The Thread About Nothing - PART 2 OPEN

[Groupie_]

I cant believe they appealed that...ffs ziebell launched so far off the ground, of course it was reckless...dont know how it could be interpreted any other way...sheesh if white was guilty ziebell was 10 x that

Lol read in the Hun that they might appeal again.

 

[PHX]

Ohhh it's been very entertaining reading over there this week... has gone a long way towards helping me get over our own weekend disaster.

Agreed. Taking it to the supreme court, the AFL having an agenda against Carlton, and Judd should sue the MRP for damaging his reputation has been mentioned multiple times.

 

[PHX]

Juddy and Ziebell not appealing.

 

[CoggaRules]

What about Petrie. What's his status?

MRP has told him that he cant play this week, because his injury niggle was the cause of Ziebell's crunch hence it contributed to Zeibell's mindset.

 

[Bojangles17]

Still lmao at roos supporters bleating about this, ziebell was two feet off ground and hit joseph flush on the head....who was the genius that recommended they appeal...brayshaw im tipping

 

[tugga]

The Ziebell one is polarising, Bo.
I am in the the camp that he had no case to answer at all, but even 3 weeks to begin with was horribly excessive.

 

[Bojangles17]

The Ziebell one is polarising, Bo.
I am in the the camp that he had no case to answer at all, but even 3 weeks to begin with was horribly excessive.

How do you figure that tugg when he leaves the ground to make contact with his opponent and knocks him out...what part is no case to answer?....rules have been clear for quite a while , launch off ground , hit head , your guilty...nothing grey there

 

[Harmichael]

Strictly by the book (whatever the hell that is these days), it may or may not have been warranted, but as we all know, the law is an a.ss. It was unavoidable, almost incidental contact in a contact sport.

 

[Livonski]

How do you figure that tugg when he leaves the ground to make contact with his opponent and knocks him out...what part is no case to answer?....rules have been clear for quite a while , launch off ground , hit head , your guilty...nothing grey there

I reckon he left the ground to grab the ball, sort of got messed up mid air, braced for contact. It's different to jumping into someone who has the ball, or to shepherd, because his motive was the ball and contact with Joseph was incidental (or accidental).
I might have given him 1 or 2 for hurting the bloke but 4...very harsh.

(is Cadel ever going to attack?)

 

[tigs2010]

How do you figure that tugg when he leaves the ground to make contact with his opponent and knocks him out...what part is no case to answer?....rules have been clear for quite a while , launch off ground , hit head , your guilty...nothing grey there

Probably the part where he was clearly going for the ball and then braced for contact. I haven't read the rulebook lately but can't remember any rules about not being able to leave the ground to get the ball.

 

[Bazzar]

Patrick Keane ‏@AFL_PKeane
Richmond has placed Nathan Foley on the long-term injury list, with no replacement named at this stage.

 

[Harmichael]

Saw that comin'. Surely we'll upgrade another rookie now?

 

[tigs2010]

Come on Verrier.

 

[Bird Man]

the curse of Grandpa Joe is upon us !

 

[tugga]

How do you figure that tugg when he leaves the ground to make contact with his opponent and knocks him out...what part is no case to answer?....rules have been clear for quite a while , launch off ground , hit head , your guilty...nothing grey there

I think the AFL has become so obsessed with making the game as bruise free as possible for junior footy that it is ruining the game at the elite level by applying the same principles.
As I said, it's a polarising one. He left the ground but he has eyes on the ball. It was an accident and the contact was accidental in a way that has been happening for more than 100 years. But now the AFL wants as many kids and, especially young girls doing Aus Kick, to play the game. Don't forget these girls will stop playing the game by their early teens, but they will then go to matches by themselves or in a group.
By the way Bo, I have never said Ziebell didn't not have a case to answer. They are your words. Maybe he could have gotten a week for being reckless, but three weeks for an accident when he had his eyes on the ball? The fact that it turned to four - I don't really care about that as North challenged and lost.
And quite obviously there are grey areas. In case you have been out of the country the past week, social media and the airwaves have been flooded with protests at the severity of the suspension. So obviously there are plenty of grey areas. In fact the whole damn MRP is one big blob of grey.

 

[Bojangles17]

Probably the part where he was clearly going for the ball and then braced for contact. I haven't read the rulebook lately but can't remember any rules about not being able to leave the ground to get the ball.

