Ziebell bump on Cloke

[TheKanga]

Can't wait to see Robbo frothing at the mouth on Monday over his beloved dogs.
And demanding 10 weeks for Ziebell.

Wish ziebell would do that to him.

 

[Sedat!]

Can't wait to see Robbo frothing at the mouth on Monday over his beloved dogs.
And demanding 10 weeks for Ziebell.

He thought there was nothing in it on SEN Crunch Time this morning.

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

Will be interesting, before the injury news wasn't sure what would happen because he got him in the body, didn't leave the ground, was in play. Now that he'll miss a month that would likely be Careless, Body and Severe, which is straight to the tribunal. If its deemed high impact, that's 2, 1 with a early plea if he's record's good. If its intentional, High impact is 3 down to 2, and Severe is to the tribunal.

This is why it's ridiculous.

Just because the outcome is bad for Cloke doesn't mean that the action was bad to begin with. You're probably right though in thinking the MRP will now look at it, all due to the outcome. Even though the action apparently didn't even warrant a free kick to begin with.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I can't see if it's worth anything to be honest. It was a big hit, but it's too the body and the umpire didn't pay downfield so he didn't deem it late.

Feel for Cloke, but cant' see how Ziebell can cop anything for it

 

[Hard Ball Get]

Can't wait to see Robbo frothing at the mouth on Monday over his beloved dogs.
And demanding 10 weeks for Ziebell.

Wish ziebell would do that to him.

Guess you were wrong on both counts... rubbish post really.

He thought there was nothing in it on SEN Crunch Time this morning.

 

[maskmcgee]

I'd like to see Zibell get off, nothing wrong in what he did. But suspect he'll go directly to the tribunal

 

[BF Tiger]

In this day and age the problem is duty of care. Looking at the footage again in real-time and it is hard to see anything worthy of a report. But I can see where the AFL can also make a case that JZ was (slightly) late and also had options in which he could've tackled or smothered.

If the AFL can make a case that JZ knew he was going to be late then that is even worse for him, regardless of what action he took (bump, tackle or smother).

If the AFL accept that JZ thought he would make the contest before TC disposed of the ball then they will be questioning his decision to bump in a manner that caused serious injury when he could have tackled or smothered.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

It will be a poor indictment on the game if he is cited over this - essentially it would be punishing the stronger player. We don't punish other attributes that lead to injury, why would this be any different?

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

If they even think about giving anything I am jumping on the "the game is soft" bandwagon.
Nothing in it, umpire at the time didn't even think it was worthy of a free down field.

 

[Sedat!]

In this day and age the problem is duty of care. Looking at the footage again in real-time and it is hard to see anything worthy of a report. But I can see where the AFL can also make a case that JZ was (slightly) late and also had options in which he could've tackled or smothered.

These will be the two points that will have Ziebell nervous until the MRP findings come out. He was clearly a little late and he clearly had other options but chose to bump. Obviously the bump caused serious injury, so the medical report is also an issue for him as well.

Bit of hysteria about being the 'death of footy' and the 'game has gone soft' if this results in a suspension. Ever since the Nick Maxwell bump on McGinnity a few years ago, it is well known precedent that if you choose to bump the onus falls on you if it results in injury. The question I would have for Ziebell if I was Brad Scott would be why on earth he chose to bump instead of try and smother the kick - bumping after the ball had left the area was a complete and utter waste of time. He is not the smartest footballer in the world is Ziebs.

 

[Matera92]

No high contact, why is it an issue?

Contact sport FFS, people will get hurt, that's why they get paid the obscene amounts of money for kicking a bloody bit of leather around a park.

 

[Sedat!]

No high contact, why is it an issue?

Contact sport FFS, people will get hurt, that's why they get paid the obscene amounts of money for kicking a bloody bit of leather around a park.

Gut punching ok? Hitting in the nuts ok? Reporting and suspensions are not limited to head high contact.

The MRP will ask themselves some questions. Was it late? Did Ziebell have any options other than bumping? Did the bump result in serious injury? If they answer 'yes' to the first two, then he is in trouble because the answer to the 3rd question is 'yes' and it would be deemed to have happened from an avoidable bump.

 

[Matera92]

Gut punching ok? Hitting in the nuts ok? Reporting and suspensions are not limited to head high contact.

The MRP will ask themselves some questions. Was it late? Did Ziebell have any options other than bumping? Did the bump result in serious injury? If they answer 'yes' to the first two, then he is in trouble because the answer to the 3rd question is 'yes' and it would be deemed to have happened from an avoidable bump.

The fact you equate those two acts with a bump is laughable.

Are we now going to remove any act that might result in serious injury in a contest.

Fine, no tackling, no marking contests, each player has to keep a 1m distance between himself and all other at all times to avoid injury.

That is the game this path is leading to.

 

[Ozil]

Don't really understand the macho fascination with "making him earn it" and unprovoked violence in general.

Wouldn't bother me at all to see it stamped out.

 

[Sedat!]

The fact you equate those two acts with a bump is laughable.

I'm not. You stated that head high contact was the only way to get suspended which is simply untrue.

Are we now going to remove any act that might result in serious injury in a contest.

Of course not. Scott Thompson and Tom Boyd collided in pursuit of a disputed ball in the same match which resulted in Boyd being concussed and Thompson had absolutely no culpability whatsoever for. Players are seriously injured all the time in such incidents that involve a disputed ball situation or incidental contact in pursuit of the ball - these never get suspended and nor should they. However the Ziebell incident was not a disputed ball situation nor was it incidental contact - it was late and it was avoidable contact because he had other options but chose to bump, and you live and die by the consequences when you make that choice as the precedent on bumping has been set.

