Player Watch Shane McAdam

[DJ75]

It looks entirely different. No front-on contact, a hip and shoulder to the side, BUT, is it a raised elbow to the head that does the damage?

Irrelevant. McAdam's wasn't about front on contact or even contact to the head. The AFL made it clear it was about force and potential to cause injury.
Was there no potential in this case?

 

[Velvet George]

Irrelevant. McAdam's wasn't about front on contact or even contact to the head. The AFL made it clear it was about force and potential to cause injury.
Was there no potential in this case?

Yep, made the decision to bump which has the potential to lead to injury. In this case it did. Has to get more than McAdam.

The stupid AFL have made a rod for themselves with McAdams suspension. Every time there’s an example we have to highlight it

 

[SugarShane]

Same player. Bumped and taken from field.
In McAdam's case the player had tthe ball and could expect contact.
In this case the player was reaching for the ball and open. Duggan ignores ball and attacks player.
Has to be 5 weeks right? It's clearly worse than McAdams.

For someone with the name "Wehr" he seems pretty easy to find.

 

[DJ75]

Yep, made the decision to bump which has the potential to lead to injury. In this case it did. Has to get more than McAdam.

The stupid AFL have made a rod for themselves with McAdams suspension. Every time there’s an example we have to highlight it

Won't matter. The Vic media will completely ignore it and then suggest we are wingers for bringing up their hypocrisy.

 

[Crow till I die]

‘That’s a six weeker’: Great calls for HUGE ban for brutal ‘car crash’ AFL tackle

‘That’s a six weeker’: Great calls for HUGE ban for brutal ‘car crash’ AFL tackle

www.foxsports.com.au

The incident was graded as careless with severe impact and high contact — the maximum charge.

Speaking on Fox Footy’s First Crack, King labelled Broad’s tackle a “horrific incident” and a “car crash,” saying he’d be “really disappointed” if it only results in a three or four week ban.


“We’ve got one chance to stamp this out, and unfortunately, Nathan Broad

35

Nathan Broad

Age

33

Ht

192cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.7

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

4.3

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

192.9

3star

D

12.3

3star

K

8.3

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.0

2star

MG

192.9

3star

D

12.8

4star

K

8.4

4star

HB

4.4

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

and the Richmond footy club have to pay a price. That’s a six weeker for me,” the dual premiership Kangaroo said.

“You have to say: ‘Guys, you know the rules.’

“We stuffed this up with the bump totally and we’ve got all sorts of trauma with past players and we’ll be court for all sorts of reasons and all sort sorts of finances will drift out of the game.

“But players know with this one, they know when they’ve got a guy cold. That poor young fella there — Patrick Parnell — we can’t say what his injury is today.

“Because he doesn’t have a broken arm or broken leg, the trauma he’s going to suffer is down the track potentially. The game now has to get this right, you’ve got one chance, don’t stuff this up.

“If you give that six weeks, it will not happen again for the year. The grading was careless, high and severe — that’s the max. So don’t tiptoe through this one.”

 

[Gtowncrow]

Yep, made the decision to bump which has the potential to lead to injury. In this case it did. Has to get more than McAdam.

The stupid AFL have made a rod for themselves with McAdams suspension. Every time there’s an example we have to highlight it

We really do need to remain vocal about this point.
Strong agree with you.

 

[Dangarman]

So Wehr cops a raised elbow from Duggan that breaks his scapula and puts him out for weeks, and Duggan isn't even cited...

????

 

[spenze]

So Wehr cops a raised elbow from Duggan that breaks his scapula and puts him out for weeks, and Duggan isn't even cited...

????

Can't compare them.

Look the only issue I had with Macadams...well two, it was the first time someone had been done on potential outcome that I just thought bizarre but the second was if they gave him 3 but had given Pickett more then no issue it would have been a statement from the AFL.

To make it though that the Pickett one wasn't judged on potential seemed inconsistent to say the least.

 

[Velvet George]

Can't compare them.

Look the only issue I had with Macadams...well two, it was the first time someone had been done on potential outcome that I just thought bizarre but the second was if they gave him 3 but had given Pickett more then no issue it would have been a statement from the AFL.

To make it though that the Pickett one wasn't judged on potential seemed inconsistent to say the least.

Except the tribunal said McAdam had the option to tackle, chose to bump which had the potential to cause injury.

Duggan had the option to tackle, chose to bump and actually caused an injury.

 

[spenze]

Except the tribunal said McAdam had the option to tackle, chose to bump which had the potential to cause injury.

Duggan had the option to tackle, chose to bump and actually caused an injury.

It isn't even close to the same thing

 

[MsTopG]

So Wehr cops a raised elbow from Duggan that breaks his scapula and puts him out for weeks, and Duggan isn't even cited...

????

The elbow didn't hit them in the head. They ultimately only care about money they have to payout to players from head injuries. If players start suing the AFL about non head injuries they will start penalizing it.

 

[Velvet George]

It isn't even close to the same thing

He didn’t have the option to tackle and chose to bump?

 

[Rabish Binney]

It isn't even close to the same thing

Yes they were different actions.

But the tribunal emphasised that McAdam's action had the potential to cause injury and that this was the main deciding factor in handing down the penalty.
In the washup, there was no injury to Wehr.

