I think the difference between you and me anon is i am only critical of my team, which is mostly constructive, maybe not all ways. You on the other hand seem to be more critical of any you think deserve it. Rightly so, but there are a lot of subscribers that don't particularly like the truth, so they indulge in immature name calling and childish games. Fremantle have still some hard decisions to make if they are going to be a serious threat for a flag IMO.
When you deliberately move you head forward and strike your opponent in the head with your forehead it is an intentional headbutt. When you have previously been reported for the exact same thing you should know you actions are suspect.
That's still not enough to say it was an intentional headbutt I'm afraid. Lockhart was also imparting his "deliberate forward momentum" too. Anyhoos, it's all moot.
I said there was movement...angling it in, "shoving" descriptor was what I disagreed with, albeit "shoving" allows a pretty wide interpretation. Mind you the difference between "tilting" and "shoving" probably sits in the degree of force and momentum of movement.
The vision clearly shows him shoving his head forward......to which he has admitted. Great relief as Freo clearly have to win this week without him and Matera the goals dry up fast.
If you can softly punch someone you can softly headbutt someone. He made a deliberate action that resulted in his head impacting his opponents head, that is intentional.
And if you don't see his head moving forward in that vision you need to go to specsavers.
I think the rule is written so that if you go the bump in a non-ball-contested act you are placing yourself in a position of responsibility for not causing forceful contact to the head. Although I think they’ve stepped back a little from that in the past year or so with either Hocking’s and/or Christian’s involvement.
–
Surely if it’s an intentional headbutt it’s going to require a level of force with the head movement. That’s what a headbutt is. The vision doesn’t really show him shoving his head forward, more just angling it in the confrontation.
–
I think you’ve got a fair case with the insufficient force, but likewise, I think based on the vision a case of unintentional is a very reasonable one too.
I think without clear unquestionable footage of the incident Lockhartt's evidence was always going to play a major part in deciding the outcome. I loved the part where (at a tribunal for a charge of headbutting) chairman David Jones basically questioned if a headbutt even took place. That "the force was not enough to be a classifiable offence" wrapped it up.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
Screenshot saved!
Paul D
Roar Guru
Busted.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Do you know what I am referring to? I suspect not.
Liam Salter
Roar Guru
Rubbish
Jonboy
Roar Rookie
Childish !
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
I am not anon?
anon
Roar Pro
It's a millennial thing I suspect. They are very unquestioning.
Jonboy
Roar Rookie
I think the difference between you and me anon is i am only critical of my team, which is mostly constructive, maybe not all ways. You on the other hand seem to be more critical of any you think deserve it. Rightly so, but there are a lot of subscribers that don't particularly like the truth, so they indulge in immature name calling and childish games. Fremantle have still some hard decisions to make if they are going to be a serious threat for a flag IMO.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Redman was a headbutt? Really?
Macca
Roar Rookie
When you deliberately move you head forward and strike your opponent in the head with your forehead it is an intentional headbutt. When you have previously been reported for the exact same thing you should know you actions are suspect.
anon
Roar Pro
I am not anon we share similar beliefs is all !...You're losing it.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
That's still not enough to say it was an intentional headbutt I'm afraid. Lockhart was also imparting his "deliberate forward momentum" too. Anyhoos, it's all moot.
Macca
Roar Rookie
Whether he "angled it" or "shoved it" there was still deliberate forward momentum which is intentional.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I said there was movement...angling it in, "shoving" descriptor was what I disagreed with, albeit "shoving" allows a pretty wide interpretation. Mind you the difference between "tilting" and "shoving" probably sits in the degree of force and momentum of movement.
Jonboy
Roar Rookie
The vision clearly shows him shoving his head forward......to which he has admitted. Great relief as Freo clearly have to win this week without him and Matera the goals dry up fast.
anon
Roar Pro
I would have given him a week for diving. It was pathetic on the weekend.
Macca
Roar Rookie
If you can softly punch someone you can softly headbutt someone. He made a deliberate action that resulted in his head impacting his opponents head, that is intentional. And if you don't see his head moving forward in that vision you need to go to specsavers.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I think the rule is written so that if you go the bump in a non-ball-contested act you are placing yourself in a position of responsibility for not causing forceful contact to the head. Although I think they’ve stepped back a little from that in the past year or so with either Hocking’s and/or Christian’s involvement. – Surely if it’s an intentional headbutt it’s going to require a level of force with the head movement. That’s what a headbutt is. The vision doesn’t really show him shoving his head forward, more just angling it in the confrontation. – I think you’ve got a fair case with the insufficient force, but likewise, I think based on the vision a case of unintentional is a very reasonable one too.
hayboy
Roar Rookie
Oh yes Carlton were a shoe in without Walters playing.
hayboy
Roar Rookie
I think without clear unquestionable footage of the incident Lockhartt's evidence was always going to play a major part in deciding the outcome. I loved the part where (at a tribunal for a charge of headbutting) chairman David Jones basically questioned if a headbutt even took place. That "the force was not enough to be a classifiable offence" wrapped it up.