I don't make the rules of the MRP - I am simply trying to determine how they might assess this incident based on their own rules and measures. They might deem it as 'in play' and not late, which is about the only thing that will save him from having a case to answer. I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue that the contact was unavoidable (it wasn't) or that the contact didn't cause Cloke's injuries (it did), so he better hope that the MRP see this as an 'in play' situation, which would be a very generous assessment IMO.

 

[EDFL follower]

I'm not. You stated that head high contact was the only way to get suspended which is simply untrue.

Of course not. Scott Thompson and Tom Boyd collided in pursuit of a disputed ball in the same match which resulted in Boyd being concussed and Thompson had absolutely no culpability whatsoever for. Players are seriously injured all the time in such incidents that involve a disputed ball situation or incidental contact in pursuit of the ball - these never get suspended and nor should they. However the Ziebell incident was not a disputed ball situation nor was it incidental contact - it was late and it was avoidable contact because he had other options but chose to bump, and you live and die by the consequences when you make that choice as the precedent on bumping has been set.

I don't make the rules of the MRP - I am simply trying to determine how they might assess this incident based on their own rules and measures. They might deem it as 'in play' and not late, which is about the only thing that will save him from having a case to answer. I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue that the contact was unavoidable (it wasn't) or that the contact didn't cause Cloke's injuries (it did), so he better hope that the MRP see this as an 'in play' situation, which would be a very generous assessment IMO.

He elected to bump and didnt hit him in the head. Case closed.

 

[Matera92]

I'm not. You stated that head high contact was the only way to get suspended which is simply untrue.

Of course not. Scott Thompson and Tom Boyd collided in pursuit of a disputed ball in the same match which resulted in Boyd being concussed and Thompson had absolutely no culpability whatsoever for. Players are seriously injured all the time in such incidents that involve a disputed ball situation or incidental contact in pursuit of the ball - these never get suspended and nor should they. However the Ziebell incident was not a disputed ball situation nor was it incidental contact - it was late and it was avoidable contact because he had other options but chose to bump, and you live and die by the consequences when you make that choice as the precedent on bumping has been set.

I don't make the rules of the MRP - I am simply trying to determine how they might assess this incident based on their own rules and measures. They might deem it as 'in play' and not late, which is about the only thing that will save him from having a case to answer. I don't think anybody in their right mind would argue that the contact was unavoidable (it wasn't) or that the contact didn't cause Cloke's injuries (it did), so he better hope that the MRP see this as an 'in play' situation, which would be a very generous assessment IMO.

He hit him in a non offending area with a non offending tactic, the umpire didn't even deem it late enough to pay a down field free kick.

There should be no review because he did nothing wrong, just because Cloke got hurt doesn't mean Jack did anything wrong.

If he had elected to bump and Cloke had gone down with an ACL instead would this be even looked it?

 

[Stopher]

Most people seem to believe (as I do) that Ziebell's bump was 'in play' due to Cloke only disposing of the ball a fraction of a second earlier. Nothing wrong with it.

What's annoying is that in the Saturday night game, Hooker is going full tilt on a strong lead before an Adelaide player drops into the hole to intercept. Cale's hands are already up anticipating the mark, yet can't pull up in time and clatters the Adelaide defender. 50m paid immediately.

Is there a difference in reaction time here? I genuinely don't believe so (and even Richo commented on how hard it is to be expected to pull up in such a situation). What else is a forward meant to do there?

 

[Upgrayedd]

As much as the bloke who banged knee's with O'meara got\


Nothing.

 

[#gosaintas]

Was a great bump. Play on.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Just saw it again in real time - reckon that is within limits of a fair time to bump. Wouldn't want to be much later, but that should be no penalty IMO

 

[Obeanie1]

Whilst we are analysis bumps what are peoples thoughts on Le cras bump on Alir?

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-04-13/is-lecras-in-trouble-for-this-late-hit

 

[Topkent]

These threads are always full of supporters from the victims team sooking it up and demanding punishment

It was a fair hit. Play ****ing on.

The umpires didn't even deem it a free kick.. seriously

 

[rooboy29]

Sunday footy show said it was a 3rd of a second late! If thats late then jeez gonna be a few blokes missing games this year!
Keep reading that the mrp has to decide if it was late or not well game day umpires didnt rate it as late hit so the afl will either have to say it wasnt a late hit or that the umpires got it wrong and a down the field free should be paid

 

[rooboy29]

Most people seem to believe (as I do) that Ziebell's bump was 'in play' due to Cloke only disposing of the ball a fraction of a second earlier. Nothing wrong with it.

What's annoying is that in the Saturday night game, Hooker is going full tilt on a strong lead before an Adelaide player drops into the hole to intercept. Cale's hands are already up anticipating the mark, yet can't pull up in time and clatters the Adelaide defender. 50m paid immediately.

Is there a difference in reaction time here? I genuinely don't believe so (and even Richo commented on how hard it is to be expected to pull up in such a situation). What else is a forward meant to do there?

Whats the difference between hookers hit amd ziebells? If anything hookers was later and seemd to get him in the head only difference is sloane got up and wasnt injured! Im not saying hooker should get anything but if were looking at jz why not that one! Jeez if preuss can get away with a fine surely jacks is thrown out