MRP / Trib. Shane McAdam Bump on Jacob Wehr

Remove this Banner Ad

McAdams 100% deserved 3 weeks.

the problem is that picket and franklin should have got 3 too.

This refusal to have bumps labelled as intentional is a farce.
 
Are the Crows simply trying to highlight the injustice here? Pickett should've got more than 2 but this bump should probably be at least 4. It's a shocking act.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Golden_6 said:
Are the Crows simply trying to highlight the injustice here? Pickett should've got more than 2 but this bump should probably be at least 4. It's a shocking act.
Click to expand...
I think the crows are trying say.

It was in play (had the ball)
He's entitled to bump within the rules
He got him legally within the rules (not high contact)
There were no injuries.

Why exactly is he even reported?

Just because we don't like the look of it?
 
Kreuuuzeurns said:
Yeah you’ve got no clue, as that’s not why the Cripps decision was overturned.

Do some googling.
Click to expand...

Carlton star Patrick Cripps successfully overturns judiciary verdict, is free to play against Melbourne - ABC News

amp.abc.net.au amp.abc.net.au

From the article:

“Townshend (acting for Cripps) said Gleeson himself had created confusion by effectively stating Cripps' action was a bump.

"A fair examination of the whole of the evidence could not support clear satisfaction that the player was doing something other than an incident where both players had eyes for the ball, and both players contested the ball, as found by the Tribunal.

"We say for the foregoing reasons the Tribunal's decision is infected by error and so unreasonable that it requires reversing."

… AFL counsel Nicholas Pane said a player could contest with his eyes on the ball but still be in the action of bumping.”

That is, the AFL, through their incompetence, accepted that Cripps was contesting the ball, thereby allowing Carlton’s QC to argue that he could not simultaneously be bumping… he was simply contesting the ball and was thus let off…

How’s my googling? Am pretty confident that my comprehension of the article is spot on and that I do, indeed, have a clue.
 
I have watched and watched the Macadam one and fir the life of me other than the possible force of the bump I can’t see anything wrong with it.
So I ask then is there a limit on force now? You can bump but you must bump softly? Is that where we are at?
He didn’t jump off the ground, he got the player in the chest. Perfect bump yes? if the AFL were to send a video out on how to bump this would be the template.
So what has he been suspended for again?
 
BigLefty said:
I think the crows are trying say.

It was in play (had the ball)
He's entitled to bump within the rules
He got him legally within the rules (not high contact)
There were no injuries.

Why exactly is he even reported?

Just because we don't like the look of it?
Click to expand...
What? You don't honestly believe that :rolleyes:
 
Miss Vanessa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Except he didn't and it wasn't. He was contesting the ball.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

FlowersByIrene said:
"Dumb person posts footage after initial impact in disingenous manner - more to follow at 8"
Click to expand...
And this is why I argue that the AFL has made an absolute mess of this whole situation. I get why you, a Carlton supporter, would want to argue that Cripps was simply going for the ball.

However, given the growing amounts of evidence about concussion and it’s long term affects, the AFL really needed to make a very clear statement about how players have a duty of care to one another and that careless acts (leaping off the ground, turning your body, hitting players in the head - all when there are other options available to the player) need to be stamped out of the game.

Again, he was let off because the AFL actually accepted that he was contesting the ball. I disagree with this assessment.

So instead of clear repercussions for incidents such as this, we’re left with Cripps getting off, Buddy getting 1 game, Picket getting two, and McAdam getting 3… and everyone left scratching their heads about what the hell is going on. I, along with most Adelaide fans are annoyed at the lack of consistency. That’s it.

I repeat, Cripps, McAdam and Buddy all deserved similar suspensions. Picket deserved a harsher one. I think that is a more than reasonable position to hold.
 
kirky said:
I don’t think any Adelaide supporter believes he shouldn’t get any games.

The issue is both the Franklin and Pickett incidents were infinitely worse -


View attachment 1636201
Click to expand...

A club supporter thinking their player is harshly treated? I'm shocked to be sitting here.

Id agree with you that the other 2 deserved 3 weeks as well. What McAdams did was a chicken s**t hit that could have resulted in serious damage, it was a non-football act and DID hit him in head, regardless of where the "primary" contact was. You are taking the absolute piss if you think what McAdam did was ok.

