I'm saying that you should be tough and fair. Hitting late is gutless. The ball was gone, Danger's actions were pointless and his 'bravery' hollow. His actions were of no consequence in stopping Adelaide's movement forward. So, begs the question, what did he achieve?
-------
3 weeks to ponder his defensive efforts is what l aver. Pfft all you like.
Pfft, toughen up Rowdy. That's footy. None of what you said takes away the fact that it was an accidental head knock. It could've just as easily happened if Dangerfield tackled Kelly.
How do you take accidents out of footy? You can't. You accept the risk that you're going to get hurt when you step onto the field.
Yes, but he had just got rid of it. Danger was late. Kelly had got rid of it. Why is that so bl..dy hard to understand. Only cats hit late and the innuendo is unintended.
——-
The only reason l can think Danger did this without intent is because he mustn’t be as good as he used to be regarding his reaction times. His reaction time in seeing Kelly dispose of the ball was slow.
——–
And tell me the point of a hip n shoulder AFTER the ball has been disposed? The ball is the objective mission. Taking a player out after the disposal is weak, craven and venal.
You have it 180° to what l meant.
------
Hip n Shoulder when the player is not in possession.
-------
When the player is in possession tackle.
-------
When the player is in disposal mode smother.
If I translate correctly here I think you're saying only allow a hip and shoulder when the player has the ball? Well that wipes shepherding from the game.
If it's within 5 metres of the ball it's not late. That's the rule.
Nice try Sunshine! But Zimmerman you aint!
There is nothing in the game that says how long you should be in possession as long as you bounce every 15 meters or every 15 seconds (I think that's the time limit). To blame the player's possession for the bump is ridiculous.
It maybe the (dry) rule but everyone knows when they are late.
-------
Maybe the bump should be for players not in possession of the ball.
-------
In possession tackle or smother
No possession hip n shoulder
So your take on Astbury's elbow? And Daniher's?
If the AFL is serious about removing these incidents from the game, then Astbury and Daniher should have both got a couple of weeks each. They both had intent as indicated by swinging their arms backwards towards their opponent behind them. I would even argue more so than Dangerfield's bump.
I was referring to the AFL’s position on shirtfronts and concussion. You’re totally missing the point WASS. Whether you like it or not, this is the way it is now, and I think its a good thing. Oh, and Danger will get 3 or 4 weeks.
I disagree with King here. Just apply the rules as they stand; don't elevate the penalty in order to 'send a message'. The lawful penalty is the only message that should be sent- anything else just breeds inconsistency.
It’s a Sports field and a workplace WASS. You’re swimming against the tide on this one. Times have changed, sentiment & attitudes have changed, maybe you need to as well.
Mangas
Roar Rookie
Wrap everyone in cotton wool so they don’t get hurt in the process of playing a contact sport
Mangas
Roar Rookie
King is a do gooder that wants to keep his job
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I'm saying that you should be tough and fair. Hitting late is gutless. The ball was gone, Danger's actions were pointless and his 'bravery' hollow. His actions were of no consequence in stopping Adelaide's movement forward. So, begs the question, what did he achieve? ------- 3 weeks to ponder his defensive efforts is what l aver. Pfft all you like.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Pfft, toughen up Rowdy. That's footy. None of what you said takes away the fact that it was an accidental head knock. It could've just as easily happened if Dangerfield tackled Kelly. How do you take accidents out of footy? You can't. You accept the risk that you're going to get hurt when you step onto the field.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Yes, but he had just got rid of it. Danger was late. Kelly had got rid of it. Why is that so bl..dy hard to understand. Only cats hit late and the innuendo is unintended. ——- The only reason l can think Danger did this without intent is because he mustn’t be as good as he used to be regarding his reaction times. His reaction time in seeing Kelly dispose of the ball was slow. ——– And tell me the point of a hip n shoulder AFTER the ball has been disposed? The ball is the objective mission. Taking a player out after the disposal is weak, craven and venal.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
Kelly wasn't in possession so the hip and shoulder was all good!
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
"In possession tackle or smother No possession hip n shoulder" ------ Howdya mix that up?
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
You have it 180° to what l meant. ------ Hip n Shoulder when the player is not in possession. ------- When the player is in possession tackle. ------- When the player is in disposal mode smother.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
If I translate correctly here I think you're saying only allow a hip and shoulder when the player has the ball? Well that wipes shepherding from the game. If it's within 5 metres of the ball it's not late. That's the rule.
O M
Roar Rookie
They probably both deserved a week.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
And you are conveniently forgetting Danger was late.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Nice try Sunshine! But Zimmerman you aint! There is nothing in the game that says how long you should be in possession as long as you bounce every 15 meters or every 15 seconds (I think that's the time limit). To blame the player's possession for the bump is ridiculous.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
It maybe the (dry) rule but everyone knows when they are late. ------- Maybe the bump should be for players not in possession of the ball. ------- In possession tackle or smother No possession hip n shoulder
AJ73
Roar Rookie
So your take on Astbury's elbow? And Daniher's? If the AFL is serious about removing these incidents from the game, then Astbury and Daniher should have both got a couple of weeks each. They both had intent as indicated by swinging their arms backwards towards their opponent behind them. I would even argue more so than Dangerfield's bump.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
The AFL has it wrong.
2dogz
Roar Rookie
There’s inconsistency for certain players already though. I see your point also. Suspension shouldn’t be a lucky dip.
O M
Roar Rookie
I was referring to the AFL’s position on shirtfronts and concussion. You’re totally missing the point WASS. Whether you like it or not, this is the way it is now, and I think its a good thing. Oh, and Danger will get 3 or 4 weeks.
Papa Joe
Roar Rookie
I disagree with King here. Just apply the rules as they stand; don't elevate the penalty in order to 'send a message'. The lawful penalty is the only message that should be sent- anything else just breeds inconsistency.
2dogz
Roar Rookie
That’s like the sun not coming up tomorrow
O M
Roar Rookie
It’s a Sports field and a workplace WASS. You’re swimming against the tide on this one. Times have changed, sentiment & attitudes have changed, maybe you need to as well.