Scarlett - 3 weeks with guilty plea

[Theseventhhamster]

He possibly genuinely was wobbled by the punch but the straight fall backwards was a separate move he made. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

 

[glenn_ox]

I love this whole 'you can't comment on diving because your team is full of them' thing we have going on here.

Guess what?! Every team in the AFL has at least 1 player that will milk free kicks.

 

[Rockford]

A king hit is a massive blow to the face from behind... not an elbow to the stomach

A king hit is any blow you don't see coming because the guy who hit you is a gutless **** stain and knows that if he stood toe to toe with you that he'd be in hospital. Ballantyne qualifies.

 

[Paul Kersey]

A king hit is a massive blow to the face from behind... not an elbow to the stomach

Might be defined that way at Freo FC, but the rest of the world define a king hit (or sucker punch) as whacking someone when they're unaware of it coming. Ballantyne is a sniper. Don't give me this s**t about it being an elbow to the stomach, inferring it's nothing, I'll smash you with the point of my elbow in your solar plex when you're not ready for it and believe me you'll be in all sorts of pain. Give me the soft "punch" (no shoulder or hip in it, probably as Scarlett doesn't know how to punch) Scarlett delivered (face to face) anyday over a coward king hit behind play. Weak as piss - your club should be embarrassed over Ballantyne's effort.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

I don't think Ballantyne dived here. I think he was stunned after the hit and if you watch the reverse angle, Scarlett actually pushes him over.

Don't get me wrong, Ballantyne is a staging prick - I don't think that was the case in this situation though. He looked pretty stunned after the hit. It's not like you'd expect it.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Dictionary definition of king hit = Clarkson on Aitken

[YOUTUBE]S8caP0k7xfw[/YOUTUBE]

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I don't think Ballantyne dived here. I think he was stunned after the hit and if you watch the reverse angle, Scarlett actually pushes him over.

Don't get me wrong, Ballantyne is a staging prick - I don't think that was the case in this situation though. He looked pretty stunned after the hit. It's not like you'd expect it.

He stumbled in to Mzungu then fell I think, there was the initial contact then he fell back in to Mzungu and lost his balance completely

He exagerated it, but that's not the same as diving - diving is when there is no/very minimal contact. Scarlett put enough contact in it to at least knock him back - which he did, but not before Mzungu got in his way

3 weeks is a joke with Scarlett's record - 2 weeks for Ballantyne is fair imho

 

[baja]

3 weeks is a good outcome in the current era, sounds fair but i would have thought a week more appropriate given the scenario.

 

[Hoffy95]

He stumbled in to Mzungu then fell I think, there was the initial contact then he fell back in to Mzungu and lost his balance completely

He exagerated it, but that's not the same as diving - diving is when there is no/very minimal contact. Scarlett put enough contact in it to at least knock him back - which he did, but not before Mzungu got in his way

3 weeks is a joke with Scarlett's record - 2 weeks for Ballantyne is fair imho

 

[TIM_VUA]

As expected the MRP is still inconsistant,should be 6 weeks before the other stuff is taken off.Why should the impact have a bearing is beyond me.

 

[NTRabbit]

Might be defined that way at Freo FC, but the rest of the world define a king hit (or sucker punch) as whacking someone when they're unaware of it coming.

No, here in Adelaide a 'king hit' is a punch to the head that they don't see coming.

What Ballantyne did was an elbow to the stomach, not a king hit.

 

[Patronus]

As expected the MRP is still inconsistant,should be 6 weeks before the other stuff is taken off.Why should the impact have a bearing is beyond me.

Yes why don't we have a system where impact has no place is a suspension.

Then people who bearly knock a feather off them gets the same suspension as another who knocks someone out and breaks their jaw in several places. I don't see any propblem with that at all.

 

[Skeppersap]

As expected the MRP is still inconsistant,should be 6 weeks before the other stuff is taken off.Why should the impact have a bearing is beyond me.

Why was Des Headland able to get off striking charges by pleading provocation, when no other player can?

 

[Cynic]

As expected the MRP is still inconsistant,should be 6 weeks before the other stuff is taken off.Why should the impact have a bearing is beyond me.

You seriously think that impact was high? Geez I have little love for Scarlett or Geelong but come on there was basically nothing in it at all.

Also, im_a_lazy_sod is right, there is a difference between excentuating contact and blatant diving which is why the AFL wont crack down on this incident.

 

[Hoffy95]

No, here in Adelaide a 'king hit' is a punch to the head that they don't see coming.

What Ballantyne did was an elbow to the stomach, not a king hit.

Most things you do in Adelaide the rest of the world does differently.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Why was Des Headland able to get off striking charges by pleading provocation, when no other player can?

because one of the umpires heard what was said between the two players and it couldn't go public because it would open a big **** off can of worms?

we will never know what happened there - at least until dear old adam retires

all i want with the MRP is consistency, hitting a player 80m off the ball is bad, but hitting a player when the ball is dead is worse imo, because at least with the ballantyne incident when it is off the ball, there is an argument that the ball *could* be on the way there and Ballantyne was merely anticipating, as it turns out that was not the case, but Scarlett hit Ballantyne in the face when the ball was dead - was not off the ball - so that is a much worse act - like hitting someone before the ball is bounced or after the siren

 

[Chewy]

I tend to agree with lazy_sod

Falling to the ground after getting belted on the jaw is at the low end of the diving spectrum. Ballantyne is merely accentuating the contact for the umpire's benefit.

