Autopsy Same Old St Kilda…..Another Dog Act

[sr36]

In regards to Caminiti's case, regardless of umpire's obs and footage, the intent was common sense. Retaliation. It is benefit of the doubt - conclusive - that influences the tribunal. Hence my problem with the legal system. This business about vibe based legal system, I've found through personal experience and observation of others cases this is exactly what we have. Don't blame me for that. Salem is a straw man, or witches hat.

If you aren't going on footage, where have you concluded the intent from? And where do you want the intent concluded from?

 

[noideaatall]

If you aren't going on footage, where have you concluded the intent from? And where do you want the intent concluded from?

Oh, sr36, is it me, is it you, did I watch too much tv? I viewed the game live on kayo so derived my opinion from post video footage posted in this thread. I saw Murphy get into his back/neck and Caminiti retaliate. Can I conclusively conclude that was Caminiti's intent - no. Am I sure that was his intent - yes. This thread is evidence most share my view. I would accept a defense argument Murphy knocked out was not the intention. I object to a system that accepts an argument this was a fending off. I abhor a legal system where the degree of which the letter of the law is adhered to depends on the $ paid to lawyers. The legal system hides behind the veil of objectivity. Its a lie.

 

[Robroy22]

In terms of a "Dog Act" what the St Kilda lad did to Murph on the weekend was a lot more courageous than the real St Kilda DOGS of yesteryear.
Cowboy Neale whacked everyone behind the head in almost every contest, Big Carl chucked elbows left right and centre, Robbie Muir was a powderkeg that made Phil Carman look controlled (though not Johnnie Bourke)....and of course Jimmy O'Dea was the thug above all others (what more do you call a bloke that king hits a young kid from behind and almost kills him?)

At least Camaniti had the ticker to do it to Murph's face.

O'Dea, never forget/never forgive.

 

[sr36]

Oh, sr36, is it me, is it you, did I watch too much tv? I viewed the game live on kayo so derived my opinion from post video footage posted in this thread. I saw Murphy get into his back/neck and Caminiti retaliate. Can I conclusively conclude that was Caminiti's intent - no. Am I sure that was his intent - yes. This thread is evidence most share my view. I would accept a defense argument Murphy knocked out was not the intention. I object to a system that accepts an argument this was a fending off. I abhor a legal system where the degree of which the letter of the law is adhered to depends on the $ paid to lawyers. The legal system hides behind the veil of objectivity. Its a lie.

I agree he was trying to "retaliate", but not sure if he was trying to push him in the chest or strike him. If it's the former, it's careless, the latter is intentional Not sure how anyone can be confident either way based on the footage.

 

[jmac70]

Oh, sr36, is it me, is it you, did I watch too much tv? I viewed the game live on kayo so derived my opinion from post video footage posted in this thread. I saw Murphy get into his back/neck and Caminiti retaliate. Can I conclusively conclude that was Caminiti's intent - no. Am I sure that was his intent - yes. This thread is evidence most share my view. I would accept a defense argument Murphy knocked out was not the intention. I object to a system that accepts an argument this was a fending off. I abhor a legal system where the degree of which the letter of the law is adhered to depends on the $ paid to lawyers. The legal system hides behind the veil of objectivity. Its a lie.

Love the Floyd reference!

 

[noideaatall]

I agree he was trying to "retaliate", but not sure if he was trying to push him in the chest or strike him. If it's the former, it's careless, the latter is intentional Not sure how anyone can be confident either way based on the footage.

I am, based on the footage I saw. If it was attempt to hit he chest Carminiti is the most unco-ordinated player to ever hit the field. Come on, seriously, to you really beieve his retaliation was intended to be a push off. Never pulled it back though had time to do so. All this business about being sure when its obvious. If it walks like a duck ...

 

[jmac70]

Time to draw the curtains on this sorry episode.

We won the game.

Won’t have to see them again until 2024.

Good night Saint Lurkers, enjoy the rest of the season.

