Question for Michele...

[M29]

Re: Re: Question for Michele...

Originally posted by Michele


M29, I only just logged on today (Wednesday) and my question....why me, after all Lockett plays for Sydney doesn't he? I look after MY team. And that is not Sydney.

Fair enough...
I've done the same. Forgot about this post actually.

Last night's news showed that footage, from a few angles, just prior to Lockett's hearing. My opinion from the first angle shown - not guilty! Lockett's arm goes over ****lin's head, down his face and both are falling forward, momentum carrying them both forward.

Well, I'm sure St Tony had no intent what so ever of ramming that pie scum into the ground whilst his eyes were "on the ball".

I also didn't like .....wait for it.....Hird being collected (I don't remember who) either. It is a blight on our game.

It was against st kilda in 97. And that was a great bump. Nothing wrong with it at all. He only missed 2 quarters anyway.

Hope my answer was worth waiting for.

Almost.

 

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Jars458
If a player is knocked out I can't see how it can have been "fair" given that any head high contact is illegal.

Players regulary receive fair hip and shoulders, are "jolted" backwards, and hit the ground hard knocking them out. It is often not the contact with the other players body, but the contact with the ground that causes the concussion. Just because a player is knocked out doesn't mean he was collected high.

 

[M29]

Originally posted by Dan26
Just because a player is knocked out doesn't mean he was collected high.

Exactly, just ask Dean Kemp.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Michele
Dave,

North supporters were very upset when Johnny Blakey went down. I don't know if there was a clash of heads - I do know Blakes was out before he hit ground.

There was a clash of heads - it was this that led to Johno coming off under the blood rule.

North supporters thought the incident very 'unfair',

Why? Unfair indicates that it was somehow outside either the rules or spirit of the game and it was neither.

others including Blakey, thought and stated publically, no malice was intended.

As pointed out by Buzz, the very same Nth supporters have no problem with Picketts bump on Krummel. Strange.

Intent v rough play. I suppose that can come down to the individual player. By that, I mean the skill and talent level of individual fooballers.

The guy from the WC - can't think of his name - the player who took out our fantastic VC, Stevo. His was a clumnsy and a stupid act by a not very polished footballer. And Stevo was not his first victim.

Lockett's v Caven? Intent or rough play. Bereton v Tallis. Ditto.
Hird v ??. Robert Harvey v ????

Rough play IMO comes down to a combination of both. Tere has to be a deliberate or reckless action that results in an injury. If player lays a legal bump or tackle that results in an injury then that does not constitute rough play.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
I was part of the "Children's Parliament" in 1990 - the sh|tting rotten deputy speaker who chaired it said I "had the makings of a future politician". To this day, it remains the single greatest insult I have suffered.

Heh, perhaps we could change your nickname to JHFC

But back to the point. Some players are more inclined to impose physical pressure than others. Krummel was a ball player who didn't lay a tackle if he could help it. Pickett takes every available opportunity to apply physical pressure, and stretches the laws to their very limit in doing so.

Me - I don't have a problem with it. Within reason, it's part of the game.

However, I am gobsmacked that someone can criticise Mark Johnson for one of the best, fairest, legal and perfectly executed hip and shoulder, and then come up with some mitigating circumstances for a much worse attack.

You and me both. It seems that physical pressure to some degree is excusable in one case but not in another.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by M29
What do you think should happen to Tony Lockett after toad slamming his opponent (Waiklen) into the ground? Leaving him concussed.

I look forward to your reply...

I hope you don't mind me butting in... but I think what happened was right... he was asked to face the tribunal... where he cleared his name...

As Lloyd should have last year... and then the whole debate would have been finished...

As for Johnson/Blakey and Pickett/Krummell both in my opinion were excellent hip and shoulders... the Pickett/Krummell incident will be remembered by me for a very long time as the perfect hip and shoulder... and Krummell should of seen it coming... and that is the point...

 

[Michele]

Well, this is very interesting!

We have a North supporter and a Hawthorn supporter, who both believe the Byron/Krummel incident was a legimate hip and shoulder.

Why then, all the acrimony and accusations over Bryon's intent and execution. There was extensive media coverage of the event and Byron's footy suffered as a result.

And to make myself very clear, I didn't particularly like either Byron/Krummel or John Blakey/Johnson incidents.
As I have said previously, the long bomb and a great marks are what I enjoy about game.

Michele

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96


I hope you don't mind me butting in... but I think what happened was right... he was asked to face the tribunal... where he cleared his name...

As Lloyd should have last year... and then the whole debate would have been finished...

As for Johnson/Blakey and Pickett/Krummell both in my opinion were excellent hip and shoulders... the Pickett/Krummell incident will be remembered by me for a very long time as the perfect hip and shoulder... and Krummell should of seen it coming... and that is the point...

Perfect Hip and Shoulder to the HEAD which knocked him out

That is unacceptable and dangerous

He should have got 3 to 4 weeks

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Michele
Why then, all the acrimony and accusations over Bryon's intent and execution.

