We are punishing the action. The bump was so late he may as well punched him in the head.
Nathan Brown hit on Adam Saad
- Thread starter BigVic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
We are punishing the action. The bump was so late he may as well punched him in the head.
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 36,820
- 51,287
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
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.
sherb
Hall of Famer
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.
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:
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.
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.
sherb
Hall of Famer
No, it was a reportable action.
Unless you don't think the laws of the game should apply here.
- Jun 6, 2012
- 4,484
- 5,629
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Cleared. Not sure what hE's done wrong. Not off the ball and no head high contact.
No it was reasonable action in the circumstance in my view. A fair bump that wasn't high.
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.
It was off the ball.
Arctic fox
It's only a game
You understand the difference between contact and impact?
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
- 135,937
- 156,465
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Subiaco
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
Hall of Famer
Except it is, its fact, deal with it.
Plugger35
The umpires are always right!
- Sep 27, 2008
- 135,937
- 156,465
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Black Caps, Subiaco
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.
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.
Its not outlawed. But the ball has to be in the same suburb.
Quoting the only correct part of your post.
- Apr 7, 2017
- 2,235
- 2,476
- AFL Club
- Essendon
sherb
Hall of Famer
The bump isn't outlawed.
