Player Watch Shane McAdam

Remove this Banner Ad

Jarman3 said:
It would be the right outcome if Pickett also got 3. Either Pickett also gets 3, or McAdam also gets 2. If they'd got the same penalty, I seriously doubt we would be appealing right now and everybody would have just copped it and moved on. That's what a numbnut like Whately seems to be missing - the idea that we somehow didn't get the memo on the dangers of head injury etc is a massive straw man. Nobody is disputing the need to protect the head. We're not trying to get McAdam off scot-free for this. We just want consistency with bans handed out to other players for near-identical offences. We're not trying to get the suspension thrown out, just reduced to the same level that other clubs copped.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the intrusion. Reckon you are spot on and your club should be rightly pi55ed off. The Tribunal Guidelines state that "the potential to cause injury must be factored into the determination of Impact". Not sure how Pickett didn't make it to severe on that basis, even if Smith just bounced up. AFL should've appealed that themselves.

But don't think it helps you at McAdam's appeal - your only grounds are that "the classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive". That is a much higher requirement than it being simply inconsistent with the classification of a separate charge.

Reckon the AFL needs to look at some bumps getting up into the intentional classification as well. Dog's breakfast.
 
sideswipe said:
Sorry for the intrusion. Reckon you are spot on and your club should be rightly pi55ed off. The Tribunal Guidelines state that "the potential to cause injury must be factored into the determination of Impact". Not sure how Pickett didn't make it to severe on that basis, even if Smith just bounced up. AFL should've appealed that themselves.

But don't think it helps you at McAdam's appeal - your only grounds are that "the classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive". That is a much higher requirement than it being simply inconsistent with the classification of a separate charge.

Reckon the AFL needs to look at some bumps getting up into the intentional classification as well. Dog's breakfast.
Click to expand...
I think you have answered your own query here..in light of the Pickett bump and where the bump hit which to every neutral observer looked worse than the McAdam one and no doubt a biomechanics expert could quantify, then the AFL really could have no choice ut to have graded McAdams less or at worst the equivalent of Picketts. It could simply not have been graded higher based on their own precedent
 
Punchy Bassett said:
But we aren't though, our crowds have fallen off, I'd be surprised if we get 30000 Saturday.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I guess however in the context of some other clubs, that is still good.

Despite my annoyance at last week I'm going, I've called the Bank to make sure the first beer I buy isn't marked as fraud due to the excessive cost.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Cap said:
Agreed, I guess however in the context of some other clubs, that is still good.

Despite my annoyance at last week I'm going, I've called the Bank to make sure the first beer I buy isn't marked as fraud due to the excessive cost.
Click to expand...

Just sneak some contraband in..... :D
 
I think a couple of things contributed to McAdam’s hit being sent to the tribunal and him gaining a more severe penalty. Firstly he hit him low in the chest and severely winded him - this caused a lot more impact noise and took Wehr a few minutes to recover from. Secondly it was so hot/humid the whiplash like movement of Wehr’s head sent a spray of perspiration everywhere, this made things look so much worse in slo-mo.

I thought it was unduly rough play (an old fashioned shirt-front to the body) and was worth a couple of weeks. It was a tough but dumb thing to do.
 
If the hit doesn’t hit the head directly, it should be considered a fair hit.

Nonsense to be banned for hitting fairly, but ‘Too hard’.
 
it bothers me that you can get more weeks for a poorly executed, yet legal action,
than an illegal action (legal/illegal in terms of AFL rules).
Buddy and Pickett ran past the ball. Both were dirty.


If Pickett hits Will Hamill, he's getting 4-6 weeks, surely.

What happens if Bailey Smith woke up this morning with a delayed concussion?
 
Just thinking, what was the order of events this weekend? Was it?

Saturday: Both initial hits occurred
Sunday afternoon: McAdam hit occurred
Sunday night: Initial hits given bans (no tribunal)
Monday: McAdam sent to tribunal

If the above is true, doesn't it feel like a serious conflict that the MRP had all the information in front of them of all 3 hits, decided on punishments for 2 players were able to be judged without the need of the Tribunal. Saw the reaction from the footy world, and then sent McAdam to the Tribunal where the rules change?

If I was the AFC I'd be arguing the decision to go to tribunal in the first place was clearly and heavily impacted by outside influences. Otherwise there is no logical way any right minded football observer could judge the Pickett hit as less or even equally severe to McAdam's. I'd be arguing it loudly, publicly, and prior to the official appeal hearing.
 
Last edited:
Betts are off said:
Just thinking, what was the order of events this weekend? Was it?