 

[cityslick1]

One last little nugget from Ross. No mention of Murphy, who is now out of action with a concussion, or the action being unacceptable. Sounds like he sees his boy as the victim in all of this, or that he maybe shouldve looked to attack another collingwood player instead.... nice work Ross

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I agree he was trying to "retaliate", but not sure if he was trying to push him in the chest or strike him. If it's the former, it's careless, the latter is intentional Not sure how anyone can be confident either way based on the footage.

As far as I’m concerned it’s intentional either way, as it wasn’t part of a “football act”.

You can carelessly tackle someone resulting in their head hitting the turf in the process. If you engage in pushing/shoving/striking then that is intentional, you meant to do that and only that, and you bear responsibility for the outcome be it the landing spot or “concussability” of the recipient.

 

[Fat Jesus]

One last little nugget from Ross. No mention of Murphy, who is now out of action with a concussion, or the action being unacceptable. Sounds like he sees his boy as the victim in all of this, or that he maybe shouldve looked to attack another collingwood player instead.... nice work Ross

View attachment 1665347

To me that reads "take your aggression out on the ball"
Lyon would not have been too happy with him.

 

[sr36]

As far as I’m concerned it’s intentional either way, as it wasn’t part of a “football act”.

You can carelessly tackle someone resulting in their head hitting the turf in the process. If you engage in pushing/shoving/striking then that is intentional, you meant to do that and only that, and you bear responsibility for the outcome be it the landing spot or “concussability” of the recipient.

I agree, but once it goes to the tribunal it's about the wording of the guidelines. It's flawed, but I'm not sure there's a fairer way.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Oh, sr36, is it me, is it you, did I watch too much tv? I viewed the game live on kayo so derived my opinion from post video footage posted in this thread. I saw Murphy get into his back/neck and Caminiti retaliate. Can I conclusively conclude that was Caminiti's intent - no. Am I sure that was his intent - yes. This thread is evidence most share my view. I would accept a defense argument Murphy knocked out was not the intention. I object to a system that accepts an argument this was a fending off. I abhor a legal system where the degree of which the letter of the law is adhered to depends on the $ paid to lawyers. The legal system hides behind the veil of objectivity. Its a lie.

100% agree

until you've been involved in a legal process you can't appreciate that being right doesnt mean a legal victory.

money and resources decide plenty of outcomes.

 

[Gone Critical]

100% agree

until you've been involved in a legal process you can't appreciate that being right doesnt mean a legal victory.

money and resources decide plenty of outoutcomes

True that mony helps and the system is far from perfect but its near as good as it gets. Law is a blunt assessor. You are not likely to come out with feelings of vindication. 100% verdicts are rare. Needs to be seen for what it is and avoid litigation where possible.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Half time 1990 GF Lethal implored to the players not to get into the biffo fights the Bombers wanted on that day.
(No doubting Sheedys idea.)
"Take your aggression out on the ball" he screamed.

Worked out well.

 

[sr36]

100% agree

until you've been involved in a legal process you can't appreciate that being right doesnt mean a legal victory.

money and resources decide plenty of outcomes.

No doubt there's financial inequity. Most of us can't afford to be a plaintiff against someone with the means and will to fight it.

But that's different to throwing out the notion of measuring evidence against written law and precedent and replacing it with someone's version of common sense like noideaatall seems to be an advocate for.

In this case, money wasn't the issue, if the AFL want bigger suspensions for something like this they need to tighten their guidelines around intent or alternatively add something else as a suspension multiplier, eg distance from the ball.

 

[Robroy22]

Half time 1990 GF Lethal implored to the players not to get into the biffo fights the Bombers wanted on that day.
(No doubting Sheedys idea.)
"Take your aggression out on the ball" he screamed.

Worked out well.

Yeah "Lethal" did temper his aggression that day....lol

Here he is saying "hello" to Terry Daniher at half time.