This is different to the dive that Cameron Ling took in 2010 when Liam Shiels lightly brushed his head in a careless tackle. Lingy went down for the free (in typical Geelong fashion) and he stayed down, basically pretending he was concussed. The AFL had just announced their anti-staging rule and Lingy was probably worried he'd be the first culprit. Shiels was innocent. He appealed his 1 match ban. Lingy could've admitted to the tribunal he was just bunging it on for a free kick, but he elected not to and Shiels got an extra week.

 

[Hoffy95]

because one of the umpires heard what was said between the two players and it couldn't go public because it would open a big **** off can of worms?

we will never know what happened there - at least until dear old adam retires

all i want with the MRP is consistency, hitting a player 80m off the ball is bad, but hitting a player when the ball is dead is worse imo, because at least with the ballantyne incident when it is off the ball, there is an argument that the ball *could* be on the way there and Ballantyne was merely anticipating, as it turns out that was not the case, but Scarlett hit Ballantyne in the face when the ball was dead - was not off the ball - so that is a much worse act - like hitting someone before the ball is bounced or after the siren

I read that 3 times and still have no idea what you are on about.

Forget about the ball being dead, Ballantyne went out of his way to get in Scarlett's face, not the other way around, yet Scarlett reacting to this is far worse an act than Ballantyne belting Chapman 80 metres off the ball (when the ball was also dead mind you). Not sure what the 'anticipating' point you make has to do with anything?

 

[Hoffy95]

I tend to agree with lazy_sod

Falling to the ground after getting belted on the jaw is at the low end of the diving spectrum. Ballantyne is merely accentuating the contact for the umpire's benefit.

This is different to the dive that Cameron Ling took in 2010 when Liam Shiels lightly brushed his head in a careless tackle. Lingy went down for the free (in typical Geelong fashion) and he stayed down, basically pretending he was concussed. The AFL had just announced their anti-staging rule and Lingy was probably worried he'd be the first culprit. Shiels was innocent. He appealed his 1 match ban. Lingy could've admitted to the tribunal he was just bunging it on for a free kick, but he elected not to and Shiels got an extra week.

And Hawthorne have their fair share of stagers as well so ironic hypocrite call is ironically hypocritical.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I read that 3 times and still have no idea what you are on about.

Forget about the ball being dead, Ballantyne went out of his way to get in Scarlett's face, not the other way around, yet Scarlett reacting to this is far worse an act than Ballantyne belting Chapman 80 metres off the ball (when the ball was also dead mind you). Not sure what the 'anticipating' point you make has to do with anything?

haha he didn't go out of his way mate, he is a forward and scarlett is a defender so they are bound to be in each others vicinity

and by anticipating i meant only hypothetically that there was the possibility that the ball was going to be near where Ballantyne and Chapman were soon when contact was made and Ballantyne was just making it easier for himself if the ball did get there

Ballantyne is a niggler and tries to put players off their game and that is all he did to Chapman - probably knowing he had a upset tummy or something - 2 weeks is still fair as it's never okay to elbow another player (unless you're Judd)

 

[Hoffy95]

The way I see it both players got fair penalties.

Both were idiotic, Ballantyne's was far more gutless and Scarlett's seemed far worse because of the shock value attached to it.

 

[Hoffy95]

haha he didn't go out of his way mate, he is a forward and scarlett is a defender so they are bound to be in each others vicinity.

Bound to be in each others vicinity but surely you can't deny Balla went out of his way to get in Scarlett's face? It wasn't the other way around.

 

[TIM_VUA]

Yes why don't we have a system where impact has no place is a suspension.

Then people who bearly knock a feather off them gets the same suspension as another who knocks someone out and breaks their jaw in several places. I don't see any propblem with that at all.

Why not,its the intent not the impact.Scarlett threw a punch,he didnt care how bad it would hurt Ballas and Ballas clearly went for Chapman,both could of hurt the others worse than they did and didnt care.
Why should Chapman get his ribs broken or Ballas get his nose broken before a heavier penalty,the idea is to stop players from doing it in the first place.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Bound to be in each others vicinity but surely you can't deny Balla went out of his way to get in Scarlett's face? It wasn't the other way around.

I wouldn't say he went right out of his way, maybe Scarlett was in his path? who knows?

Unless we ask Ballantyne and Scarlett what happened all of this will be us thinking what it could have been

A forward giving a backman stick is not uncommon and I don't think players go out of their way to do this - it's something that happens every game (just as backmen giving stick to a forward who has missed a shot)

 

[Skeppersap]

Why not,its the intent not the impact.Scarlett threw a punch,he didnt care how bad it would hurt Ballas and Ballas clearly went for Chapman,both could of hurt the others worse than they did and didnt care.
Why should Chapman get his ribs broken or Ballas get his nose broken before a heavier penalty,the idea is to stop players from doing it in the first place.

OK, so if Ballantyne should have gotten 2, and because its based on the intent, not the impact, how many should Solomon have gotten when he nearly put Ling in a coma deliberately?

The intent of that was worse than nearly anything I have seen on a football field, and had Halls hit on staker covered comfotably in terms of intent, possible consequences and premeditation!