The Birdman, how many ??

[Toots Hibbert]

I agree 1 week is fair - but there is a photo in todays herald sun depicting the bump - and this gets me angry

The picture is of Hyde getting hit with a "classic" hip and shoulder. Now forget whether he should have over run the ball to deliver the bump.

My point is in the photo Hyde is standing front on to the bump, in an upright position, and FFS trying to tackle Burton.

Now IMO Hyde deserves every ache and pain he got - and this happens all the time now in modern footy where players DO NOT know how to protect themselves.

Fancy standing up, face on, and trying to tackle a player delivering a shirt Front - how dumb!!!!

And it's Burton fault for Hyde getting hurt - no bloody way!!! - how about turning sideways and point of impact and trying to bloody well protect yourself - or is this a totally lost art

Could one of you Crows people take Wayne's World aside, explain to him the wisdom of looking at the video rather than just a photo. Explain to him that Hyde was watching the ball and not trying to tackle Burton. Explain to him that usually you don't blame the victim.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Could one of you Crows people take Wayne's World aside, explain to him the wisdom of looking at the video rather than just a photo. Explain to him that Hyde was watching the ball and not trying to tackle Burton. Explain to him that usually you don't blame the victim.

Muhahahah one week. Byron'd be spewin'

 

[Stiffy_18]

I agree 1 week is fair - but there is a photo in todays herald sun depicting the bump - and this gets me angry

The picture is of Hyde getting hit with a "classic" hip and shoulder. Now forget whether he should have over run the ball to deliver the bump.

My point is in the photo Hyde is standing front on to the bump, in an upright position, and FFS trying to tackle Burton.

Now IMO Hyde deserves every ache and pain he got - and this happens all the time now in modern footy where players DO NOT know how to protect themselves.

Fancy standing up, face on, and trying to tackle a player delivering a shirt Front - how dumb!!!!

And it's Burton fault for Hyde getting hurt - no bloody way!!! - how about turning sideways and point of impact and trying to bloody well protect yourself - or is this a totally lost art

Tell us how you REALLY feel

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Could one of you Crows people take Wayne's World aside, explain to him the wisdom of looking at the video rather than just a photo. Explain to him that Hyde was watching the ball and not trying to tackle Burton. Explain to him that usually you don't blame the victim.

Now TH, I'm not condoning Burtons actions or suggesting he is not at fault BUT FFS get the kid to learn how to cover up and protect himself.

Half of these injuries occur because players leave themselves wide open, not expecting the hit, or if they are, still not protecting oneself - use to be first thing you learn't back in U10's.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Tell us how you REALLY feel

Do you think I fluffed around the subject and could have been a bit more direct and decisive

 

[macca23]

I agree 1 week is fair - but there is a photo in todays herald sun depicting the bump - and this gets me angry

The picture is of Hyde getting hit with a "classic" hip and shoulder. Now forget whether he should have over run the ball to deliver the bump.

My point is in the photo Hyde is standing front on to the bump, in an upright position, and FFS trying to tackle Burton.

Now IMO Hyde deserves every ache and pain he got - and this happens all the time now in modern footy where players DO NOT know how to protect themselves.

Fancy standing up, face on, and trying to tackle a player delivering a shirt Front - how dumb!!!!

And it's Burton fault for Hyde getting hurt - no bloody way!!! - how about turning sideways and point of impact and trying to bloody well protect yourself - or is this a totally lost art

You're right of course. Hyde is going to get killed playing this game because he doesn't have a clue about self-protection as you correctly outlined above. Turning side-on would have been standard fodder in this situation.

If Burton had tried the same hit on Peter Burgoyne, Akermanis or the like he wopuld have only hit fresh air because they have genuine awareness of what's going on around them. Hyde has no idea.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Muhahahah one week. Byron'd be spewin'

Well he'd certainly be quite puzzled as are many other people. I don't think Byron's the sort of person who would wish ill on another. Now Brett Montgomery might feel differently. Hopefully the squealer gets an extra week.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

Now TH, I'm not condoning Burtons actions or suggesting he is not at fault BUT FFS get the kid to learn how to cover up and protect himself.

Half of these injuries occur because players leave themselves wide open, not expecting the hit, or if they are, still not protecting oneself - use to be first thing you learn't back in U10's.

