Nathan Brown hit on Adam Saad

[Thewlis Dish]

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.

About time there was an unbiased post in this thread.

 

[Tex9798]

I have no issue with Brown's bump, also have no issue with him being suspended.

It was less than a second from the time Saad handballed and the ball was less than half way to its target, its impossible to measure but the ball is probably only JUST beyond 5m away.

What I don't get is why Saad should be any less expecting contact than Tom McDonald should have been earlier this year.

Tom McDonald isn't really contesting this ball, Jonas comes in and cleans him up with the same amount of unnecessary force - McDonald is also completely unaware. Result coughing up blood and missed a chunk of game time, came back clearly sore.

That can EASILY be graded as intentional with high impact to the body, but its not assessed as anything because the ball is within 5m and we all say what a great bump.

Around the 20 second mark.



I don't really have a point, but I wonder if the media had already put Tom Jonas on trial whether MRO would have done anything.

 

[Falchoon]

How many weeks for Nathan Brown after late hit on Adam Saad

Giansiracusa on Koschitzke would be my precedent.

I can't remember Gia's punishment, though pretty sure Kosi's lack of awareness was deemed at fault.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

Haha next year too.

 

[Didstar]

Thought it was intentional (late makes it so he had an alternative to not bump), high impact to the body. In my view, 2 weeks would have been a fair suspension taking him out for the year. 3 too many imo.

 

[maskmcgee]

Didn't even get him high,

That statement has been factually proven to be incorrect.

 

[Acinath]

What a disgrace.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Byron Pickett would’ve got 10 x 6 weeks if he was playing now. I was one of very few who had a problem with his little trick. It’s gone too far.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Fair outcome.

It was clearly deliberate due to how late it was. Two weeks or three was the outcome and two would have been too light for a deliberate action.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I have no issue with Brown's bump, also have no issue with him being suspended.

It was less than a second from the time Saad handballed and the ball was less than half way to its target, its impossible to measure but the ball is probably only JUST beyond 5m away.

What I don't get is why Saad should be any less expecting contact than Tom McDonald should have been earlier this year.

Tom McDonald isn't really contesting this ball, Jonas comes in and cleans him up with the same amount of unnecessary force - McDonald is also completely unaware. Result coughing up blood and missed a chunk of game time, came back clearly sore.

That can EASILY be graded as intentional with high impact to the body, but its not assessed as anything because the ball is within 5m and we all say what a great bump.

Around the 20 second mark.



I don't really have a point, but I wonder if the media had already put Tom Jonas on trial whether MRO would have done anything.

You answered your own question. The ball was not only in play, it was loose (ie in nobody's possession).

 

[BrisDog]

That impact looked severe to me, which is not necessarily a bad thing if the bump is not late. I’m sure every player would like to pull off a well timed, severe impact, hip and shoulder. Unfortunately the timing was shocking and he should cop 3 weeks looking at the chart posted earlier in this thread.

I rest my case

 

[Ron The Bear]

What happens when a player with the ball is bumped like this? Suspension?

Varcoe bumped Prestia a split-second late and broke his rib. Does a bump rather than a tackle constitute "intentionally engaging in rough conduct"? Where's the line?

It's a slippery slope.

 

[BrisDog]

What happens when a player with the ball is bumped like this?

Play on I would suggest.

 

[Phone]

the difference between clearly legal and clearly illegal is indeed dangerous and slippery

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

What happens when a player with the ball is bumped like this? Suspension?

Varcoe bumped Prestia a split-second late and broke his rib. Does a bump rather than a tackle constitute "intentionally engaging in rough conduct"? Where's the line?

It's a slippery slope.

Its not that difficult to tell the difference between something in play and behind play. Brown was a lot more than a split second late and the ball had long since left the area.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Its not that difficult to tell the difference between something in play and behind play. Brown was a lot more than a split second late and the ball had long since left the area.

If it's that simple - "in play" = no penalty, "behind play" = sanction - then fair enough. There is bound to be an incident in the grey area before long. Football's like that.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If it's that simple - "in play" = no penalty, "behind play" = sanction - then fair enough. There is bound to be an incident in the grey area before long. Football's like that.

Of course, thats why the tribunal system exists........to determine these things as best they can. But they do a pretty good job generally.

Its quite clear in this case that the Brown bump was different to many of the other ones mentioned in this thread because of how late it was, and therefore not in play, not something Saad could have been expected to brace for, and something that was avoidable and therefore because it wasnt avoided, could only be determined to be intentional.

 

[Rabid]

Bummer - there goes the Brownlow - cue outrage.

 

[Beerfish]

Thought it would be 2 with the discount for hitting an Essendon player but I guess since it was a St Kilda player bumping it balances out.

 

[Stax on the mill]

Thought it would be 2 with the discount for hitting an Essendon player but I guess since it was a St Kilda player bumping it balances out.

Would normally have got 2, but was given 3 because he used to play for Collingwood. On a serious note, I thought Brown gave a classy and deserved apology to Saad and his family after the hearing. Guess that’s the Collingwood in him coming to the fore. The apology that is.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Would normally have got 2, but was given 3 because he used to play for Collingwood. On a serious note, I thought Brown gave a classy and deserved apology to Saad and his family after the hearing. Guess that’s the Collingwood in him coming to the fore. The apology that is.

He played with a a lot of Collingwood teammates who were well practised at making apologies..........learn from the best to be the best!!!

 

[telsor]

Would normally have got 2, but was given 3 because he used to play for Collingwood. On a serious note, I thought Brown gave a classy and deserved apology to Saad and his family after the hearing. Guess that’s the Collingwood in him coming to the fore. The apology that is.

Shows how unjust the system is. The penalty for playing for Collingwood should be far, far more than that, even after factoring in a discount for having walked out on them.