No “potential to cause harm” here apparently.
MRP / Trib. Shane McAdam Bump on Jacob Wehr
- Thread starter conrad_437
- Start date
- Tagged users None
VicBias is a bit like unconscious bias. They all claim it’s not real, but we all know it is.
You’re just showing your ignorance.
A better question would be what's not illegal about it?. Hitting a player as hard as that is reasonable is it, when he could have tackled?
Last edited:
- Jan 23, 2007
- 4,552
- 3,138
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
He did the double. Potential to cause harm, and did. But hey, Vic Brownlow medal contender, we’ll find a way.
What’s that? Trent Cotchin might get banned for ramming a GWS player (Shiel) in the head in a prelim?
Nothing to see here.
- Mar 27, 2018
- 7,223
- 18,906
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Cleveland Browns, Tony Ferguson
the initial contact is to the chest but his head does end up making impact with the back of McAdam's shoulder.
Degree of force - not as hard as it looked (he played out the game without issue)
Vulnerable position - nope. He had the ball and has to be expecting contact.
Reasonably expect contact - he was in play, he has the ball.
It looked pretty savage, but that doesn't make it illegal.
If the AFL want to change rules after seeing it, fine. But you shouldn't be able to suspend someone for an act that wasnt illegal when he committed it.
Disagree. He grabbed the ball and an instant later he was hit. He is expecting contact, but not like excessive like that. He is expecting a tackle. And he is in a very vunerable position receiving a bump like that.
croweater 41
Making my way downtown, Walking fast.
What happens if the tackle was deemed excessive with Wehrs head buried we’d still be here and Wehr would be a lot worse off.
McAdam wouldn’t have been able to “softly” tackle in that instance.
- Mar 1, 2010
- 23,186
- 16,587
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The other thing is McAdam hit him front on.
Wehr should have seen him coming, how could he not?? So McAdam had to protect himself and contest the ball just in the hands of Wehr assuming he grabbed it. It would be reasonable for McAdam to assume Wehr would be producing force back at McAdam seeing him coming and protecting himself.
The Pickett one was ridiculous, why hit Smith at all?? Pickett was never going to stop Smith kicking the ball so how was that a football act?
Buddy had a bit of a out in the sense the ball was in the vicinity but he should not have tried to collect his opponent in that way, but Buddy could not tackle him as he did not have the ball
The difference is.. Vicbias is actually real
No concussion and returned to the field to play.
Look I am all for protecting the players heads but while it is legal to bump shouldn’t all players be expecting to be bumped and with force?
My opinion is just make the bump illegal by the laws of the game.
In that situation, I wouldn't expect a bump, would have expected a tackle. If the ball was bobbing around, then you are more likely to get bumped, as tackling someone could give away a free. McAdam only had a split second to decide what to do, so once he was committed there was no turning back. Pickett had a fraction longer and could have pulled out but he chose to go through with it. Pickett's was more malicious and worse, IMO.
Section 5
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2018
- 6,001
- 9,154
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I like the comparison images they are excellent.
However, 4 of the 5 categories mentioned with a tick and a cross are not really that relevant.
Looks good though when trying to make your case in the media.
Clear concussion assessment is fine to mention, as it is part of a medical report and has a baring on the MRO decision.
For those that want to actually read and try to understand what the MRO guidelines are, see link below.
Even the "direct head contact" is not really mentioned as such in the guidelines.
Head contact is of course mentioned, but High Contact is mentioned along with other things (like groin. Yes high contact) as:
"High contact is not limited to contact to the head and includes contact above the shoulders".
......................................................................................................................................................................
On appeal i can't see McAdam getting Careless reduced
High contact is obviously above the shoulders.
See larger image below so that also will (should) not be reduced. Although his lawyer indicated that is the path they are taking.
That only leaves Impact. So, what do they look at for impact? see below guidelines.
If they can get impact reduced to "High" that will reduce his sanction to 2 weeks and the Adelaide FC won't be fined $10k
I think "Severe" is correct but that is just my opinion.