I merely asked you what you thought of it given

a) it was similar to the Johnson/Blakey bump

b) your disatisfaction with the aforementioned Johnson/Blakey bump

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Jars458


Perfect Hip and Shoulder to the HEAD which knocked him out

That is unacceptable and dangerous

He should have got 3 to 4 weeks

I was there... I am not sure if you saw it on tele or saw it live??? but in all honesty it was the most beautifully delivered hip and shoulder I have ever seen... even better then Card on Greig (which was always the most awsome hit I ever saw until that one day at Waverley)... I go to the footy to watch men play... when I played I was quite happy to take it and give it out... as long as it was within the laws of the game... sadly today the laws are turning our game into netball on grass but they are the laws that we must now abide by...

I understand that the resulting injuries didn't look pretty but Krummell contributed in some way by dropping his guard... really two players running from different directions to meat a ball and he doesn't go in hard... he expected Pickett to take the ball... and eased up thinking more of tackling Pickett after he took possecion... the problem for Krummell was Pickett realised this too...

I was devastated for Blakes when he got knocked out but really it is all part of the game... completely different to what happenned to Watt... that should have been handle exactly the same way as Lockett was this week... Lloyd should have faced the tribunal... if only to force him to pull his head in and start playing footy instead of pretending to be a tough guy... which we all agree he ain't...

BTW... I don't know if Byron would get away with the Krummell incident today and the sad thing for footy is I don't think Byron knows if he would be reported or not... and it shows in the way he plays... that is why he has been moved forward... where he attacks the ball ainstead of the bloke going for or carrying the ball...

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Dave


I merely asked you what you thought of it given

a) it was similar to the Johnson/Blakey bump

b) your disatisfaction with the aforementioned Johnson/Blakey bump

Dave what did you think of the Lockett report???

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96
Dave what did you think of the Lockett report???

The report? It didn't surprise me that he was reported at all. After his attempted spoil his focus appeared to be on Wakelin raising questions about how intentional his actions after the spoil were.

I thought it was not the same as the incident with Lloyd and Watt last season as in that case Lloyd grabbed Watt's jumper in a marking contest where his focus was on the ball. I do not believe that he had any intention of causing Watt to go arse over the way he did nor do I believe it was reckless. And not because of who the players involved were but because of how it occured - we see players grabbing at opponents jumpers in marking contests all the time, in this case Watt was unlucky to land awkwardly the way he did.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Dave


The report? It didn't surprise me that he was reported at all. After his attempted spoil his focus appeared to be on Wakelin raising questions about how intentional his actions after the spoil were.

I thought it was not the same as the incident with Lloyd and Watt last season as in that case Lloyd grabbed Watt's jumper in a marking contest where his focus was on the ball. I do not believe that he had any intention of causing Watt to go arse over the way he did nor do I believe it was reckless. And not because of who the players involved were but because of how it occured - we see players grabbing at opponents jumpers in marking contests all the time, in this case Watt was unlucky to land awkwardly the way he did.

It appears we will always disagree on this subject for me the marking contest had finished and Lloyd spat it because he had been beaten... like a spoilt child... and pulled Watt by the back of the collar of his jumper... what did Lloyd think would happen??? your opponant is in the air and you pulled backwards on the collar... or was he just being a dumbarse and not thinking??? as I said before we will always disagree on this... and as I see it... it is because of the players involved... maybe if he had of fronted the tribunal he would have pulled his head in... played footy and not got suspended during the year... but then he isn't overly bright... is he...

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96
as I said before we will always disagree on this... and as I see it... it is because of the players involved...

It wouldn't matter who they were I'd say the same thing.

but then he isn't overly bright... is he...

No that he isn't, but he's not Pat Malone when it comes to footballers is he?

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96

what did Lloyd think would happen??? your opponant is in the air and you pulled backwards on the collar... or was he just being a dumbarse and not thinking???

what do you think he was thinking Dave...

 

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96
BTW... I don't know if Byron would get away with the Krummell incident today and the sad thing for footy is I don't think Byron knows if he would be reported or not... and it shows in the way he plays... that is why he has been moved forward... where he attacks the ball ainstead of the bloke going for or carrying the ball...

You're exactly right here. Chance Bateman's four week holiday (reduced to two on appeal) for a perfect hip and shoulder late in the season was a disgrace. Very similar to the Pickett/Krummel one, the only difference being that the victim wasn't taken high - and still they rubbed him out for "charging". Joke.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96
what do you think he was thinking Dave...

I don't know, but I doubt it was "****, this little prick's beaten me to it, I'll show him". His eyes were on the footy from what I recall and I doubt he, like any other player in a similar situation, had time to think asbout what would happen if he grabbed the blokes jumper. It just happened.


Seeing as how we're asking questions, what did you think of Brent Harvey hitting an opponent in the throat with a raised forearm in the 2000 Qual (end of the first quarter)? Surely that's an act that warranted an appearance before the tribunal to explain his actions?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
Joke.

We are talking about the tribunal Buzz

 

[speedy]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
You're exactly right here. Chance Bateman's four week holiday (reduced to two on appeal) for a perfect hip and shoulder late in the season was a disgrace. Very similar to the Pickett/Krummel one, the only difference being that the victim wasn't taken high - and still they rubbed him out for "charging". Joke.