Saturday: Both initial hits occurred
Sunday afternoon: McAdam hit occurred
Sunday night: Initial hits given bans (no tribunal)
Monday: McAdam sent to tribunal

If the above is true, doesn't it feel like a serious conflict that the MRP had all the information in front of them of all 3 hits, decided on punishments for 2 players was able to be judged without the need of the Tribunal. Saw the reaction from the footy world, and then sent McAdam to the Tribunal where the rules change?

If I was the AFC I'd be arguing the decision to go to tribunal in the first place was clearly and heavily impacted by outside influences. Otherwise there is no logical way any right minded football observer could judge the Pickett hit as less or even equally severe to McAdams. I'd be arguing it loudly, publicly, and prior to the official appeal hearing.
Click to expand...

Didn't Pickett's and Franklin's announcements come before our game?

You can thank David King for McAdam ending up at the tribunal, his reaction in commentary was way over the top.
 
whattagun07 said:
Whately was an absolute w****r this morning.
Usually I like his anaylsis, but he was just picking a fight with an entire supporter base. It wasn't journalism. He may as well have been Kyle Sandilands this morning
Click to expand...

And the fact pretty much fans of every club are smashing him just shows how far off he is.
 
Punchy Bassett said:
It's slowly not though and corrupt decisions like this will only push people away.
Click to expand...

The thing is, it won't in any meaningful capacity. There is no competition, and likely never will be owing to the stranglehold AFL has on the sport, and football has on culture.

Stuff like cost of living is an existential threat. This isn't. Look how many people think AFL is rigged and still engage with it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

lol...what a d**khead

Instead of doubling down on wrong and also doubling down on a point no one is making (that we think McAdam should not get a penalty), how about call out the AFL here for their shocking take on the McAdam bump V the Pickett bump and their 'reasons' for the 3 week ban v the 2 week ban

 
cleanhands said:
A Jarman SA answer to Whateley
Click to expand...
Problem for whateley is that we can see with our own eyes the difference between the bumps so gaslighting won't work here. Its like we see cotchin snipe and always seem to get off when the indiscretion looks worthy of a suspension and the same media skills defend the decision. A lie only works when those being lied to have no reason to believe its a lie.
 
Punchy Bassett said:
For someone who thinks they are so smart and intelligent compared to everyone else, he missed the point entirely. I don't any of us think there should be no ban for McAdam, but Pickett's was worse AND GOT A LIGHTER PENALTY! It's not that hard to figure out.
Click to expand...
He is basically gaslighting us, ignoring the point that we are upset about the comparison to the Pickett ban, and making out that we don't think Mcadam should have been suspended at all... He is making up crap to suit his argument. What a tool.
 
Punchy Bassett said:
Didn't Pickett's and Franklin's announcements come before our game?

You can thank David King for McAdam ending up at the tribunal, his reaction in commentary was way over the top.
Click to expand...
Yeah we already knew their penalties by the time McAdam hit Wehr. Didn't they all used to wait until the Monday? Seems like that sort of thing is best left to deal with all at once so that you can look at things side by side.
 
If anyone wants a well balanced discussion on the bumps and a perspective from the NRL experts, highly recommend watching The Back Page from last night on catchup. Puts the crap from Whately and Barrett to shame and shows them up for the click bait shock journos they are these days that are paid shills for Hutchy and the AFL.
 
SugarShane said:
Yeah we already knew their penalties by the time McAdam hit Wehr. Didn't they all used to wait until the Monday? Seems like that sort of thing is best left to deal with all at once so that you can look at things side by side.
Click to expand...
In theory, that shouldn't be necessary, because incidents are not compared with each other, they are measured against what is supposed to be an objective standard. The issue here is not that e.g. McAdam wasn't compared with Pickett, it's that both of them were compared to the "standard" and this was done in an inconsistent manner.
 
chiwigi said:
If the hit doesn’t hit the head directly, it should be considered a fair hit.

Nonsense to be banned for hitting fairly, but ‘Too hard’.
Click to expand...
Supposedly they've now readjusted the rule regarding bumping that even if you hit the body if the head is effected in any way it's counted as "high contact" so the AFL have seen the Whiplash movement and gone well that's high contact because his head went back and forth and that can sometimes cause a concussion.

It's just dumb how the AFL have tried to explain why Pickett was not as bad a "glancing blow" and because the Bulldogs didn't perform the HIA test on Smith it meant the impact was graded High where as GWS took Wehr through HIA because they thought he could be concussed. Wehr was fine and passed the test but it's where they get this potential to cause harm stuff.

Pretty sure the Bulldogs should be given a please explain for not doing HIA on Smith but this is where the AFL are getting their justification for giving McAdam more which is really complete and utter bullshit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mostyn
News Shane McAdam traded to Melbourne for F2
48 49 50 51 52
Replies
1K
Views
56K
DJ75
DJ75
1990crow
Toast Welcome to the AFC - Shane Edwards
2 3 4 5
Replies
103
Views
8K
PeterSalt
P

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top