So there's no responsibility for the welfare of player coming back with flight of ball, umm i think thats what the rule is in place for ...recklessly going for a contest with no regard for opponent can and will result in serious injury.....ziebell was negligent or reckless as all get out in that regard

 

[Bojangles17]

I think the AFL has become so obsessed with making the game as bruise free as possible for junior footy that it is ruining the game at the elite level by applying the same principles.
As I said, it's a polarising one. He left the ground but he has eyes on the ball. It was an accident and the contact was accidental in a way that has been happening for more than 100 years. But now the AFL wants as many kids and, especially young girls doing Aus Kick, to play the game. Don't forget these girls will stop playing the game by their early teens, but they will then go to matches by themselves or in a group.
By the way Bo, I have never said Ziebell didn't not have a case to answer. They are your words. Maybe he could have gotten a week for being reckless, but three weeks for an accident when he had his eyes on the ball? The fact that it turned to four - I don't really care about that as North challenged and lost.
And quite obviously there are grey areas. In case you have been out of the country the past week, social media and the airwaves have been flooded with protests at the severity of the suspension. So obviously there are plenty of grey areas. In fact the whole damn MRP is one big blob of grey.

Im not a champion of bruise free footy nor am i an apoligist for reckless campaigners like wellingham, now ziebell and other sickening clashes...jordan lewis comes to mind....it aint part of what makes the game good....and players that have no regard for welfare of opponent iin the way they go about it deserve all they get

 

[tugga]

Im not a champion of bruise free footy nor am i an apoligist for reckless sillys like wellingham, now ziebell and other sickening clashes...jordan lewis comes to mind....it aint part of what makes the game good....and players that have no regard for welfare of opponent iin the way they go about it deserve all they get

I would argue the game hasn't been good for a while now and ridiculous new-age feel-good nannies (Adrian Anderson) are ruining it. I hate violence, but Ziebell wasn't violent. It was an accident. I am arguing that the penalty was excessive. I am agreeing with you that he was reckless.

 

[CoggaRules]

Probably the part where he was clearly going for the ball and then braced for contact. I haven't read the rulebook lately but can't remember any rules about not being able to leave the ground to get the ball.

problem is that the carlton player had his eyes on the pill, i.e. he was going for the ball and since Ziebell as you suggest braced for contact, he most certainly took his eyes off the ball, because he had the dude lined up.
Can't really understand the controversy. He has launched into a shirt front that hit above the shoulders FFS.

 

[CoggaRules]

I would argue the game hasn't been good for a while now and ridiculous new-age feel-good nannies (Adrian Anderson) are ruining it. I hate violence, but Ziebell wasn't violent. It was an accident. I am arguing that the penalty was excessive. I am agreeing with you that he was reckless.

yeah, but those paralysing injuries etc that have occcured over the stretch were all accidents. Not many go out to deliberately inflict major damage tugg. Its the accidents that the AFL are trying to rid the game of that cause serious damage. How do you do that? You enforce the law without any compromise.

 

[tugga]

yeah, but those paralysing injuries etc that have occcured over the stretch were all accidents. Not many go out to deliberately inflict major damage tugg. Its the accidents that the AFL are trying to rid the game of that cause serious damage. How do you do that? You enforce the law without any compromise.

I have no problem with Ziebell being found guilty of being reckless. I am arguing that three weeks, turned to four, is ridiculous. If Barry Hall can king hit Brent Staker and get six weeks, how can an accident be deemed as worthy as four weeks?

 

[CoggaRules]

I have no problem with Ziebell being found guilty of being reckless. I am arguing that three weeks, turned to four, is ridiculous. If Barry Hall can king hit Brent Staker and get six weeks, how can an accident be deemed as worthy as four weeks?

I have come to understand that, and I stand corrected, that he is kinda a serial offender, no? If he is, then there is your answer.

 

[tugga]

I have come to understand that, and I stand corrected, that he is kinda a serial offender, no? If he is, then there is your answer.

Then if Ziebell is a serial offender and misses a month for an accident, why does another serial offender in Judd also miss the same period for deliberately bending a guy's arm to almost breaking point?
All I'm saying is the MRP is manifestly inconsistent and selective. To me it seems to pay more attention to accidents than thuggery.

 

[CoggaRules]

Then if Ziebell is a serial offender and misses a month for an accident, why does another serial offender in Judd also miss the same period for deliberately bending a guy's arm to almost breaking point?

Again correct me if I am wrong, but serial offenders have been found guilty and suspended, before for similar indiscretions, correct? Judd although he has a history of stuff, by and large he got off, so in essence he has a clean sheet, or a clean sheet that extends back a long way, to the last offence. Again I dont know the history of Ziebell, just going on what has been talked about, but he has been there done that before and not to long ago..

Just found this:
"Ziebell was suspended for three matches in round 23 last year for bumping or making forceful front-on contact to St Kilda captain Nick Riewoldt."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...to-three-matches/story-fnca0u4y-1226427561964

Sound farmiliar? At the end of the day, he was serving part of that penalty going into this season and low and behold he does it again. So you can understand why he got 4, when he got 3 relatively not to long ago. Watch the video its basically a duplicate of last weeks.

 

[tigs2010]

I have come to understand that, and I stand corrected, that he is kinda a serial offender, no? If he is, then there is your answer.

The Riewoldt one was deserving of weeks but he doesn't deserve to go for a future accident because he got someone earlier in his career.