Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Thomas bump

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Donakebab said:
This is the clip from quarter time, clear contact with the head shown at 17 seconds.
Click to expand...
Clear my arse. Thanks for wasting my time. All it shows is that he might have made contact with his head. That angle was from behind Ibbotson so his head was in the way therefore it's probably the worst angle of them all. :rolleyes:
NTRabbit said:
Actually, Stevens was heavily concussed twice by a player jumping into him on the field of play - by coincidence, both times it was Luke McPharlin, in successive years. The training issue was that, because of the repeated concussions, he started to suffer nausea and other symptoms when attempting to train this season.
Click to expand...
I just went by the information in this article that mentioned he was concussed once in a marking contest, and twice at training, and that I still have no idea how those incidents can in any way be linked to Thomas.
 
I wouldn't say he was "fortunate" to get 2 weeks - he's not a thug like Buddy - nor would I say there was "conclusive" evidence of head contact; I dare say a shoulder to the face/neck would do more than occurred. However I would have been suprised if he got anything less. He shirtfronted a guy. I mean, come on people! We can debate minute technicalities and details in a legalistic fashion all we like but everyone on here, Daisy, Eddie - EVERYBODY - knows how Anderson's f*cked up system works and what the results of such actions can be.

I think all-in-all he got his fair whack and hopefully he gets nice and hungry as a result and come out and deliver performances in a prelim and granny like he did last year :thumbsu:
 
KissStephanie said:
Clear my arse. Thanks for wasting my time. All it shows is that he might have made contact with his head. That angle was from behind Ibbotson so his head was in the way therefore it's probably the worst angle of them all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Might with the MRP is a death sentence "Joel Selwood" they guess.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Bayer said:
Very fortunate to get 2 weeks - could have caused serious damage, and only lack of that damage saved him. Certainly makes Buddy's suspensions look overly harsh.
Good luck in the finals, hope to meet you at the big dance. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...
You could say any contest where a player wasn't injured or hit in the head was fortunate not to do serious damage. Does that mean they should also be suspended? Last year Beau Waters tried to flatten another player but luckily didn't make contact, do you suspend him also? No, you only suspend them if they do make serious contact.
 
BuckleysBrigade said:
I wouldn't say he was "fortunate" to get 2 weeks - he's not a thug like Buddy - nor would I say there was "conclusive" evidence of head contact; I dare say a shoulder to the face/neck would do more than occurred. However I would have been suprised if he got anything less. He shirtfronted a guy. I mean, come on people! We can debate minute technicalities and details in a legalistic fashion all we like but everyone on here, Daisy, Eddie - EVERYBODY - knows how Anderson's f*cked up system works and what the results of such actions can be.

I think all-in-all he got his fair whack and hopefully he gets nice and hungry as a result and come out and deliver performances in a prelim and granny like he did last year :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Buddy may have a history of dangerous bumps, but he's never left the ground as recklessly as Daisy did. To call him a thug on that basis, simply adds to the recklessness of what Daisy did. An isolated incident, sure, but a pretty damn reckless one.

In the scheme of the direction the AFL is taking vis a vis reckless bumping, he is fortunate to get 2.
 
I'm not happy that Daisy is out, but I knew he was gone as soon as I saw that bump. Not because it was dangerous, but because I was sure about how it would be judged by the MRP.

I can understand that the MRP would be a great thing to have if it worked as intended but it seems to have created more problems than it solved.
 
KissStephanie said:
Clear my arse. Thanks for wasting my time. All it shows is that he might have made contact with his head. That angle was from behind Ibbotson so his head was in the way therefore it's probably the worst angle of them all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

In the Youtube clip it's actually more like seconds 18-19. There is a side on shot in slow motion. If you pause it just before contact and then very quickly play and pause again through the contact, you can quite clearly see Ibbotson's head move due to contact from Thomas.

It's very clear once you look properly.

It's a whole different debate about whether or not he deserves time off or not, but it's impossible to argue there was no contact to Ibbotson's head. Collingwood won't try to argue anything along those lines.

I think it's fair to say the majority of the impact was to Ibbotson's body, but because there is some to the head the high contact component will stick, albeit low impact.
 
strategy said:
Here is a clip which shows you that Thomas left shoulder clearly hits Lowers head .Freeze it and you see it .It happens about 3rd way into tape which is about 28 and 29 seconds into the tape.

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8291140
Click to expand...
Personally I clearly see Thomas' shoulder go past/beside Ibbotson's head. Unless Ibbotson's face suddenly disappears or buries itself ear deep into Thomas' shoulder its not hitting him flush. Head high contact by the shoulder would cause Ibbotson's head to fly backwards.

DT.jpg
 
Bayer - Take off the rose-coloured glasses mate. If anything, getting 2 weeks for that makes Buddy's suspensions look significantly soft; throwing out a chicken wing and taking someone's head off, or hitting them front on whilst they're over the ball (take your pick), is potentially far more
dangerous than what Daisy did in this instance, and certainly more deliberately so.

The whole point of the AFL's system is that fortune doesn't come into it; it's an attempt to legislate a calculation which will ensure consistency (and it's obviously failed to this end).
 
dalethomas13 said:
lol why do people keep mentioning "he left the ground?" It means sweet FA that he left the ground. There's no rule preventing a player from jumping.
Click to expand...

Because jumping means his shoulder is more likely to be the same height as his head. It's reckless and dangerous. You jump to take marks, spoil etc - you dont need to jump to bump.

