Toby Greene boot to Luke Dahlhaus face.

[Stocks_go_Up]

Agree to disagree, protected the space. Dahlhaus ran into his boot if anything.

Its a joke to think its appropriate in our game to stud someone in the face with the excuse of 'protecting the space'. Ridiculous. What next players are going to start kicking opposition players in the head when they have the ball to 'protect their space'... Yes umpire he ran into my boot studs up - it just happened to be at head level.. It's his fault umpire..

 

[ManOfClay]

"person of great character"

Punches people off the field, punches people on the field. Spits on players, headbutts opponents, kicks opponents in the face.
.

Exactly. It's dim to suggest Greene is even remotely a good character. He's lucky he has football where his brain fades cost him weeks and not his freedom.

In a round where players were acknowledging social violence it's good to remember what Greene has already shown he is capable of.

It's just not on.

 

[RU_]

Barry hall wasn't looking at Brent staker either. Reckon he didn't know where he was?

That was a bit different.

The campaigner was taking a mark this time and protected the space.

****, the AFL might as well put everyone in tutus and tiaras if blokes are going to go for this.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

That was a bit different.

The campaigner was taking a mark this time and protected the space.

 

[Clems Knee]

Please screenshot and post the moments his eyes weren't on the ball and his foot was on Dahlhaus's face.

This has been gone over and over again. Who cares if his eyes weren't directly on Dalhaus when he contacted him? If you think he was unaware that Dalhaus was there, then you have no idea. Elite footballers have excellent peripheral vision. It's one of the things that makes them elite footballers. Yes, it will be the one thing that the GWS will try to use to defend Greene, but it's bullshit. It was bullshit when the tribunal let Cotchin off when he jumper punched and dazed Neale earlier in the season; that led to a tightening of the rules on jumper punching.

In the case of this incident, we can rely on the way Greene put his leg up, a secondary action when his boot contacted the player and the way he used that contact to spin in the air so that he landed facing towards the goals.
If hadn't intended to contact Dalhaus, he wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the contact in the way he did.

Agree to disagree, protected the space. Dahlhaus ran into his boot if anything.

"agree to disagree" is what people say when they know they are wrong and have no evidence to back up their opinion, but are determined to hold on to their opinion anyway. You might as well just suck your thumb and be done with it.

And this notion of protecting the space is not okay in the rules of Australian Football. Not if illegal contact is made when not in a marking contest. That's why he gave away a free kick. It will be up to the MRP to determine if the contact was incidental or careless or deliberate.

 

[_Mike_]

That was a bit different.

The campaigner was taking a mark this time and protected the space.

****, the AFL might as well put everyone in tutus and tiaras if blokes are going to go for this.

Please point out exactly where Greene was "taking a mark"

 

[Clems Knee]

That was a bit different.

The campaigner was taking a mark this time and protected the space.

****, the AFL might as well put everyone in tutus and tiaras if blokes are going to go for this.

It wasn't a mark. He was receiving a handball. That makes the situation very different.

This is not the time to carry on about the AFL getting soft. Greene did something that does not belong on a footy field.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Please screenshot and post the moments his eyes weren't on the ball and his foot was on Dahlhaus's face.

LOL.
If he actually looked at him and did it, I would say he'd be looking at 3-4 weeks. Intentional.

What he did was careless, high contact and moderate impact. Usually would get 1 or 2 weeks which would then be dicounted down to a week or fine. Bad record means no fine.

 

[RU_]

3/4 replies pointing out the handball receive not a kick mark, still makes **** all difference, that came in high enough to be the same as taking a mark, not seeing the real difference there.

And Clems Knee 'agree to disagree' can also be said when you know the replies are going to turn into a conversation with a 'brick wall'. You have your opinion, I have mine and there's no hope of changing the others.

 

[_Mike_]

still makes **** all difference

On the contrary, it makes a difference to your argument when you're not basing it off facts.

 

[RU_]

This has been gone over and over again. Who cares if his eyes weren't directly on Dalhaus when he contacted him? If you think he was unaware that Dalhaus was there, then you have no idea. Elite footballers have excellent peripheral vision. It's one of the things that makes them elite footballers. Yes, it will be the one thing that the GWS will try to use to defend Greene, but it's bullshit. It was bullshit when the tribunal let Cotchin off when he jumper punched and dazed Neale earlier in the season; that led to a tightening of the rules on jumper punching.

In the case of this incident, we can rely on the way Greene put his leg up, a secondary action when his boot contacted the player and the way he used that contact to spin in the air so that he landed facing towards the goals.
If hadn't intended to contact Dalhaus, he wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the contact in the way he did.