There is zero place for that s**t in the game. he chose to take the chance to do maximum damage to an unsuspecting player and he wears the cost of the choice. next time tackle.

had he actually knocked him out. It would have been 6 weeks +
 
Last edited:
greatwhiteshark said:
I have watched and watched the Macadam one and fir the life of me other than the possible force of the bump I can’t see anything wrong with it.
So I ask then is there a limit on force now? You can bump but you must bump softly? Is that where we are at?
He didn’t jump off the ground, he got the player in the chest. Perfect bump yes? if the AFL were to send a video out on how to bump this would be the template.
So what has he been suspended for again?
Click to expand...
Nah…

I feel he should get 2/3 weeks for it.. my anger is with the inconsitency and clear favouritism towards the other two players.

What also pisses me off is that two weeks ago in the West Coast trial match Mcadam layed a very similar bump.. but on that occassion the young West Coast player turned his body and both players met for a side on impact.. and both played on.. the commentators loudly proclaimed “who said the bump was dead” and praised both players..

The AFL would use that exact same type of footage to promote the game!..

Why was that bump not deemed “dangerous” or “having the potential to cause injury”?..

The AFL cant allow the bump to be legal and then expect it is going to be executed perfectly on every single occassion. The game simply isnt that slow to allow it.

The outcome in any and every incident is a complete lottery and has been for a long time now. This incompetent organisation needs to be held to account and heads need to roll.
 
Bearded Clam said:
Nah…

I feel he should get 2/3 weeks for it.. my anger is with the inconsitency and clear favouritism towards the other two players.

What also pisses me off is that two weeks ago in the West Coast trial match Mcadam layed a very similar bump.. but on that occassion the young West Coast player turned his body and both players met for a side on impact.. and both played on.. the commentators loudly proclaimed “who said the bump was dead” and praised both players..

The AFL would use that exact same type of footage to promote the game!..

Why was that bump not deemed “dangerous” or “having the potential to cause injury”?..

The AFL cant allow the bump to be legal and then expect it is going to be executed perfectly on every single occassion. The game simply isnt that slow to allow it.

The outcome in any and every incident is a complete lottery and has been for a long time now. This incompetent organisation needs to be held to account and heads need to roll.
Click to expand...

What did he do wrong? You want him suspended because it looks bad?
 
Miss Vanessa said:
And this is why I argue that the AFL has made an absolute mess of this whole situation. I get why you, a Carlton supporter, would want to argue that Cripps was simply going for the ball.

However, given the growing amounts of evidence about concussion and it’s long term affects, the AFL really needed to make a very clear statement about how players have a duty of care to one another and that careless acts (leaping off the ground, turning your body, hitting players in the head - all when there are other options available to the player) need to be stamped out of the game.

Again, he was let off because the AFL actually accepted that he was contesting the ball. I disagree with this assessment.

So instead of clear repercussions for incidents such as this, we’re left with Cripps getting off, Buddy getting 1 game, Picket getting two, and McAdam getting 3… and everyone left scratching their heads about what the hell is going on. I, along with most Adelaide fans are annoyed at the lack of consistency. That’s it.

I repeat, Cripps, McAdam and Buddy all deserved similar suspensions. Picket deserved a harsher one. I think that is a more than reasonable position to hold.
Click to expand...
This is putting the cart before the horse. We cannot punish players for accidents when fairly contesting the ball. Football is a dangerous sport that comes with dangerous outcomes. Hundreds of thousands play this sport for free every week for the love of it. Players know the risk when signing up.

While intentional hits tot he head should be punished, as Buddy and Pickett should be. Unintentional or fair hits like the Cripps and McAdams ones should not.

I stand firmly in opposition to the class action on concussion and think it is a simple cash grab instituted by lawyers following the lead of American litigiousness.
 
swilly said:
Is Mcadams bump not a well executed bump? had he hit any part of his head he would have knocked him out and sent him into next week...
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Boxers can get hit in the sweet spot and not get knocked out. It can just be a matter of inches and they would be. Not much of an argument from you. He should have tackled him, they keep saying if you choose to bump you have a duty of care but some people still don't get it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Sarcoidevo
Baker flying bump
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
HairyO
HairyO
Bald
MRP / Trib. Sam Powell-Pepper bump on Mark Keane
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
210
Views
7K
Handyandy
H
Maddo11
McCartin v McAdams
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
203
Views
6K
Roby
Roby
Woody15
Pickett bump on Cripps
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
148
Views
5K
Stax on the mill
S
SSDCrucial
MRP / Trib. Jacob van Rooyen - How many weeks?
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
428
Views
12K
Slartibartfast
Slartibartfast
LordLucifer
MRP / Trib. Rampe Gets Two Match Suspension For Off The Ball Bump
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
.Shotties.
.Shotties.
J
Duck on in or duck on down
Replies
3
Views
424
The Hobo
The Hobo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top