OK fair enough on the issue of learning how to protect yourself. What did puzzle me though was you suggesting Hyde tried to tackle Burton when he was unaware the hit was coming.

On the issue of running past the ball to bump a player:- I think it's perfectly legitimate to put the other guy out of the contest before you collect the ball. Why should you be required to pick up the ball and then be tackled? The issue is how that bump is delivered. In Burtons case, and in Picketts more so, the execution was poor.

 

[Crowked]

I don't think Byron's the sort of person who would wish ill on another. Now Brett Montgomery might feel differently. Hopefully the squealer gets an extra week.

No Byron clearly wouldnt wish ill on another, he only wants to cripple them.

Monty's a top bloke too, he's just got a thing for belting blokes he cant match it with.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

In Burtons case, and in Picketts more so, the execution was poor.

I dispute that Burtons bump was poor - shoulder tucked in no elbows - IMO textbook.

The only reason Hyde got hit in the head was he reacted poorly to the oncoming bump - yes he saw it coming - it was front on and he saw Burton coming from a long way - he may not have expected Burton to over-run the ball - but he knew he was coming.

 

[GoSarge]

I dispute that Burtons bump was poor - shoulder tucked in no elbows - IMO textbook.

The only reason Hyde got hit in the head was he reacted poorly to the oncoming bump - yes he saw it coming - it was front on and he saw Burton coming from a long way - he may not have expected Burton to over-run the ball - but he knew he was coming.

True, Hyde should have covered himself, but he didn't.

I think the most important part is that Hyde hardly reacted to the high contact which meant the impact was minimal. Minimal impact - is that reason enough to suspend someone for a week ?

 

[Jars458]

I The only reason Hyde got hit in the head was he reacted poorly to the oncoming bump - yes he saw it coming - it was front on and he saw Burton coming from a long way - he may not have expected Burton to over-run the ball - but he knew he was coming.

He got hit in the head because he was bumped front on. It was reckless no doubt in my mind. I seriously doubt whether he will get off.

 

[noddy]

He got hit in the head because he was bumped front on. It was reckless no doubt in my mind. I seriously doubt whether he will get off.

Can't believe it was anything else but reckless & it wasn't the first time that night that Brett didn't try & collect Hyde with a hip & shoulder,

Should have excepted the 1 week rather than try to overturn the wording of the charge.

To bad if it torpedoes his brownlow chances.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

I dispute that Burtons bump was poor - shoulder tucked in no elbows - IMO textbook.

The only reason Hyde got hit in the head was he reacted poorly to the oncoming bump - yes he saw it coming - it was front on and he saw Burton coming from a long way - he may not have expected Burton to over-run the ball - but he knew he was coming.

Knew it or not the AFL are definately hot on front on hits and if it is head high then considered a bigger no no.
The old days of a shirt front are gone WW.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Knew it or not the AFL are definately hot on front on hits and if it is head high then considered a bigger no no.
The old days of a shirt front are gone WW.

My point is it was only head high because of hydes ineptitude - was like a stunned rabbit - akin to ducking into a tackle.

Players need to protect themselves - full stop - players are running into contests opened up BECAUSE they BELIEVE thaey WILL NOT get hit.

Because the rule says you can't be hit high - doe's not abdicate players responsibility to protect themselves.

 

[Toots Hibbert]

My point is it was only head high because of hydes ineptitude - was like a stunned rabbit - akin to ducking into a tackle.

Players need to protect themselves - full stop - players are running into contests opened up BECAUSE they BELIEVE thaey WILL NOT get hit.

Because the rule says you can't be hit high - doe's not abdicate players responsibility to protect themselves.

Reminds me of that joke lifted from a car insurance claim. "The guy was all over the road, I had to swerve three times before I hit him!"

Where were you when we needed you? I reckon you could have got Choppy off! "If Begley hadn't fumbled the ball he would have been upright when Choppy bumped him." "Begley didn't protect himself, he should have turned himself sideways!"

 

[DonsRule]

OK fair enough on the issue of learning how to protect yourself. What did puzzle me though was you suggesting Hyde tried to tackle Burton when he was unaware the hit was coming.

