Tarrant charge thrown out - WOW!

[dragit]

Hard to argue about a video clip that you won't even watch…

[plugger66]

Hard to argue about a video clip that you won't even watch…

What are you talking about? Please at least make sense.

[Johnny Member]

If it hit his head he would have been knocked out or at least he would have a bruise on the side of his face. it obviously missed the head and thus it is agreat anf fair bump. If it hits him in the head and he is injured he gets suspended. Thats the risk.

You didn't watch the clip did you?

I'm pretty sure that the hit Dawson got suspended for wouldn't have caused an injury, it is possible to be hit in the head and not sustain an injury, it happens throughout all matches…

I still think there was contact to head, but the rule at the moment seems to be injury = suspension, no injury = no suspension, thats fine, Tarrant is in the clear.

A very similar bump broke Kosi's skull last time, these guys are pretty skillful, but being able to control how your opponents head hits the ground is impossible.

I saw it live and on TV. At no stage have I seen any hit to the head and again at the pace he was running if he was hit in the head there would have been some sort of injury. And if the bump had broken Kosi's skull this time he would have been suspended. That is the risk of the bump.

I must be losing it.

It still looks like there is head high contact.

The initial contact is to the shoulder, but the impact causes his head to move and results in contact with Tarrant's shoulder and even his fist on the way through.

[dragit]

Hard to argue about a video clip that you won't even watch…

What are you talking about? Please at least make sense.

You're like the Riewoldt of posting, just drag your opponent around until they are just too exhausted to argue anymore…

one more time…
I think Tarrants shoulder hit Kosi's head, he (luckily) wasn't injured, so no suspension - that's fine.

[plugger66]

Hard to argue about a video clip that you won't even watch…

What are you talking about? Please at least make sense.

You're like the Riewoldt of posting, just drag your opponent around until they are just too exhausted to argue anymore…

one more time…
I think Tarrants shoulder hit Kosi's head, he (luckily) wasn't injured, so no suspension - that's fine.

You were the one who posted I hadnt seen it when I said I saw it live and on TV. You think what you like and i will think what i like.

[dragit]

Hard to argue about a video clip that you won't even watch…

What are you talking about? Please at least make sense.

You're like the Riewoldt of posting, just drag your opponent around until they are just too exhausted to argue anymore…

one more time…
I think Tarrants shoulder hit Kosi's head, he (luckily) wasn't injured, so no suspension - that's fine.

You were the one who posted I hadnt seen it when I said I saw it live and on TV. You think what you like and i will think what i like.

Far canal,
I posted a link to a video, saying "check this angle out"
you won't even watch it…

[plugger66]

Hard to argue about a video clip that you won't even watch…

What are you talking about? Please at least make sense.

You're like the Riewoldt of posting, just drag your opponent around until they are just too exhausted to argue anymore…

one more time…
I think Tarrants shoulder hit Kosi's head, he (luckily) wasn't injured, so no suspension - that's fine.

You were the one who posted I hadnt seen it when I said I saw it live and on TV. You think what you like and i will think what i like.

Far canal,
I posted a link to a video, saying "check this angle out"
you won't even watch it…

I saw the Dal interview last night so i have already seen both angles. I have said i have seen it. Is your clip special or something. Anyway when didi say I havent seen your clip?

[dragit]

It's very, very special, I had a secret camera planted in Kosi's left ear, which definitively proves everything, I just dropped the footage off at the supreme court.

[MCG-Unit]

If it hit his head he would have been knocked out or at least he would have a bruise on the side of his face. it obviously missed the head....

I'm pretty sure that the hit Dawson got suspended for wouldn't have caused an injury, it is possible to be hit in the head and not sustain an injury, it happens throughout all matches…

I still think there was contact to head, but the rule at the moment seems to be injury = suspension, no injury = no suspension, thats fine....

A very similar bump broke Kosi's skull last time....

I saw it live and on TV. At no stage have I seen any hit to the head and again at the pace he was running if he was hit in the head there would have been some sort of injury.....