This is old news, but I couldn't ressist:

Everyone assumes Pickett's contact on Krummel was high because he ended up with a broken nose.

Every time I see footage of the incident, it is 99% clear that in the initial contant, the height of Byron's shoulder is lower than Krummel's chin (i.e. not high). It was the action of Krummel's head whipping forward, after initial contact, and face smacking ontop of Byron's shoulder that results in the broken nose.

This incident is very similar to the Blakey/Johnson one, except when Blakey's head rocked forward it made contact with Johnson head, resulting in Blakey's forhead being split open.

Whethet the Pickett incident is a "charge" in today's climate is up for debate, but I cannot agree that it was high.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Dave


I don't know, but I doubt it was "****, this little prick's beaten me to it, I'll show him". His eyes were on the footy from what I recall and I doubt he, like any other player in a similar situation, had time to think asbout what would happen if he grabbed the blokes jumper. It just happened.

Come on Dave we have both played the game and we both know what would happen if you grabbed a player by the collar when he is in the air... Just because he isn't that bright doesn't mean he can use it as a defence... Dumb people have to abide by the same rules as you and me...

Originally posted by Dave

Seeing as how we're asking questions, what did you think of Brent Harvey hitting an opponent in the throat with a raised forearm in the 2000 Qual (end of the first quarter)? Surely that's an act that warranted an appearance before the tribunal to explain his actions?

was it Harvey or King??? I think it's about equal to soloman??? taking out Jones 70 metres away from the ball... not within the games rules...

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96
Come on Dave we have both played the game and we both know what would happen if you grabbed a player by the collar when he is in the air...

And you think that any player in the game would have time to think about that? That with their eyes on the football they'd even know where they were grabbing someone?

Just because he isn't that bright doesn't mean he can use it as a defence... Dumb people have to abide by the same rules as you and me...

Yes they do. In this case I do not agree with you that the rules were violated.

was it Harvey or King???

Harvey.

I think it's about equal to soloman??? taking out Jones 70 metres away from the ball... not within the games rules...

If you are referring to Rd 16 last year it wasn't Soloman. The player who clashed with Jones was wearing a long sleeved jumper. Solomon was wearing a short sleeved one. The clash was not 70m off the ball, it occured on the half forward flank at the Punt road end as the ball was kicked from the wing to centre half forward to IIRC, Brent Harvey.

 

[Rooboy 96]

Originally posted by Dave
And you think that any player in the game would have time to think about that? That with their eyes on the football they'd even know where they were grabbing someone?

so when Archer tries to kick the ball of the ground he accidently makes contact with Hirds head that is alright because he didn't have time to think... come on Dave... they you are responsible for their actions when they take the field...

Originally posted by Dave
half forward to IIRC, Brent Harvey.

I know I shouldn't ask but WTF are you trying to say??? and if it wasn't 70 it was at least 50... and well out of play... who was it again???

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Rooboy 96
so when Archer tries to kick the ball of the ground he accidently makes contact with Hirds head that is alright because he didn't have time to think...

No, it's a free kick (high contact) as Lloyd's action was a free kick (holding) but if the ball was there to be kicked it's not a report as it wasn't in Lloyd's case as they were contesting for the football.

come on Dave... they you are responsible for their actions when they take the field...

I never said he wasn't. What I said was that I disagree with your assessment of his actions (and his motives) in this case and your belief that he had time to think "bugger, I've been beaten, hang on, I'll grab him by the scruff of the neck and pull him down so he gets knocked out".

I know I shouldn't ask but WTF are you trying to say???

That it wasn't 70m off the ball and that it wasn't Dean Solomon.

and if it wasn't 70 it was at least 50... and well out of play...

No, it wasn't. The ball was kicked from wing to centre half forward. The kick was less than 50m and they were halfway between it though not directly under it. It appeared from the vid that the Essendon player was about to bump the Nth player when the video cut away, though his arm was slightly raised.
Should have been a free kick, though without vision it's hard to know if it was reportable.

I know I shouldn't ask but WTF are you trying to say? Did you see it?

who was it again???

I couldn't tell from the video as it follows the ball and cuts away to Harvey just before the point of impact. You can tell however that the player was wearing a long sleeved guernsey and that means it definitely wasn't Solomon.

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by Dave


I merely asked you what you thought of it given

a) it was similar to the Johnson/Blakey bump

b) your disatisfaction with the aforementioned Johnson/Blakey bump

Is it time passing that NOW allows the Byron/Krummel and Blakes/Johnson to be viewed in a similar manner, ie perfect hip and shoulder?

When each incident occured, Byron was "lynched" for his incident - could have had very serious consequences, and Johnson was "knighted" for his incident - perfect hip and shoulder.

Dave, that is the reason for my dissatifaction. I also happen to agree with Rooboy's and Speedy's posts.

 

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

WHAT?! Pickett lynched?! He didn't even get a free paid against him.

That's crap.