But the "take your aggression out on the ball" was said at quarter time FJ. The Bombers continued head hunting and in the first 10 minutes of the second quarter we'd kicked 5 un-answered goals and set up the win. Keeping your focus when the oppo players are seeing red is what all the great instigators of aggression always used to win the battle. From Phonse Kyne to Barrassi, Hafey, Sheedy, Malthouse and Matthews. They all knew its what comes after the initial skirmishes that count.

Remembering Rowdy coming back out onto the field after being king hit at Quarter time...and running straight at Terry Daniher....every Pies player stood 10 feet tall from that moment on. These days he'd be under the concussion protocols and we'd all be robbed of that demonstration of courage and will power.

 

[TW Sherrin]

No doubt there's financial inequity. Most of us can't afford to be a plaintiff against someone with the means and will to fight it.

But that's different to throwing out the notion of measuring evidence against written law and precedent and replacing it with someone's version of common sense like noideaatall seems to be an advocate for.

In this case, money wasn't the issue, if the AFL want bigger suspensions for something like this they need to tighten their guidelines around intent or alternatively add something else as a suspension multiplier, eg distance from the ball.

if you want someone to defend you the more money you have the better representation you'll get and the better your chances.

even Denis Denuto needed Lawrence Hammill.

 

[jonbe54]

if you want someone to defend you the more money you have the better representation you'll get and the better your chances.

even Denis Denuto needed Lawrence Hammill.

Yep like the states you can be just as equal as you can afford to be.

 

[jmac70]

Yeah "Lethal" did temper his aggression that day....lol
View attachment 1665403
Here he is saying "hello" to Terry Daniher at half time.

But the "take your aggression out on the ball" was said at quarter time FJ. The Bombers continued head hunting and in the first 10 minutes of the second quarter we'd kicked 5 un-answered goals and set up the win. Keeping your focus when the oppo players are seeing red is what all the great instigators of aggression always used to win the battle. From Phonse Kyne to Barrassi, Hafey, Sheedy, Malthouse and Matthews. They all knew its what comes after the initial skirmishes that count.

Remembering Rowdy coming back out onto the field after being king hit at Quarter time...and running straight at Terry Daniher....every Pies player stood 10 feet tall from that moment on. These days he'd be under the concussion protocols and we'd all be robbed of that demonstration of courage and will power.

That was a great day.

 

[leon123]

That was a great day.

it was, and as a work distraction, ive watched the quarter time fight (twice) after robs post.

I know we shouldn't like/want violence in the game, but geeez, it was a rippa of a brawl

 

[jmac70]

it was, and as a work distraction, ive watched the quarter time fight (twice) after robs post.

I know we shouldn't like/want violence in the game, but geeez, it was a rippa of a brawl

Terry was a hard man. Beating those arse wipes was so sweet.

 

[Pie eyed]

In terms of a "Dog Act" what the St Kilda lad did to Murph on the weekend was a lot more courageous than the real St Kilda DOGS of yesteryear.
Cowboy Neale whacked everyone behind the head in almost every contest, Big Carl chucked elbows left right and centre, Robbie Muir was a powderkeg that made Phil Carman look controlled (though not Johnnie Bourke)....and of course Jimmy O'Dea was the thug above all others (what more do you call a bloke that king hits a young kid from behind and almost kills him?)

At least Camaniti had the ticker to do it to Murph's face.

O'Dea, never forget/never forgive.

Saints supporters have very little to hang their hats on.
Even then it's pretty poor one of their "Heroes" is a piece of s**t.

 

[nahnah]

This one made me laugh

 

[Mollythedolly]

One last little nugget from Ross. No mention of Murphy, who is now out of action with a concussion, or the action being unacceptable. Sounds like he sees his boy as the victim in all of this, or that he maybe shouldve looked to attack another collingwood player instead.... nice work Ross

View attachment 1665347

So he’s telling him he can snipe anyone?

 

[Robroy22]

So he’s telling him he can snipe anyone?

Forget how he coaches, did you ever see Ross Lyon play???
He was what Dermie would have called "real handy" and someone you didn't want to get in a scuffle with.
Of course he'd show the kid how to deal it out.