It still looks like there is head high contact.

The initial contact is to the shoulder, but the impact causes his head to move and results in contact with Tarrant's shoulder and even his fist on the way through.

That's what it looked like to me - live and the vision, initial contact to the shoulder then glanced onto Kosi's head/face, clearly.

Tarrant didn't need to do that to clear a path. Doesn't take much courage to pick someone off. Close to but not as bad as the sniper Gia, who jumped way off the ground that time....

[plugger66]

If it hit his head he would have been knocked out or at least he would have a bruise on the side of his face. it obviously missed the head....

I'm pretty sure that the hit Dawson got suspended for wouldn't have caused an injury, it is possible to be hit in the head and not sustain an injury, it happens throughout all matches…

I still think there was contact to head, but the rule at the moment seems to be injury = suspension, no injury = no suspension, thats fine....

A very similar bump broke Kosi's skull last time....

I saw it live and on TV. At no stage have I seen any hit to the head and again at the pace he was running if he was hit in the head there would have been some sort of injury.....

It still looks like there is head high contact.

The initial contact is to the shoulder, but the impact causes his head to move and results in contact with Tarrant's shoulder and even his fist on the way through.

That's what it looked like to me - live and the vision, initial contact to the shoulder then glanced onto Kosi's head/face, clearly.

Tarrant didn't need to do that to clear a path. Doesn't take much courage to pick someone off. Close to but not as bad as the sniper Gia, who jumped way off the ground that time....

The thing is though that run by Tarrent probably happens 5 times a game. It is just that the other player usually knows it is coming and avoids it. Even Dal said last night that Kosi knew he should have seen it coming or words to that effect.

[Thinline]

If it hit his head he would have been knocked out or at least he would have a bruise on the side of his face. it obviously missed the head....

I'm pretty sure that the hit Dawson got suspended for wouldn't have caused an injury, it is possible to be hit in the head and not sustain an injury, it happens throughout all matches…

I still think there was contact to head, but the rule at the moment seems to be injury = suspension, no injury = no suspension, thats fine....

A very similar bump broke Kosi's skull last time....

I saw it live and on TV. At no stage have I seen any hit to the head and again at the pace he was running if he was hit in the head there would have been some sort of injury.....

It still looks like there is head high contact.

The initial contact is to the shoulder, but the impact causes his head to move and results in contact with Tarrant's shoulder and even his fist on the way through.

That's what it looked like to me - live and the vision, initial contact to the shoulder then glanced onto Kosi's head/face, clearly.

Tarrant didn't need to do that to clear a path. Doesn't take much courage to pick someone off. Close to but not as bad as the sniper Gia, who jumped way off the ground that time....

The thing is though that run by Tarrent probably happens 5 times a game. It is just that the other player usually knows it is coming and avoids it. Even Dal said last night that Kosi knew he should have seen it coming or words to that effect.

So the onus on the victim to avoid a snipe?

Remind me next time I go to the Coolie Sands to apologise to the bloke who glasses me in the face for 'not seeing it coming'.

Defies logic.

Wouldn't it be easier to banish sniping?

Tarrant didn't have to floor him. He had options. He chose to attempt to inflict as much damage as he could. Could have been horrible.

Awareness, or lack of it, doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Snipe's a snipe. Sniping's for cowards.

I'd much rather see common sense prevail in Mitchell/Selwood/Riewoldt/Mooney situations and see the likes of Tarrant raked over the coals.

[plugger66]

If it hit his head he would have been knocked out or at least he would have a bruise on the side of his face. it obviously missed the head....

I'm pretty sure that the hit Dawson got suspended for wouldn't have caused an injury, it is possible to be hit in the head and not sustain an injury, it happens throughout all matches…

I still think there was contact to head, but the rule at the moment seems to be injury = suspension, no injury = no suspension, thats fine....

A very similar bump broke Kosi's skull last time....

