Waite offered 2 weeks

[wavefall21]

please don't contest this CFC, we would be insipid to do so, he clearly will not get off, can't afford to miss 3 weeks

 

[Dramoth]

Are you serious? It was a fair shepherd to the body within 5 metres of the ball, not even a free kick. Waite got Davenport in the face.

Motlop deliberately charged a player in the air who couldnt brace himself... it was the act of someone who likes taking cheap shots at opponents.

 

[Bell Ringer]

Showing up with the nice white bandage on the cheek when there was no sign of claret when he was taken off is a joke and would have played on the minds of the umpires.

Are you for reals?!?!

Pretty sure Davenport had to go off cos of the blood-rule, and it was clear from the footage that he was bleeding.

For everyone saying he was unlucky that he got him in the head, you could also consider him lucky he didn't break his cheekbone, otherwise his holiday might have been a bit longer.

Besides, you can't get a holding-the-ball free-kick without tackling the bloke so he should learn to tackle when the player has the pill.

 

[Macca19]

Showing up with the nice white bandage on the cheek when there was no sign of claret when he was taken off is a joke and would have played on the minds of the umpires.

lol, he was taken off the ground with the blood rule because of the incident.

 

[Blueboys7]

Are you serious? It was a fair shepherd to the body within 5 metres of the ball, not even a free kick. Waite got Davenport in the face.

Agree completely

On another Motlop note, how arrogant was that goal celebration? He did nothing all day.

 

[Macca19]

I say fight it. For them to rule it as reckless and not negligent is a joke. Davenport was twisting and falling over. There is one angle that shows it almost looks like Waite was preparing for Davenport to be in front of him but shifts his body at the last second. Had Davenport not been falling over then it would have been body to body contact.

Whats this falling over bull s**t? He was running with the ball. There was no falling, slipping, ducking or anything causing him to move in a downward fashion, other than an elbow to the face.

Now Waite may be unlucky in that if he was half a metre to his right it would have been a traditional fair hip and shoulder that would have flattened Davenport fairly, but on the other hand, he can thank his lucky stars it wasnt a Bickley/Wakelin situation that ended in a metal plate and 5 screws being inserted into someones face for the rest of their lives and a 6 week holiday.

 

[Fervy]

Are you serious? It was a fair shepherd to the body within 5 metres of the ball, not even a free kick. Waite got Davenport in the face.

Glad you're able to call a jumping charge (hip and shoulder in the air) a shepherd that is within the rules of the game.

Open both eyes. Motlop is nothing but a cheap shot artist who has one or two glimmers of something out of the ordinary per game but other than that has no discernible AFL skill.

 

[OldBlueFan]

I really don't know what all the fuss is about. Waite made contact ONLY with Davenport's head. He did not bump any other part of the body at all and he DID have the option to tackle rather than bump.

Players have been rubbed out repeatedly for this over the last couple of seasons. Why is there any surprise at all?

 

[Fervy]

No surprise on the Waite charge and suspension. None at all. Complete surprise at the non-report of Motlop; who if he had have been a bigger player (eg. Barry Hall) would have left Army in a bloody heap.

Here's the law of the game

15.4.4 Charge or Charging

(a) A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.

(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collids with an opposition Player:
(i) is not within 5 metres of the football
(ii) who, although within 5 metres of the football, is not in the immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact,
(iii) who is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been rewarded a Free Kick:
(iv) after that Player has disposed of the football;
(v) who is Sheperding another Player on his or her Team; or
(vi) before the football is brought into play

19.2 Reportable Offences

19.2.1 Degree of Intent - Clarification
Where any of the Reportable Offences identified in Law 19.2.2 specify that conduct may be intentional, reckless or negligent
(a) any report or notice of report which does not allege whether the conduct was intentional, reckless or negligent shall be deemed to and be read as alleging that the conduct was either intentional, reckless, or negligent; and
(b) the Tribunal or other body appointed and determine the report may find the report proven if it is reasonably satisfied that the conduct was either intentional, reckless or negligent.

19.2.2 Specific Offence
(g) intentionally, recklessly or negligently:
(i) striking another person
(v) Charging another person
(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable
Note: - a player can bump an opponent's body from side-on but any contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on

If you can tell me that Motlop shouldn't have been reported you don't understand the law of the game.

 

[Dramoth]

Which one of those applies to the bump? The player was within 5 metres, was close enough to Pearce (I think it was Pearce?) who had the football to make a contest, wasn't attempting to mark it, hadn't just disposed of it, wasn't shepherding another player, and the football was in play.



It wasn't even a free kick. The umpires agreed and the MRP didn't even look at it, go tell them that they don't understand the rules of the game. It's not like they got paid big money to adjudicate them or anything.

Nothing in the rules of the game precludes Motlop's conduct. Even some Carlton supporters are agreeing with me. Try posting a poll on the umpires board and see where they tell you to shove your biased opinion.

So who doesn't understand the rules of the game?

So next time that Carlton plays Port, whenever Motlop goes up to punch the ball away, someone should just split him up the middle with a hip and shoulder the the chest while he is in the air. Seems fair to me... someone tell Army (the ex-rugby union player) that tackling and charging someone in the air is now fair game because the AFL said so by not bringing charges against Motlop.

 

[Dramoth]

Fail. Marking contests and the ball being brought to ground and in the hands of a Port player are a completely different situation.



You're right, it is. If it's a fair shepherd (which it was), hits the body and not the head (which it did) is within 5 metres of the ball (which it was), isn't in a marking contest (which it wasn't) and serves some useful purpose and isn't just sniping for the sake of sniping (which it did, it kept Armfield out of the next contest).

That's why a) there was no free kick, b) no commentators said it should've been a free kick or even speculated about whether it should possibly have been a free kick, c) no Carlton player remonstrated with Motlop after the incident, d) it wasn't mentioned at all by the media during the week, e) Carlton posters have said it was a fair bump and f) the MRP didn't even look at it. I'm completely astounded that it was even brought up. Go watch netball.

Armfield was 2' off the ground and descending at the time when Motlop jumped into him. This is why he was out of the contest.

 

[Malifice]

Armfield was 2' off the ground and descending at the time when Motlop jumped into him. This is why he was out of the contest.

Hate to say it mate, but I'm with Gopower on this one.

Looked bad because Army was airborne at the time (but being airborne alone isn't a criterion for the offense).

It was a hip and shoulder (legal) not to the head (legal) and within the play (legal). Play on for mine.

On a related note, how Hille got away with that hit on Bartell a few weeks ago is ****ing beyond me.

 

[zeeCFC]

^ +1

 

[NAUGHT5]

Waite deserved the 2. Not a good effort.

Motlop's was a fair hit, but no point suspending a guy who doesnt even want to be there anyway. His attitude reminds me of F*vola.

Campbell Brown's hit was the perfect bump.

And Daniel Jackson got weeks? That's the biggest joke of the round.
He may aswell have got the feather duster out and given Brown a touch up with that. Barely touched him.

Sam Mitchell pulling Nasons hair was far worse than that and he only got a $900 fine.

 

[Kramer1]

Cited 3 times in 8 games, Hille.

I can wear the two games, especially given Waite is silly enough to put himself in these situations so often...he has gotten away with more than two weeks worth over the journey, so we are still ahead.

Hille on the other hand must have images of Jeff Gieschen in a compromising position...pause for mental image to take shape...his hit on Bartel was greater impact, and far more flagrant and gets nothing. The other two shouldn't have been reported in the first place, but the Bartel hit should be a months holiday.

 

[NAUGHT5]

I can wear the two games, especially given Waite is silly enough to put himself in these situations so often...he has gotten away with more than two weeks worth over the journey, so we are still ahead.

Hille on the other hand must have images of Jeff Gieschen in a compromising position...pause for mental image to take shape...his hit on Bartel was greater impact, and far more flagrant and gets nothing. The other two shouldn't have been reported in the first place, but the Bartel hit should be a months holiday.

Comparing that to Jacksons 'head butt'. What a joke.

 

[blueze82]

I can cop Waitey getting two, but when you see what Hille and Dawson get away with it makes you wonder where the discrepancy is.

 

[Blueboys7]

I'm with gopower on this one. It wad a good old hip and shoulder so get your Carlton goggles off Fervy, it was completely legal and therefore not cited by the MRP.

 

[Stamos]

Not as bad at that completely accidental Maguire headclash with Bolton that led to Maguire getting taken off the field in the hands of trainers resulting in a one week suspension for Maguire. The MRP and the tribunal are strange, strange beasts.

That they are. The MRP is a joke.

 

[Claypigeon]

Sam Mitchell pulling Nasons hair was far worse than that and he only got a $900 fine.

Great call. .. I still think this kind of thing makes the game look worse than that headbutt. .. Both should have got a week off tho. ..

 

[Blue Bawls]

Waite accepts the two weeks.

 

[Dramoth]

So when he landed he was just going to stand on the spot and not try to pressure Pearce, who had the ball? Even your fellow Carlton supporters disagree with you. Give it up.

Ok... I will give it up but when someone gets seriously injured from a hip and shoulder charge while they are in the air in the future... dont come crying and saying that the person causing it should be banned from the game.

It's about protecting the players after all.

 

[Dramoth]

Trust me, unless contact to the head is made I won't be. Football's a man's game, there's always going to be risks.

bump someone hard enough while their hips are at approximately shoulder level and there is a chance they will go through the horizontal and be coming down head first. But hey... it was a hip and shoulder and went nowhere near the head... so who cares about a potential broken neck so long as the contact was legal.

It's a mans game... there will always be risks...