Duggan had the opportunity to tackle (as McAdam did) and chose to bump.....with Wehr subsequently being injured.

So, both decided to bump when they could have tackled......McAdam's actions did not lead to any injury, yet Duggan's did.

So by the tribunals reasoning that a player's actions (any actions I assume) can be suspended for the potential to cause injury, then Duggan should have been sighted?

BTW I'm glad that he wasn't.

It puts the inconsistency of the tribunal at the forefront. I give you the Pickett outcome - he got less games because it was a glancing blow apparently

 

[baldandbroke]

This is why so many of us are pissed off with with the McAdam 3 weeks.

It was a football action that did not cause injury, did not hit the head.

This week a massive collision between MM and Marshall.

Front on, got the player in the body, huge potential for injury.

Excellent by Marshall. He didn’t back off, went in hard and clean, hit the body not the head.

No way should it be a suspension.

Awesome by MM too. Didn’t flinch, went to the bench, came back on sore… but that is something we love about our game.

So explain to me, those who disagree, how these two incidents shouldn’t BOTH be ok?

Shane hit hard, no doubt. But what did he do wrong exactly?

It reaks.

 

[Jars#3]

I thought the exact same thing. The commentators were down playing it as well, said something like head bad, ribs play on

 

[John Who]

I thought the exact same thing. The commentators were down playing it as well, said something like head bad, ribs play on

The 2 incidents with McAdam and MM were very similar. There was no conclusive proof that McAdam had hit Wehr in the head. So essentially:

• they’re both similar body hits
• players fell and were winded
• both had players coming off the field
• both cleared of concussion
• both came back and able to play out the entire match.
• both “looked an ugly incident”, or “potential for serious injury”

 

[MatthewB]

Does Nick Holman's hit on Sam De Koning get looked at similar incident to McAdam's and De Koning was subbed out

 

[FR0GGY]

This is why so many of us are pissed off with with the McAdam 3 weeks.

It was a football action that did not cause injury, did not hit the head.

This week a massive collision between MM and Marshall.

Front on, got the player in the body, huge potential for injury.

Excellent by Marshall. He didn’t back off, went in hard and clean, hit the body not the head.

No way should it be a suspension.

Awesome by MM too. Didn’t flinch, went to the bench, came back on sore… but that is something we love about our game.

So explain to me, those who disagree, how these two incidents shouldn’t BOTH be ok?

Shane hit hard, no doubt. But what did he do wrong exactly?

It reaks.

I’m going to say they’re completely different as acts.
Pretty sure they’ve said with the bump you take the risk of what happens with the head.
The problem with Mcadam they went off script and went with the “potential” injury which we’ve never seen before.
The Michaelanney incident wasn’t even close the to the head.

 

[FR0GGY]

Logue offered one game for running past the ball and bumping in the head, with the same result of no injury.

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

Logue offered one game for running past the ball and bumping in the head, with the same result of no injury.
View attachment 1648122

How is this not worse than McAdam’s?

Intentional - Severe - High. Potential to cause injury is certainly there too.

4+ matches.

The AFL isn’t even trying to hide its biases anymore.

 

[John Who]

How is this not worse than McAdam’s?

Intentional - Severe - High. Potential to cause injury is certainly there too.

4+ matches.

The AFL isn’t even trying to hide its biases anymore.

At least 2023 has been a good year where fans are uniting to see the ugly face of AFL bosses for what they really are - greedy, biased dimwits.

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

At least 2023 has been a good year where fans are uniting to see the ugly face of AFL bosses for what they really are - greedy, biased dimwits.

Kangaroos must be the newly appointed (always exclusive to Victorian teams) “fairytale”.

As per the Bulldogs, have they received a phone call from AFL House recently telling them how much the league would love to see a flag go their way soon?

 

[King Elvis]

Logue offered one game for running past the ball and bumping in the head, with the same result of no injury.
View attachment 1648122

Watching 360 now - how did McAdam get 4, and this only gets 1?

 

[BACCS]

Watching 360 now - how did McAdam get 4, and this only gets 1?

Only difference is Day not requiring a concussion test, but that doesn’t explain why he didn’t get at least two like Pickett

 

[rabidcrow]

This is why so many of us are pissed off with with the McAdam 3 weeks.

It was a football action that did not cause injury, did not hit the head.

This week a massive collision between MM and Marshall.

Front on, got the player in the body, huge potential for injury.

Excellent by Marshall. He didn’t back off, went in hard and clean, hit the body not the head.

No way should it be a suspension.

Awesome by MM too. Didn’t flinch, went to the bench, came back on sore… but that is something we love about our game.

So explain to me, those who disagree, how these two incidents shouldn’t BOTH be ok?

Shane hit hard, no doubt. But what did he do wrong exactly?

It reaks.

There are a couple of differences between Marshall and McAdam which Inthink are fair enough

For Marshall hitting MM it was a contest for a loose ball so he couldn’t really tackle, and more relevant he didn’t drop the shoulder and run through him like McAdam did. Marshall hit MM with his arm out like a tackle so with the front of the shoulder. If he had of the cord it in and ironed him out then he would definitely have got weeks


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com