- Jul 28, 2012
- 11,080
- 10,429
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- QPR, Buffalo Bills
He's not playing again until early June!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
very stupid tackle deserves 2 maybe 3. Any more port will contest it. Its arguable that the player should of even been on the ground, he was wobbly on his feet only a minute before the tackle.
Relax pettel it's a tackle.Absolute loser act. AFL should make a statement and give him 5.
Thinking 3-4, based on Neal-Bullen not surprised if 4.
Starts off as careless, high contact, high impact.
I believe a subjective grading of severe will be given to "crack down" on the action, and potential to cause injury. It comes after the AFL has been attacked for not protecting the head, and so Lycett will be made an example of.
But as for the OP - needs to calm down. It's obviously a suspendable action now but it's senior footy, you have to expect the rucks to throw their weight around. If McHenry landed on his shoulder we would have called it a bone crunching tackle. Despite physical appearances, Lycett is not Ivan Milat here, it's a few weeks off but not a crucifying offence.
Similar impact below
View attachment 1122504
Any vision of this? I was at the game and it was hard to see on the screens.
2 weeks.
Four or five weeks I think.Straight to the tribunal.
Yeah I’m thinking four. One either way would be fine but less or more than that and it’s looking a bit extreme one way or another.Four or five weeks I think.
Understand the comparisons but if he gets 1 or 2 it’d be light. 3-4 more likely you’d think, which I think is fair.
Really impressed with Hinkley’s comments on the incident.
“I’ve seen it [the incident] once and concussion is the outcome,” Hinkley said.
“We don’t want and need that in the game.
“Scott will take what comes in that place.
“We’re better off as a competition when we protect the players.”
2 weeks.