MRP / Trib. Shane McAdam Bump on Jacob Wehr

[Brian McGee]

Buddy bump clearly hit the head and with more power shoulder to head.

By far the worst

See this is where it is obviously a little subjective and easy to see how people get up in arms about decisions because I actually thought his was the least of the three, especially in terms of intent. Buddy’s looked more clumsy than malicious, the ball was on the ground between them and he actually toe pokes it away as the contact is made. Unfortunately the outcome is probably worse though. Whereas the other two looked like hurting their opposition was their intention.

 

[VL3OJ]

Crows are appealing.

I thought they were revolting! There really isn't a downside for the Crows

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Could well be THE stupidest reply to a sensible post I've ever seen on BF, to not asses smith was criminal given the current climate.

View attachment 1635820

Dumb post

 

[Toump Ass]

Lust another "glancing" blow I suspect?

View attachment 1636032

I'm a Demons supporter and I think it's INCREDIBLE that Pickett didn't get cited for this blatant punch to to the jaw. Unbelievable- I can't believe it!

It's such a vicious assault you can see Tim English in the background, grimacing in referred pain.

Should have been suspended for life and given assault charges.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

There is 0 precedent with Cripps. It is a waste of time bringing him up.

That’s actually the problem in a nutshell and is absolutely worth bringing up. Cripps should have been a precedent. He leapt off the ground, turned his body, hit someone high and concussed him. It was worth two weeks.

Buddy deserved two weeks.

McAdam deserved two weeks.

Picket deserved 4 weeks.

Had this occurred, no one would be upset about anything. The AFL would have made it perfectly clear to everybody in the game that players have a duty of care to one another and that head high hits leading to concussion (or have high potential to lead to concussion) are not to be tolerated… particularly when other options are available to the player.

As it is, there is absolutely no consistency with any of those decisions… and if you truly believe that Cripps was simply “contesting the ball” and had no other choice than to jump two feet off the ground and hip and shoulder someone in the head then you are a confused individual.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

That’s actually the problem in a nutshell and is absolutely worth bringing up. Cripps should have been a precedent. He leapt off the ground, turned his body, hit someone high and concussed him. It was worth two weeks.

Buddy deserved two weeks.

McAdam deserved two weeks.

Picket deserved 4 weeks.

Had this occurred, no one would be upset about anything. The AFL would have made it perfectly clear to everybody in the game that players have a duty of care to one another and that head high hits leading to concussion (or have high potential to lead to concussion) are not to be tolerated… particularly when other options are available to the player.

As it is, there is absolutely no consistency with any of those decisions… and if you truly believe that Cripps was simply “contesting the ball” and had no other choice than to jump two feet off the ground and hip and shoulder someone in the head then you are a confused individual.

Think you are the one who is confused. Cripps got off on a technicality and not because the AFL deemed the bump okay (even though it was nowhere near as malicious any of the three).

No precedent and pointless bringing him up.

 

[Kanye West]

Lust another "glancing" blow I suspect?

View attachment 1636032

Same applies here

 

[SellarStardom]

Afl thinking -
3 pretty identical bumps
Afl legend - 1 week
Up and coming star - 2 weeks
Rookie - 3 weeks

It's hard to argue with this logic. The AFL's argument of the "potential to cause harm" holds so little water it's not funny.

The Pickett bump was actually a shoulder to the head action, by a player that had left the ground whilst the receiving player was in the act of kicking the ball. That action has the highest risk to cause harm.

The fact that no doctor was called and no concussion test was undertaken by the Dogs further places the player at long term risk, yet nothing has been said about this blatant disregard for player welfare.

The whole thing is unbelievable and worthy of serious challenge by Adelaide

 

[Mutineer]

I'm a Demons supporter and I think it's INCREDIBLE that Pickett didn't get cited for this blatant punch to to the jaw. Unbelievable- I can't believe it!

It's such a vicious assault you can see Tim English in the background, grimacing in referred pain.

Should have been suspended for life and given assault charges.

yeah no clenched fist just a slap....and I'm Father Christmas...

 

[Toump Ass]

yeah no clenched fist just a slap....and I'm Father Christmas...

I'm surprised he didn't kill whoever that Dogs player is.

 

[Kanye West]

yeah no clenched fist just a slap....and I'm Father Christmas...

Where's my ****ing bike?

 

[Coasters7]

I'm a Demons supporter and I think it's INCREDIBLE that Pickett didn't get cited for this blatant punch to to the jaw. Unbelievable- I can't believe it!

It's such a vicious assault you can see Tim English in the background, grimacing in referred pain.