"agree to disagree" is what people say when they know they are wrong and have no evidence to back up their opinion, but are determined to hold on to their opinion anyway. You might as well just suck your thumb and be done with it.

And this notion of protecting the space is not okay in the rules of Australian Football. Not if illegal contact is made when not in a marking contest. That's why he gave away a free kick. It will be up to the MRP to determine if the contact was incidental or careless or deliberate.

Just watched it again, I'll give you that he might get a incidental/careless charge. He did not deliberately put his foot in Dalhous's face though, going for the body contact before he gets wrapped up in a tackle midair since it was a handball, not a mark.

 

[RU_]

On the contrary, it makes a difference to your argument when you're not basing it off facts.

All it changes in my eyes is that he knows he could be about to get tackled, protected the space and copped Dalhous in the face. The fact he didn't look directly at him in my eyes clears him of deliberate. I'd be happy to see a careless conduct charge on this.

 

[_Mike_]

The fact he didn't look directly at him in my eyes clears him of deliberate. I'd be happy to see a careless conduct charge on this.

either way we all have our opinions on the intent of a split second decision. It will be interesting to see the MRP's take on it

 

[Sentinel]

All it changes in my eyes is that he knows he could be about to get tackled, protected the space and copped Dalhous in the face. The fact he didn't look directly at him in my eyes clears him of deliberate. I'd be happy to see a careless conduct charge on this.

Where in the rules are you allowed to 'protect the space' before you get tackled, particularly by sticking your boot out?

Players have a duty of care. Dahlhaus had a duty of care not to slam him into the ground from up high if he had the chance to tackle him, Greene had a duty of care not to put his foot into Dahlhaus' face.

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

Careless, High, Medium impact

 

[LoungeLizard]

This has been gone over and over again. Who cares if his eyes weren't directly on Dalhaus when he contacted him? If you think he was unaware that Dalhaus was there, then you have no idea. Elite footballers have excellent peripheral vision. It's one of the things that makes them elite footballers. Yes, it will be the one thing that the GWS will try to use to defend Greene, but it's bullshit. It was bullshit when the tribunal let Cotchin off when he jumper punched and dazed Neale earlier in the season; that led to a tightening of the rules on jumper punching.

In the case of this incident, we can rely on the way Greene put his leg up, a secondary action when his boot contacted the player and the way he used that contact to spin in the air so that he landed facing towards the goals.
If hadn't intended to contact Dalhaus, he wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the contact in the way he did.


"agree to disagree" is what people say when they know they are wrong and have no evidence to back up their opinion, but are determined to hold on to their opinion anyway. You might as well just suck your thumb and be done with it.

And this notion of protecting the space is not okay in the rules of Australian Football. Not if illegal contact is made when not in a marking contest. That's why he gave away a free kick. It will be up to the MRP to determine if the contact was incidental or careless or deliberate.

So you say it was intentional?
if it was he is gone, but good luck proving that.

 

[Clems Knee]

So you say it was intentional?
if it was he is gone, but good luck proving that.

I think the contact was intentional.i think the contact to the face was careless. Comparable to head high contact with a bump.

 

[LoungeLizard]

What % do you think a bump to head would finish a players day, to running into someones foot?

 

[RU_]

either way we all have our opinions on the intent of a split second decision. It will be interesting to see the MRP's take on it

This could define a lot of future cases, for sure.




.. who am I kidding it's the MRP.

 

[maskmcgee]

Johnston and Sloane said "If your eyes are on the ball you can do anything you want to protect the space" on Game-day.

 

[Aeglos]

either way we all have our opinions on the intent of a split second decision.

Which is ridiculous in itself

 

[Colonial]

It wasn't a mark. He was receiving a handball. That makes the situation very different.

This is not the time to carry on about the AFL getting soft. Greene did something that does not belong on a footy field.

No it doesnt. He was going for the ball. No different.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[LoungeLizard]

No it doesnt. He was going for the ball. No different.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

I doubt putting your foot up "just going for the ball" will help your cause.
But in this situation he was in danger of getting hurt.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Toby-san!

 

[The Final Word]

"Each Player owes a duty of care to all other Players .... In order to constitute such a breach of that duty of care, the conduct must be such that a reasonable Player would not regard it as prudent in all the circumstances. Further, a Player will be careless if they breach of their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence."

"The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness."

I think if we conclude a boot to the head as being Reportable, then Toby's in trouble. Not clear cut but will be an interesting afternoon on Monday.

Forget intentional, it won't hold up and the Giants' would challenge and win. But Careless is in play and personally, I think he'll go. But I won't be shocked if he doesn't (and won't be calling "conspiracy if he's playing next week).