I saw it live and on TV. At no stage have I seen any hit to the head and again at the pace he was running if he was hit in the head there would have been some sort of injury.....

It still looks like there is head high contact.

The initial contact is to the shoulder, but the impact causes his head to move and results in contact with Tarrant's shoulder and even his fist on the way through.

That's what it looked like to me - live and the vision, initial contact to the shoulder then glanced onto Kosi's head/face, clearly.

Tarrant didn't need to do that to clear a path. Doesn't take much courage to pick someone off. Close to but not as bad as the sniper Gia, who jumped way off the ground that time....

The thing is though that run by Tarrent probably happens 5 times a game. It is just that the other player usually knows it is coming and avoids it. Even Dal said last night that Kosi knew he should have seen it coming or words to that effect.

So the onus on the victim to avoid a snipe?

Remind me next time I go to the Coolie Sands to apologise to the bloke who glasses me in the face for 'not seeing it coming'.

Defies logic.

Wouldn't it be easier to banish sniping?

Tarrant didn't have to floor him. He had options. He chose to attempt to inflict as much damage as he could. Could have been horrible.

Awareness, or lack of it, doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Snipe's a snipe. Sniping's for cowards.

I'd much rather see common sense prevail in Mitchell/Selwood/Riewoldt/Mooney situations and see the likes of Tarrant raked over the coals.

Not sure about your example. Glassing someone is illegal, a shephard is legal if he doesnt hit someone in the head. Sniping is hitting someone behind play. A skill of football is to see something coming. Kosi doesnt have that skill so should the game be changed for him? I dont think so. I would hope all our players would be able to do what Tarrant did and I sure a few try every game. Its just the player they try it on usually has awareness, a great skill of our game.

[Thinline]

I'm not asking for a suspension. I'm pointing out a flaw.

My example was illustrative if your (and others) logic on this: ie that the victim owes some kind of responsibility to the whacker to foreshadow how things may eventuate.

Having visited the video of the Tarrant/Kosi thing several times I personally fail to see how Kosi could or should have been aware of a bloke hitting him from a blind spot (one that Tarrant quite cleverly/cowardly exploited in my view).

But like I keep saying, why is it that his awareness is the thing under the spotlight.

Surely it should be the force/action necessary to block off the ball carrier.

Tarrant had options.

Kosi did not (not unless you count NOT chasing).

Equally Riewoldt/Mooney/Mitchell/Selwood arguably did not have options. Yet they are punished.

If nothing else, the Tarrant whack shows up a serious flaw in the way things work.

All IMO of course. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I just see a weird logic in play.

[plugger66]

I'm not asking for a suspension. I'm pointing out a flaw.

My example was illustrative if your (and others) logic on this: ie that the victim owes some kind of responsibility to the whacker to foreshadow how things may eventuate.

Having visited the video of the Tarrant/Kosi thing several times I personally fail to see how Kosi could or should have been aware of a bloke hitting him from a blind spot (one that Tarrant quite cleverly/cowardly exploited in my view).

But like I keep saying, why is it that his awareness is the thing under the spotlight.

Surely it should be the force/action necessary to block off the ball carrier.

Tarrant had options.

Kosi did not (not unless you count NOT chasing).

Equally Riewoldt/Mooney/Mitchell/Selwood arguably did not have options. Yet they are punished.

If nothing else, the Tarrant whack shows up a serious flaw in the way things work.

All IMO of course. I'm not trying to convert anyone. I just see a weird logic in play.

Well in a few years time you will probably get your wish and that type of shephard will be banned. You obviously hope it is and I obviously hope it isnt . As for Kosi not seeing it coming well I had a perfect view and i reckon most players would have known the shephard was coming and they would have turned at the last moment to avoid it. There was an example late in the game with Milney. He would have copped it but felt the bump would come and avoided it. I doubt Kosi would have avoided that one either.

[gringo]

Just as well Kosi didn't pull up before the contact was made- he would have been called a coward.

[Moods]

So the onus on the victim to avoid a snipe?