On the issue of running past the ball to bump a player:- I think it's perfectly legitimate to put the other guy out of the contest before you collect the ball. Why should you be required to pick up the ball and then be tackled? The issue is how that bump is delivered. In Burtons case, and in Picketts more so, the execution was poor.

I'd agree with that, I don't think there was an malace in the bump, I think he should have just taken the week and run.

Being the Bombers supporter I am, I can only look back on Llyods bump on Cornes last year. (yeah, yeah, living in the past, I know), it was a little simular, except Llyod make no head contact, took a step or 2 past the ball, then bam. I think that was more Burton intention.

 

[Macca19]

My point is it was only head high because of hydes ineptitude - was like a stunned rabbit - akin to ducking into a tackle.

Players need to protect themselves - full stop - players are running into contests opened up BECAUSE they BELIEVE thaey WILL NOT get hit.

Because the rule says you can't be hit high - doe's not abdicate players responsibility to protect themselves.

I think its funny that Crows supporters are using the "Hyde only got hit because he didnt protect himself" line when just about everyone on this board basically said we were lower than rapists for suggesting that it was Begleys fault for getting hit because he too fumbled and didnt protect himself.

Double standard?

Burton lined him up from a mile away, had no eyes for the football, overran the football, got Hyde in the head. Yet this is worth zero but most people on here said Pickett should have been outed for 12 weeks.

I just dont get how that works considering the only difference between the two bumps was that Begley was lower to the ground.

 

[Crowked]

I just dont get how that works considering the only difference between the two bumps was that Begley was lower to the ground.

Your kidding right?

The only similarity was the fact both players went past the ball. The impact was about a quarter of the impact of Picketts and the intent wasnt to do serious injury the guy. Pickett goes out of his way to try and hurt people and Begley is lucky he didnt succeed on that occasion or he would be in a chair for the rest of his days. Burton is a gangly unco knob, no doubt, but Pickett is a low life who gets off on hurting people when they are defensless and vulnerable.

IMO Burton deserves the game. It wasnt Hydes fault in any way IMO. But to suggest it was similar to Picketts and should have been treated the same is completely rediculous.

1 for Burtons, 4 for Picketts, would be fair.

 

[Macca19]

I disagree. I think Burton was going just as hard as Pickett was.

 

[noddy]

I disagree. I think Burton was going just as hard as Pickett was.

In the context of Pickett's 5 game ban then Burton's hit was in my opinion worth a 1-3 game ban.

Always thought that Pickett's was worth 2-3 weeks but definitely was of a higher scale than Burton's.

 

[marvin]

I think its funny that Crows supporters are using the "Hyde only got hit because he didnt protect himself" line when just about everyone on this board basically said we were lower than rapists for suggesting that it was Begleys fault for getting hit because he too fumbled and didnt protect himself.

Double standard?

Burton lined him up from a mile away, had no eyes for the football, overran the football, got Hyde in the head. Yet this is worth zero but most people on here said Pickett should have been outed for 12 weeks.

I just dont get how that works considering the only difference between the two bumps was that Begley was lower to the ground.

Want to try that post again without the gross generalisations and hysterical exaggerations?

 

[Jars458]

I when just about everyone on this board basically said we were lower than rapists

That's a disgraceful comment Macca. I demand an apology.

Neither I nor many others on this board would have said such a thing.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I think its funny that Crows supporters are using the "Hyde only got hit because he didnt protect himself" line when just about everyone on this board basically said we were lower than rapists for suggesting that it was Begleys fault for getting hit because he too fumbled and didnt protect himself.

Double standard?

Burton lined him up from a mile away, had no eyes for the football, overran the football, got Hyde in the head. Yet this is worth zero but most people on here said Pickett should have been outed for 12 weeks.

I just dont get how that works considering the only difference between the two bumps was that Begley was lower to the ground.

Macca19 big difference berween both contests:

Begley was at the contest head over the ball - eyes on the ball couldn't see Pickett coming - yes he fumbled and yes if he had of picked the ball up the bump MAY have been clean - BUT HE DIDN"T.

Hyde was still running to the contest and could quite clearly see the on-coming player - completely different situation.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Hopefully the squealer gets an extra week.

Well Toots, I don't think anyone feels thinks you need to be banned. Maybe if you oink a little louder ?