Should have been suspended for life and given assault charges.

I made a similar comment when Gaff hit Brayshaw. You’re literally a glass jaw or a perfect connection away from spending 2 months on the sidelines, which doesn’t sit right with me, especially for a non footy related act.

There’s far too much discrepancy in the penalty for what is the same intention and same act.

How about we start punishing these as “potential to cause serious injury” using the Gaff incident as precedent before we worry about whether McAdams shirtfront could have caused injury

 

[Elixuh]

We don’t want these dog acts in the game. Deserved 3 weeks. Just tackle.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

We don’t want these dog acts in the game. Deserved 3 weeks. Just tackle.

I agree, but the other 2 players should get the same. That's the whole point of this thread.

 

[dean33]

It's hard to argue with this logic. The AFL's argument of the "potential to cause harm" holds so little water it's not funny.

The Pickett bump was actually a shoulder to the head action, by a player that had left the ground whilst the receiving player was in the act of kicking the ball. That action has the highest risk to cause harm.

The fact that no doctor was called and no concussion test was undertaken by the Dogs further places the player at long term risk, yet nothing has been said about this blatant disregard for player welfare.

The whole thing is unbelievable and worthy of serious challenge by Adelaide

It just continues the incompetence of Christian and the MRO/tribunal. It really shouldn’t be this hard.

 

[Bearded Clam]

We don’t want these dog acts in the game. Deserved 3 weeks. Just tackle.

So ban the bump.. the NRL have (they call it a shoulder charge).

Dont want it in the game.. ban it altogether.

 

[croweater 41]

We don’t want these dog acts in the game. Deserved 3 weeks. Just tackle.

And what would you say if the tackle resulted in a concussion from a head knock on the turf from the way they were running at each other/Wehr's positioning would have been inevitable that a tackle would have resulted in Wehr going backwards and McAdam would have no control over how fast they fell. Or what if he tackles and breaks 3 ribs and punctures a lung with no concussion? Thats an injury why would he be rubbed out for an injury?

That's not a dog act on the football field. Picketts arguably is. McAdam's is not in the same play book as a dog act

 

[HairyO]

Afl thinking -
3 pretty identical bumps
Afl legend - 1 week
Up and coming star - 2 weeks
Rookie - 3 weeks

Sums it up perfectly.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

Think you are the one who is confused. Cripps got off on a technicality and not because the AFL deemed the bump okay (even though it was nowhere near as malicious any of the three).

No precedent and pointless bringing him up.

Again, you prove my point. The fact that Cripps got off (because the AFL had argued that he was in fact going for the ball, just carelessly), Buddy got one game, Picket two, and McAdam 3 is entirely the point of this thread. There is no consistency, and it seems to the layman that the number of weeks one gets - and how the incident is discussed by the footballing “media” - is very much influenced by what your name is and who you play for.

So while I understand you don’t like people calling out the Cripps non-suspension, the AFL thorough their own incompetency have royally screwed up laying down the law for head high hits.

 

[croweater 41]

How many spoonfuls of sugar will it take Purple?

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

How many spoonfuls of sugar will it take Purple?

AFL shills the lot of them.

 

[western royboy]

Again, you prove my point. The fact that Cripps got off (because the AFL had argued that he was in fact going for the ball, just carelessly), Buddy got one game, Picket two, and McAdam 3 is entirely the point of this thread. There is no consistency, and it seems to the layman that the number of weeks one gets - and how the incident is discussed by the footballing “media” - is very much influenced by what your name is and who you play for.

So while I understand you don’t like people calling out the Cripps non-suspension, the AFL thorough their own incompetency have royally screwed up laying down the law for head high hits.

There is no consistency but Cripps got off due to a legal technicality nothing to do with the incident itself

 

[hippyhippy]

It's rnd 1 .. and they get this wrong every year and it's all over the news ... I'm pretty sure they doing this on purpose...

 

[The 747]

Hmm seems harsh to single out McAdam but it is on brand for the AFL to punish the Crows for a collective sin.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Again, you prove my point. The fact that Cripps got off (because the AFL had argued that he was in fact going for the ball, just carelessly), Buddy got one game, Picket two, and McAdam 3 is entirely the point of this thread. There is no consistency, and it seems to the layman that the number of weeks one gets - and how the incident is discussed by the footballing “media” - is very much influenced by what your name is and who you play for.

So while I understand you don’t like people calling out the Cripps non-suspension, the AFL thorough their own incompetency have royally screwed up laying down the law for head high hits.

Yeah you’ve got no clue, as that’s not why the Cripps decision was overturned.

Do some googling.