.......................................................................................................................................................................
Comparing the 3 incidents and why the MRO chose "carless" for the first 2 instead of "intentional" is my next post.
If the MRO chose "intentional" the increase to the sanction for Buddy & Pickett, would make things look a little more even.
But classing an incident as "intentional" has other ramifications.
Section 5
Norm Smith Medallist
- Nov 26, 2018
- 6,001
- 9,154
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
kirky just using your post as a reference point as it has the 3 incidents in image format which is good.
First i would like to state that the bump as in these instances should be taken out of the game. Simpon Goodwin also agrees.
Some tweaking to the rules will get that done but that is another discussion for a later time.
In my previous post i mentioned "Conduct" being rated by the MRO as "Intentional" has ramifications.
In my opinion and most likely the MRO's, rating something as "Intentional" has a greater chance of being reduced anyhow on appeal at the tribunal.
The exception being a clear punch/blow that is worded as:
"For example, a strike will be regarded as intentional where a Player delivers a blow to an opponent with the intention of striking him."
Like Pickets (strike) image that has been posted. Don't know why he was not cited unless the image was from another game?
The problem with "Intentional " conduct is in the wording and it should be changed.
Or at least have the bump worded separately like a strike is, with examples added to the 32 video examples on the last page of guidelines.
Whoever came up with this wording must have been in a strange "state of mind" pun intended.
"State of mind" is mentioned 3 times.
One being "The state of mind is an object fact and has to be PROVED in the same way as other objective facts"
On appeal i doubt anyone could PROVE someone's state of mind at that particular point in time, including lawyers.
So, if the BF community were on the MRO panel how would you rate the Buddy & Pickett incidents going by the set-out AFL Guidelines
Bearing in mind there are a bunch of other things to consider also in the guidelines for those that took the time to have a read.
Last edited:
- Jun 17, 2014
- 12,876
- 20,384
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- ASADA
Common sense should be used here. Should be degraded to 1-2 weeks, going off this year's suspensions already.
Baffles me how Buddy and Pickett got off so lightly. AFL should've appealed the length for Buddy and Pickett too
Baffles me how Buddy and Pickett got off so lightly. AFL should've appealed the length for Buddy and Pickett too
TennisPlayerAndy
Game #6 Klay
- Apr 1, 2008
- 57,821
- 101,866
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Raiders, GSW, QPR, NYM
”This was a bump to the chest and the arm and all of a sudden it's being charged as a head incident … and being elevated to something that it's not," Duggan said.
"It can't be thought that you can just come along and use the potential injury clause to simply elevate the seriousness of impact ... that's not the exercise of restraint that you need in a clause like this. You're changing the character of the incident."
He’s pretty bang on with this.
"It can't be thought that you can just come along and use the potential injury clause to simply elevate the seriousness of impact ... that's not the exercise of restraint that you need in a clause like this. You're changing the character of the incident."
He’s pretty bang on with this.
Crows should take this to court if the AFL persist. Theyre making up new rules.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,452
- 81,997
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Absolutely!
These 3 latest decisions just show the AFL is a Kangaroo Court & just making s**t up depending on the profile of the player rather than the actual incident.
For the 1st time I'm losing interst in AFL as the administration are ******* up our game.
Gil the dill just needs to get out as he promised to months ago.
- Oct 13, 2017
- 20,287
- 33,567
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Glenelg, tigers
My god the AFL is pathetic..
Now they are arguing its no longer about contact to the head.. it’s that the bump to the body “could have potentially” caused an injury!!..
you couldn’t make this s**t up if you tried..
they are trying to change the charges against McAdam in the middle of the hearing because they have been found out.
Now they are arguing its no longer about contact to the head.. it’s that the bump to the body “could have potentially” caused an injury!!..
you couldn’t make this s**t up if you tried..
they are trying to change the charges against McAdam in the middle of the hearing because they have been found out.
The loosey goosey clause gives the AFL more scope to match fix their own sport. Gamble responsibly.
