Remove this Banner Ad

Suspension!!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter HBK619
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

HBK619

HBK619

Brownlow Medallist
Veteran 10k Posts Richmond Tigers - Josh Gibcus Player Sponsor 2022 Richmond Tigers - Kamdyn McIntosh Player Sponsor 2022 Richmond Tigers - 2021 Player Sponsor Richmond AFLW Tigers - Ellie McKenzie Player Sponsor 2021 Fall Guys Winner
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Posts
21,769
Reaction score
5,047
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory, Storm and United
Andrew Krakour has been suspended for 3 matches but gets 1 with a good record, the Tigers will challenge the charge.

What do you guys think considering it was Darren Milburns face that got kicked in.

Keep in mind this happened in play right in the goalsquare of Richmonds goal.

And if I could get serious answers it would be good.

Thanks!!!
 
Certainly no malice involved, its just a question of whether it was careless to the point of recklessness. Three weeks was defintely too harsh, at worst should be 1 week, but could easily be a reprimand
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

At first I thought 1 week was harsh, but I just saw it on the news again a few minutes ago, and to be honest I reckon it was a bit reckless. Milburn was already diving before Krakouer started swinging his foot. I have no doubt it was an accident though, and possibly not a lot else he could have done. But yeah reprimand at the least, 1 week at the most I reckon.

Steven King's kick I thought wasn't as late as Krakouer's was (King's foot missed the ball and went on to hit White, Krakouer's foot hit Milburn who already had the ball). That probably comes across sounding really biased, but just trying to be honest (and trying to be non-biased too).

I would not be surprised if contesting the charge gets him off, and wouldn't care if he does end up getting off, but seeing it again I can see where the tribunal is coming from and I don't think 1 week is overly harsh either. 3 weeks though is way too many.
 
probably deserved some kind of punishment but it was accidental so both players were a bit stiff. Dasher for getting boot in his head and Krakoeur for getting suspended over it.
 
HBK619 said:
Andrew Krakour has been suspended for 3 matches but gets 1 with a good record, the Tigers will challenge the charge.

What do you guys think considering it was Darren Milburns face that got kicked in.

Keep in mind this happened in play right in the goalsquare of Richmonds goal.

And if I could get serious answers it would be good.

Thanks!!!
Click to expand...

Krakouer is very unlucky. In my view no report. Milburn dived on the ball, but that's why a courageous act is called courageous. You should still be allowed to kick the ball off the ground. That why the kicking in danger rule exists.

Newsflash for a lot of people - footy is still a physical game (sometimes) and players will get injured. A player copping an injury doesn't automatically equate to an opposition player getting booked. Rubbish decision.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

thehoff said:
Garbage - Krakour is a fair player and the contact was completely unintentional. Should not have even been looked at.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have been looked at last year but the AFL (match review panel) has obviously employed a rigorous policy concerning contact to a players head. They would no doubt claim that Milburn had his head over the ball when Krakoeur either negligently or recklessly kicked or attempted to kick in danger.

Get use to it. I can just see the two and three week bands being distributed throughout the league for charging at a player when his head is fractionally over the ball. Will be plenty of debate regarding the new interpretation of this rule me thinks.
 
Last year he wouldn't have been booked, but with this years "protect the head" rules he's in trouble. I agree with the new rules in principle but you wouldn't want to see him get 3 weeks for it. I suppose the difference is between this and other cases is that he was going for the ball and got milburns head, unlike, what I understand the rules was really made for, players going the man, and making reckless and unneccesary high contact.

That said, amount of daylight between his foot and the ball isn't gonna help his case.
 
Accident, yes but it was correctly deemed reckless..

The AFL have to encourage players to put their head over the ball and discourage players recklessly throwing their boots around in a pack situation.
 
Both Milburn and Krakour were doing what is expected of them. I dont think he should be suspended because any player in his situation would have done the same so close to goal.
 
CatFan79 said:
Accident, yes but it was correctly deemed reckless..

The AFL have to encourage players to put their head over the ball and discourage players recklessly throwing their boots around in a pack situation.
Click to expand...
Yeah thats why there is a kicking in danger rule.
 
tima said:
At first I thought 1 week was harsh, but I just saw it on the news again a few minutes ago, and to be honest I reckon it was a bit reckless. Milburn was already diving before Krakouer started swinging his foot. I have no doubt it was an accident though, and possibly not a lot else he could have done. But yeah reprimand at the least, 1 week at the most I reckon.

Steven King's kick I thought wasn't as late as Krakouer's was (King's foot missed the ball and went on to hit White, Krakouer's foot hit Milburn who already had the ball). That probably comes across sounding really biased, but just trying to be honest (and trying to be non-biased too).

I would not be surprised if contesting the charge gets him off, and wouldn't care if he does end up getting off, but seeing it again I can see where the tribunal is coming from and I don't think 1 week is overly harsh either. 3 weeks though is way too many.
Click to expand...
That was a fair bit biased, the thing was King tried to kick the ball out of mid air for no apparent reason, whereas Krakouer was trying to kick a goal.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

vealesy said:
The AFL go on about how 'the head is sacred'
surely thats grounds for suspension, reckless and impact of the head.
no different to a high bump / charge

3 minimum.
Click to expand...
Except the fact that when you bump someone you aren't trying to get a goal.

A bump is something that you deliberatly do whether you make contact to the head or not.

A kick to the head can be different considering the circumstances, if a player just kicks a guy in the head in a pack situation where the ball is not apparently near it would be a good decision to suspend someone but it someone is trying to score for their team then surely it cannot be deemed illegal.
 
HBK619 said:
That was a fair bit biased, the thing was King tried to kick the ball out of mid air for no apparent reason, whereas Krakouer was trying to kick a goal.
Click to expand...

I reckon both incidents were just accidents and no punishment was applicable (reprimand and warning points at most)

They were free kicks - kicking in danger

Both were playing the ball (which wasn't in anyones possession) at the time.

If 2 players are going for the ball with their heads down and they clash heads both get knocked out do we suspend them both for 3 matches for making high contact with the opposition player? No we dont because they were playing the ball and not the man and Krakouer was playing the ball (trying to soccer it for a goal)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

witsend
    • Disagree
  • Locked
MRP / Trib. Dane Rampe Suspension?
Replies
2
Views
478
cats_09
cats_09

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom