Your Verdict- Browne/Thornton KO'ing Porps

[hippyhippy]

i must admit .. i watch the game again last night and carlton were definitely aiming for porps and his specifically at his shoulder ... what a disgrace...

i saw the the replays, even though im pretty sure that it wasnt intentional, the fact remains that he went for the bump but unfortunately for porps, he was pushed. the fact that it was high contact when he was going for the bump means he should be suspended, it doesnt matter if it was an accident or not... im glad adelaide werent taking these cowardly tactics lying down ... carlton are just disgraceful playing these cowardly tactics ... you can tank your team for 5 years, get 3 top draft picks 3 years straight ... buy the best player (at the time) in the league ... and still not make it into the finals ... says something about the club.

 

[asdfasd]

The more I watch the incident the more I'm convinced it was an accident. The replays showing just the point of impact make the incident look a lot more intentional than it was... I reckon the tribunal got it right.

 

[hippyhippy]

For God's sake, watch the bloody video again will you? His elbow was raised to protect his ribs - an action anyone would do in the same situation.

If you were Browne and you saw Porps running into you would you keep your elbows raised so he could break all of your ribs?

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

i'll just raise my shoulder to protect my ribs ... hmm i'll just raise it into his head ... thats just dumb ... he was going for a hip and shoulder, porps just happened to be pushed and went of balanced ... he got him high ... even though its unintended, its still high contact, 4 weeks is probably pretty harshe but he shouldnt get off scott free. players have been suspended more much less than this, this year already.

 

[Mad Dog]

With both eyes open I'd have to say sanity has prevailed.

There was no way the intent of the contact was worth 3 or 4 games.

This is a classic example where there should be some flexibility in the system to give Browne a 1 game suspended sentence to be carried for a year.

Recognition needs to be given to the fact he intended to make contact with Porps to slow his entry to the forward 50......but Browne cannot be held responsible for Thornton's actions a millisecond before.

Horrible injury - unfortunate circumstances...

Would we wear 3 games if one of our players were charged with the same thing???

 

[Cap]

I can’t put in writing the hopes I have about Carton players for the rest of the season, because I will regret them down the track. I just hope that the AFC has learned a new way to deal with star on ballers for the future – its not easy but it is possible.(and no i'm not implying that it WAS a deliebrate set-up in this case and I am also not implying that he tried to knock Porps out - it just ****s me off that players can get rubed out for s**t like Burgoyne did yet a guy goes down 20 metres off the ball with Brain bruising and its a "accident" when clearly there was an intent to hit him atleast in the shoulder.)

 

[Brighton_Diggins]

Assuming browne isn't a liar, he stated that he didn't him see
porplyzia until contact was made.
He said his eyes were on mackay then 'bang' porps was into him.
The tribunal actually said that brownes head went back from the
contact and his arm went out as an instant reaction.
It was a real shame porplyzia was hurt because A, No player
deserves to be polaxed like that intentionally or not...
and B, The crows fired up and got back in the game and beat us!!

As per usual this saga tells me that alot of spectators still struggle
to see what is really happening in the game.

 

[Cap]

Assuming browne isn't a liar, he stated that he didn't him see
porplyzia until contact was made.He said his eyes were on mackay then 'bang' porps was into him.
The tribunal actually said that brownes head went back from the
contact and his arm went out as an instant reaction.
It was a real shame porplyzia was hurt because A, No player
deserves to be polaxed like that intentionally or not...
and B, The crows fired up and got back in the game and beat us!!

As per usual this saga tells me that alot of spectators still struggle
to see what is really happening in the game.

Browne is not going to tell the world he linded him up to test his shoulder, no one would expect him to do that.

and secondly, just because YOU didn't see it, and just because the cameras failed to get good vision of it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[jackster83]

It is incidents like these which are contributing to more and more parents not allowing their kids to play junior footy. FFS bleeding to the brain and the guy gets off.

If Browne got off by stating that contact was unavoidable, then surely Thornton must have to take some of the blame and get weeks for rough conduct. Hmmm Pratt must have thrown some dirty Visy money at the tribunal. Hopefully karma gets them in the end like it got Matt Thomas.

Keep letting these incidents go at your peril Dimetriou, and watch soccer swallow up future generations of AFL footballers!

 

[KingsCrow]

With both eyes open I'd have to say sanity has prevailed.

There was no way the intent of the contact was worth 3 or 4 games.

This is a classic example where there should be some flexibility in the system to give Browne a 1 game suspended sentence to be carried for a year.

Recognition needs to be given to the fact he intended to make contact with Porps to slow his entry to the forward 50......but Browne cannot be held responsible for Thornton's actions a millisecond before.

Horrible injury - unfortunate circumstances...

Would we wear 3 games if one of our players were charged with the same thing???

I just don't think its fair at all that Porps is going to miss 3 weeks when he was injured off the ball by the opposition which were purposely targetting him.

Would have never happened hadn't they employed their dirty tactics.

Disrespect to Carlton.

 

[Dandy_GO]

Would we wear 3 games if one of our players were charged with the same thing???

Most certainly not.
I believe 1 match would have been a just result.


It's a bit like most head high bumps these days.
Remember when Roo got rubbed out for the St Kilda final for bumping Selwood?
The intent to bump was there, but selwood was dragged down in a tackle, and Roo got him in the head. I believe it was 2 weeks downgraded to 1.
Accidental, yes, but that's the interpretation we've been working with (on an inconsistant basis) since the days of Pickett.

 

[KSim]

I just don't think its fair at all that Porps is going to miss 3 weeks when he was injured off the ball by the opposition which were purposely targetting him.

Would have never happened hadn't they employed their dirty tactics.

Disrespect to Carlton.

Disrespect to Carlton?

Cmon on now. You are talking out of your azz if you think we are a side that employs dirty tatics. It was a fair bump and just a coincidence of a tough game. Its called Aussie Rules Football mate.

Common sense prevailed.

 

[KingsCrow]

Disrespect to Carlton?

Cmon on now. You are talking out of your azz if you think we are a side that employs dirty tatics. It was a fair bump and just a coincidence of a tough game. Its called Aussie Rules Football mate.

Common sense prevailed.

Take ya blinkers off.

Your players were intending to hurt Porps, they were doing it all day. Thornton PUSHED him into an oncoming player FFS.

Its clear as daylight, you were trying to injure him, and look what happened.

The only one paying the price of your ridiculous and selfish tactics are Porps and the Crows.

 

[Blues_Man]

Justice has prevailed, Browne should never have been charged, while i have sypmpathy for Porps injury and wish him all the best in his recovery, there was nothing Browne could have done in that situation to avoid contact.

some of the inane ramblings and accusations in ths thread have been way over the top ..but it's good to see the Tribunal knows how to do it's job ..the charge was thrown out within a couple of minutes and justice prevailed .

all the best for the rest of the season .

 

[jenny61_99]

I wonder if Carlton supporters have praised either the tribunal or MRP when it has been a Carlton player injured and the offending player got off?

How ridiculous is it that it took the tribunal only TWO minutes to consider the appeal and uphold it? Surely, given the severity of the injury that was received off the ball, it warranted a little more consideration? Does this now give Clubs an open license to target star players off the ball and claim it was accidental?

The end result (brain injury) may have not been the intention, but it is a reality. When the ball is some 20 metres away from where the incident occurred, questions need to be asked. It may not have been intentional or negligent but it was indeed reckless, head high and off the ball. A suspension was warranted.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Justice has prevailed, Browne should never have been charged, while i have sypmpathy for Porps injury and wish him all the best in his recovery, there was nothing Browne could have done in that situation to avoid contact.

some of the inane ramblings and accusations in ths thread have been way over the top ..but it's good to see the Tribunal knows how to do it's job ..the charge was thrown out within a couple of minutes and justice prevailed .

all the best for the rest of the season .

Not sure how you have come to the conclusion that justice has prevailed.

As there are many differing opinions and thoughts if it was accidental or not, and forgetting my opinion, my real concern is how can someone have a 4 match ban handed down from one panel and another panel overturn that decision in 2 minutes....2 minutes!!!!, it would surely take longer than 2 minutes to review an incident specifically where a player was carried from the field and sustained those injuries.