Remind me next time I go to the Coolie Sands to apologise to the bloke who glasses me in the face for 'not seeing it coming'.

Defies logic.

Wouldn't it be easier to banish sniping?

Tarrant didn't have to floor him. He had options. He chose to attempt to inflict as much damage as he could. Could have been horrible.

Awareness, or lack of it, doesn't have anything to do with anything.

Snipe's a snipe. Sniping's for cowards.

I'd much rather see common sense prevail in Mitchell/Selwood/Riewoldt/Mooney situations and see the likes of Tarrant raked over the coals.

Why is it a snipe? It's been part of the game and LEGAL for the past 100 years. Not as if Kosi was 30 metres off the ball and shouldn't have expected contact. Anyone who has played footy would know that you really need to be aware of your surroundings in that situation. Footy is a brutal game and players are taught from age 15, if a player can be picked off, pick him off! He was chasing Tarrant, he wasn't that far off him, he was fair game! The elbow was tucked in and it was perfectly executed. Very similar to the beautiful hip and shoulder that Goddard laid on Thomas in the 09 qualifying final or that Lenny laid on Chappy (blindsided him) in the qualifying final last year.

To be honest if Kosi's awareness is that poor, he is a danger to himself playing a game like Aussie rules - imo. That's twice i've seen that happen to him, and both times he was taken so unawares that it was frightening. Both times I thought he should have known what was coming.

A snipe is a king hit behind play - similar to being glassed at a pub from behind (to use your analogy)

[Leo.J]

It's irrelevent if Kosi saw him coming or not...

It's whether the bump hits him in the head!

The onus is on the player bumping to make sure that doesn't happen.

[Winmar7Fan]

Maybe I'm old school, but I grew up knowing that if you were chasing a bloke then keep your wits about you, b/c someone will pick you off. As long as the elbow isn't raised it's a great part of our game. Was a perfectly executed bump, Kosi got straight up, and the game went on. Should never have even been a free.

I hate seeing blokes getting injured as well, but we are playing a body contact sport FFS. The bump is a terrific part of our game if properly executed. Surely no sane, unbiased supporter, would hope that Tarrant would get weeks for that?

This sums up the issue for me too.

Our game is great because people do sublime things in extreme danger. Rule out legitimate physical hits and you rule out physical courage.
Grace under pressure.
(Or a bit the opposite in Kosi's case this time!)

What about that particular hit was 'sublime' and 'in danger'?

He sniped a bloke who wasn't looking!

This is what I don't get at all in the whole 'bump' debate.

There seems to be a de facto celebration of cheap blindside hits.

I've grown up playing AFL, Union, and League. A snipe like Tarrant's would be seen as extraordinarily cowardly in the latter two. Not so in AFL. What's with that?

Why did the blindsided bloke - even if MORE unaware than most - have to be flattened?

Seriously, why?

What was Tarrant's intent? To clear passage for the ball carrier? Or to maim an easy target with eyes for the contest instead of a potential sniper?

Gutless, this kind of thing. I find it pretty sickening to be honest. One of the game's few black spots.

I totally see it all the same as you Thinline. It seems the main part of the debate whether it was exceptable or not is if it was within the rules.

Well thats why they have been progressively changing it and I have no doubt they will stop this as well.

I remember when Brent Guerra played for us and one of his passions was trying to put an opposition player with his head down over the ball permanentally in a Wheel Chair. Because his arm was tucked in and it was classed as a legitament bump it would get the same support as this post but I viewed it as a weak dogs act as this was.

Then common sense provailed and it was seen as unnecesary in the game and stamped out as I'm sure this will be too.

Players should have the confidence and protection to concentrate on the ball and play than to be worried about looking over there shoulder for someone trying to seriously hurting them with unnecesary cheap shots like this.

Tarrant could have deflected Kosi just as effectively without that big a hit.