If he didnt jump, he wouldnt have made head contact - which IS clearly shown in the 4th camera angle, about 18/19 secs in the clip above.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Something needs to be done before the current AFL admin destroys our great game, some of the suspensions this year have been pathetic, it's supposed to be a contact sport, what Thomas did (and like many before him) was nothing more than a downfield free kick.
 
Ed D said:
You could say any contest where a player wasn't injured or hit in the head was fortunate not to do serious damage. Does that mean they should also be suspended? Last year Beau Waters tried to flatten another player but luckily didn't make contact, do you suspend him also? No, you only suspend them if they do make serious contact.
Click to expand...

Alistair Lynch did not land a blow in his final game but he got 10(?) weeks for doing his darndest to kick hit Wakelin, so you do not necessarily need to make contact to be outed.
 
Bayer said:
Buddy may have a history of dangerous bumps, but he's never left the ground as recklessly as Daisy did.
Click to expand...
Ummm, jumping off the ground does not determine recklessness so why are you bringing it up? He is allowed to jump off the ground and bump an opponent in the chest within five metres of the ball as long as he does not make contact above the shoulders.
Bayer said:
To call him a thug on that basis, simply adds to the recklessness of what Daisy did. An isolated incident, sure, but a pretty damn reckless one.
Click to expand...
I personally don't care what Franklin does or does not do, but unless there is clear contact made with an opponents head, then it should not be considered either high or reckless. If the MRP would like to call it high but negligent, then that still would be incorrect considering the vision of the contact is inconclusive, but it would be fairer because it would be giving the player the benefit of the doubt because there is doubt!
Bayer said:
In the scheme of the direction the AFL is taking vis a vis reckless bumping, he is fortunate to get 2.
Click to expand...
Absolute rubbish! Because of the inconclusiveness of the collision or injury to Ibbotson, there is no doubt in my mind that the finding should have been negligent instead of reckless, which I think would have given him two matches reduced to one match with his carry over points. That would have been a reasonable penalty.
strategy said:
Here is a clip which shows you that Thomas left shoulder clearly hits Lowers head .Freeze it and you see it .It happens about 3rd way into tape which is about 28 and 29 seconds into the tape.
Click to expand...
Well he definitely didn't hit Lower's head, and that actually shows he missed Ibbotson as well! That is the video Collingwood should be using in an appeal! Well done! :)
Ed D said:
Personally I clearly see Thomas' shoulder go past/beside Ibbotson's head. Unless Ibbotson's face suddenly disappears or buries itself ear deep into Thomas' shoulder its not hitting him flush. Head high contact by the shoulder would cause Ibbotson's head to fly backwards.
Click to expand...
You're right. Why is it that so many opposition supporters are coming here with examples of Thomas "clearly" making contact with Ibbotson's head when it doesn't show that at all? :confused:
 
oak79 said:
Because jumping means his shoulder is more likely to be the same height as his head. It's reckless and dangerous. You jump to take marks, spoil etc - you dont need to jump to bump.

If he didnt jump, he wouldnt have made head contact - which IS clearly shown in the 4th camera angle, about 18/19 secs in the clip above.
Click to expand...

The Lower hit was far more dangerous than the Thomas hit.

You'd rather be hit flush front on then with your head bent down over the ball.

In Thomas' case, it wasn't even flush, it was more of a graze. Ibbotson bounced to his feet immediately.
 
Sorry for jumping all over your thread and I'll leave you to it after this.

But this system has to go, before some one takes advantage of it, for example if Ibbotson had stayed down,Daisy would be in a heap of pain right now.
I say dump the NRL type point system and revert to case by case stand alone judgments.

The only requirement to be on the MRP is to have passed grade 6 maths,you only have to be able to add up the points

See you guys Friday night.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Of course he got him in the head, wasn't much but it's a no no, been that way for a fair while actually.
He left the ground, hit the bloke when the ball was gone and hit him high what the **** did anyone think was going to happen to him?

Take the 2 and count your blessings and don't be so ****ing stupid next time Daisy.
 
[Well he definitely didn't hit Lower's head, and that actually shows he missed Ibbotson as well! That is the video Collingwood should be using in an appeal! Well done! :)You're right. Why is it that so many opposition supporters are coming here with examples of Thomas "clearly" making contact with Ibbotson's head when it doesn't show that at all? :confused:[/quote]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just edited out Lowers name for Ibbotson , sorry for the mistake.


Thomas still got Ibbotsons head
 
strategy said:
[Well he definitely didn't hit Lower's head, and that actually shows he missed Ibbotson as well! That is the video Collingwood should be using in an appeal! Well done! :)You're right. Why is it that so many opposition supporters are coming here with examples of Thomas "clearly" making contact with Ibbotson's head when it doesn't show that at all? :confused:
Click to expand...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just edited out Lowers name for Ibbotson , sorry for the mistake.


Thomas still got Ibbotsons head[/quote]
I'm pretty sure he made contact with Ibbotson's head as well, but all these videos are inconclusive, and I don't think the Pies should be fighting it.
 
KS, for the past two years the MRP has been deadly in players having feet off the ground when bumping. Unfortunately, Daisy wasn't going for the ball and had an option not to bump. If it was an intended shepherd then having his feet off the ground is not something the MRP likes. Sad but fact. So now we have Shaw and Thomas free from niggling injuries GF day. This is why MM was persistent with young blood the past two months. We didn't cover Pendles well two years ago and must have had injuries at the end of last year. One week plus carryover points to two is a reasonable outcome here.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Thomas bump

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top