Going from a 4 match ban to zero tells me there is something very very wrong with the current system.
It also tells us 2 different panels had 2 different opinions, the end result was favourable to Carlton but that is well short of concluding justice was served!!

 

[Allefgib]

The decision shows the issues with the current system.

3-4 weeks was probably too harsh given the intent was just to test out the shoulder.

1-2 weeks needed to be given based on factors others have mentioned.

I have a strong suspicion the Tribunal chose the lesser of 2 evils (too high a penalty vs no penalty) because there is no flexibility to have a subjective penalty handed down.

 

[KSim]

Take ya blinkers off.

Your players were intending to hurt Porps, they were doing it all day. Thornton PUSHED him into an oncoming player FFS.

Its clear as daylight, you were trying to injure him, and look what happened.

The only one paying the price of your ridiculous and selfish tactics are Porps and the Crows.

I watched the incident over and over and yes Thorton bumped him. He is allowed to do that as far as I understand. Brown was running past and it was just unluckly that the Crows player was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The was no malice involved. Intended to bump someone to soften a known ailment is not against the rules of the game.

The decision made to not susupend Brown was the only one to make. All this crap you Crows guys are throwing at the Blues is just rubbish. It was an accident by Brown to hurt the guy. There was no malice intended. I would suggested that Porps gets his Kozi blinkers off so he can see whats going on around him. I see the incident for what it is not a biased view from an obvious flog such as you.

Making the comment that you disrespect is a bit rich. Its unacceptable to have a crack at my club for an incident that was just part and parcel of AFL football.

 

[KSim]

Not sure how you have come to the conclusion that justice has prevailed.

As there are many differing opinions and thoughts if it was accidental or not, and forgetting my opinion, my real concern is how can someone have a 4 match ban handed down from one panel and another panel overturn that decision in 2 minutes....2 minutes!!!!, it would surely take longer than 2 minutes to review an incident specifically where a player was carried from the field and sustained those injuries.

Going from a 4 match ban to zero tells me there is something very very wrong with the current system.
It also tells us 2 different panels had 2 different opinions, the end result was favourable to Carlton but that is well short of concluding justice was served!!

Good post mate. I agree with you. Its a huge worry that a longish susupension can be given then taken away just as easily. They Afl need to get that sorted moving forward without doubt.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

I watched the incident over and over and yes Thorton bumped him. He is allowed to do that as far as I understand. Brown was running past and it was just unluckly that the Crows player was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The was no malice involved. Intended to bump someone to soften a known ailment is not against the rules of the game.

1. Browne was running at Porps, having dropped off his man Mackay. He did not innocently happen to be there.
2. If you are conceding that there was an intent to bump someone to soften a known ailment, you are correct that it is not against the rules of the game. It is, however, a malicious act. And if, in the process of committing a malicous, if legal, act, you get someone in the head, especially if it causes injury, you get suspended. It happens every week in much less malicious circumstances, where guys go for legal hip and shoulders and accidentally get someone's head. And that's when the ball is within 5m, not 20m away.

The decision made to not susupend Brown was the only one to make. All this crap you Crows guys are throwing at the Blues is just rubbish. It was an accident by Brown to hurt the guy. There was no malice intended. I would suggested that Porps gets his Kozi blinkers off so he can see whats going on around him. I see the incident for what it is not a biased view from an obvious flog such as you.

1. The severity of the hit was an accident, I don't believe for a second that Browne intended to knock Porps out. But like I said above, if you are going after a guy to soften him up, and you accidentally get his head with enough severity to knock him out and cause bleeding on the brain (though we'll never know from the replay exactly what happened due to Browne obscuring the view), you get weeks for it.
2. To suggest that Porps had Kozi binkers on is ridiculous. This is one of the most aware players on our list and whichever way you look at it (even if neither Thornton nor Browne ever saw Porps), to imply that it resulted from Porps' lack of awareness is plain stupid. If someone pushed you in front of a car would you "suggested" that it was your own fault because you didn't see what was going on around you?
3. You're a Carlton fan. We're Crows fans. How is your view any less biased than ours?