[gringo]

I see it as the same issue as all year- no one seems to know whats legal anymore. The problem stems from a grey area where intent is sometimes considered and sometimes only injury is considered. Riewoldts compared to Tarrants was a case in point, accidental contact big suspension. Tarrant missed what looked like a very aggressive hit and by luck didn't crack Kosi's skull again. Yeah legal but ugly same with Corey's tackle that dropped Steven on his head, could have been very ugly but luck saw him not suspended. Someone needs to make some clear guidelines.

[matrix]

not as good as the pickett one on biglands
toughen up tarrent

[To the top]

The Collingwood media bias was all over this bump being "fair".

On the way home, listening to SEN, the comment was made by the host of that programme that Kosi got "picked off" - and that the bump was legal - indeed Kosi was at fault for not seeing it coming and not predicting it!

What this raises is the definition of a shepherd - which in my day, some years ago when football was indeed far, far more brutal than it is today, was putting your body between your player with the ball and an opponent.

For doing so you would frequently "cop" one to the back of the head - but the game would go on.

Job done!

Now shepherd seems to include charging at a player and putting a hip and shoulder on them.

Back in past days you could actually be reported and suspended for "charging".

But what really attracts my attention is Kosi (and anyone else in similar circumstances) being "picked off" - ie deliberately the target of a hip and shoulder bump which is deemed legal because the player being hit is within 5 metres of the ball.

So let's extend this.

If Judd is within 5 metes of the ball anyone can put the heaviest of hip and shoulder bumps on him - and legally given there is no injury to the head?

So, when he is in the centre for a bounce, you can charge at him and lay a hip and shoulder to take him out of the contest?

Much as Guerra did for us some years ago - charging in off the centre square and "picking" someone off.

I have no problem with the use of the hip and shoulder to compete for the ball - and to put the other competing player at a dis-advantage.

But when players are "picked off", then I do have a problem.

Because "picking off" players once they are within 5 metres of the ball is not what the contest for the ball is all about.

The AFL has again lost the plot.

I think Guerra was cited, and there was an outcry but, in today's football, it was all legal because the ball was within 5 metres and no head injury was sustained.

The distance you come from in laying the hip and shoulder within 5 metres of the ball is immaterial.

Because "charging" is no longer an offence.

[Winmar7Fan]

The Collingwood media bias was all over this bump being "fair".

On the way home, listening to SEN, the comment was made by the host of that programme that Kosi got "picked off" - and that the bump was legal - indeed Kosi was at fault for not seeing it coming and not predicting it!

What this raises is the definition of a shepherd - which in my day, some years ago when football was indeed far, far more brutal than it is today, was putting your body between your player with the ball and an opponent.

For doing so you would frequently "cop" one to the back of the head - but the game would go on.

Job done!

Now shepherd seems to include charging at a player and putting a hip and shoulder on them.

Back in past days you could actually be reported and suspended for "charging".

But what really attracts my attention is Kosi (and anyone else in similar circumstances) being "picked off" - ie deliberately the target of a hip and shoulder bump which is deemed legal because the player being hit is within 5 metres of the ball.

So let's extend this.

If Judd is within 5 metes of the ball anyone can put the heaviest of hip and shoulder bumps on him - and legally given there is no injury to the head?

So, when he is in the centre for a bounce, you can charge at him and lay a hip and shoulder to take him out of the contest?

Much as Guerra did for us some years ago - charging in off the centre square and "picking" someone off.

I have no problem with the use of the hip and shoulder to compete for the ball - and to put the other competing player at a dis-advantage.

But when players are "picked off", then I do have a problem.

Because "picking off" players once they are within 5 metres of the ball is not what the contest for the ball is all about.

The AFL has again lost the plot.

I think Guerra was cited, and there was an outcry but, in today's football, it was all legal because the ball was within 5 metres and no head injury was sustained.

The distance you come from in laying the hip and shoulder within 5 metres of the ball is immaterial.

Because "charging" is no longer an offence.

Good points and I actually thought the same about what you said with open season around the ball in all situations but I'm sure they will change it hopefully before someone is seriously hurt.