doss]

The idea that Saad contributed even slightly towards what occurred is ridiculous. I'm still of the view that Brown should not be significantly penalised, but Saad can't be expected to have eyes in the side of his head either, and it was not unreasonable in the slightest that he still would have been focussed on the ball he'd just gotten rid of.

 

[Scotland]

So Waite gets a fine and Brown goes straight to the tribunal. Cool.

 

[Matera92]

Media beat up yet again, you'd think Brown had killed him.
Didn't even get him high, just late.

 

[tesla1962]

Saad taken out by an off the ball snipe for pretty much the entire game and likely to miss this week as well. Three weeks for Brown seems about right to me.

 

[clogwearer]

And if it's late or off the ball, then it's borderline both. Brown hits Saad less than a second after he disposes the football.

Less than a second? That bump was so late it hasn't even happened yet.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I really cannot believe the posters who don't seem to realise what damage a late hit can do. Forget whether it was head high or not, my issue is the player gets rid of the ball and then slightly relaxes for a moment. When you are hit in that circumstance you are not expecting it, and blows when you least expect them are dangerous. I swear, there are so many people on this forum who have obviously never played the game. 3 weeks for the late hit.

 

[ossie_21]

I really cannot believe the posters who don't seem to realise what damage a late hit can do. Forget whether it was head high or not, my issue is the player gets rid of the ball and then slightly relaxes for a moment. When you are hit in that circumstance you are not expecting it, and blows when you least expect them are dangerous. I swear, there are so many people on this forum who have obviously never played the game. 3 weeks for the late hit.

Saad’s head hits Brown’s shoulder as the impact comes, there is whiplash cos his body stops moving forward temporarily & the head doesn’t. The impact was completely avoidable as the bump was so late, he has eyes only for Saad even after the ball is gone so he’s gone.

The thing most numbnuts in here are missing is that by deciding to still bump even though the ball had gone, is that Brown failed his duty of care towards Saad as it was clearly unreasonable. That’s why rough conduct exists. You may think there will be block coming whilst you’re running, Brown could have changed direction to still put body on without electing for a full bump.

 

[brutus76]

2 weeks.
Clearly some people havent played.
The ball was nowhere. He could have pulled out slowed down or turned his body.
Deliberate and careless. Gone.
You can sense it coming most times if its in the contest not a cheap shot like that.