Making the comment that you disrespect is a bit rich. Its unacceptable to have a crack at my club for an incident that was just part and parcel of AFL football.

You earn respect, and Carlton earned none on Saturday.

Like I said, trying to take a balanced view, Browne didn't intend to knock Porps out. Thornton didn't intend for Browne to knock him out. But I think, given the turning in of the right shoulder and his positioning relative to the contest, and the two Crows players (Porps and Mackay), it is hard to see how Browne "never saw" Porps. If that is true, maybe it is Browne who needs to lose the Kozi blinkers. But I think, given the context of Carlton players trying to soften Porps' shoulder, the fact that the collision happened so far off the ball, leading to a pretty reasonable conclusion that the collision (but not the extent of the injury) seemed to be negligent at the very least, and I suspect intentional, Browne should have got 2. Down to 1 with a clean record and early guilty plea. 4 was far too harsh, and was never going to stand up given the lack of clear evidence.

 

[dplggr47]

The decision shows the issues with the current system.

3-4 weeks was probably too harsh given the intent was just to test out the shoulder.

1-2 weeks needed to be given based on factors others have mentioned.

I have a strong suspicion the Tribunal chose the lesser of 2 evils (too high a penalty vs no penalty) because there is no flexibility to have a subjective penalty handed down.

that's the problem with the system; too high a penalty and a player will argue whatever they can to lessen it...a low-intermediate penalty of 1-2 weeks; most clubs will just cop it no matter how they feel about it. if Browne was given 2 weeks (reduced to 1 week with early plea), he probably would've taken it, despite how he truly felt about it.

 

[Ozzie]

I thought it was just collison that happens in footy. I did not see any intent at all. I have more concern with the Milburn,Thomas tackles. They are the type that can do serious injury and deserve to be rubbed out of the game as quick as the AFL can.

 

[Blues_Man]

I thought it was just collison that happens in footy. I did not see any intent at all. I have more concern with the Milburn,Thomas tackles. They are the type that can do serious injury and deserve to be rubbed out of the game as quick as the AFL can.

Finally some commonsense amongst a load of innuendo speculation and mind reading that has gone before.

well done

I also agree with the Milburn tackle...but that is a touchy one as you can't outlaw tackling per sae.

 

[Cap]

Finally some commonsense amongst a load of innuendo speculation and mind reading that has gone before.

well done

I also agree with the Milburn tackle...but that is a touchy one as you can't outlaw tackling per sae.

i'll just translate that for everyone else

"this guy has the same opinion as I do, good work"

the good part of this arguement is that people argue about the MRP all the time, yet in this instance its gospel that they got it right.

 

[dplggr47]

I thought it was just collison that happens in footy. I did not see any intent at all. I have more concern with the Milburn,Thomas tackles. They are the type that can do serious injury and deserve to be rubbed out of the game as quick as the AFL can.

those are of course dangerous...but just like Thomas' tackle on Bassett, i did not see anything wrong with that; it was a legitimate tackle. so i don't really see what can be done there. Milburn's was worst in that he saw the ball come out...and continued with the tackle, no intention to really do harm. then again, Barry Hall, didn't seem like he really wanted to hurt whoever it was he punched...as he wasn't even looking at him and didn't think much of it until realising what he'd done.

i'm over the Browne/Porpz case. i agree that 4 weeks did seem harsh, but zero doesn't seem appropriate. the conclusion is there is no conclusive footage to charge Browne on and no witness to contest, as Porpz was concussed. and Thornton did seem to have more intent there than Browne. ok, moving on. i know everyone wants Porpz to just get the shoulder done, but a part of me wants to see him comeback from this and play a finals match. he deserves it. though i seriously hope there's no more targeting tactics... i hope other teams can learn from this.

 

[xjamescleanx]

i'll just translate that for everyone else

"this guy has the same opinion as I do, good work"

the good part of this arguement is that people argue about the MRP all the time, yet in this instance its gospel that they got it right.

was about to make this post

someone saying something you agree with isn't always a direct extraction from the mine of common sense