Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
chook23 wrote: ↑Tue 18 Apr 2023 9:52pm
From the tribunal
Tribunal chair Jeff Glesson said Caminiti did not intend to strike Murphy in the head but it was careless.
“Murphy’s body lowers before impact and that appears to have significantly contributed to Caminiti’s forearm making contact with his head rather than his neck or shoulder,” he said.
“We also note that at all time after impact, Caminiti did not even glance down at Murphy, who was lying motionless on the ground.
“This is consistent with a player who did not intend to strike or knew that he had struck his opponent to the head.
“The question is whether Caminiti intended to strike Murphy in the body, he gave evidence that he intended to push off to get separation and in his evidence he CANDIDLY ADMITTED it was a FORCEFUL push.
“The vision shows a swinging impact and we are not entirely convinced that he was doing no more than pushing, nor are we entirely satisfied that Caminiti intended to commit a reportable offence of a strike to the body.”
in the end careless ....severe impact...high impact
I am sure given the chairman highlighted admitted FORCEFUL contact that if argued and no admission by player he may have got the penalty of 2 weeks
All of the above statements point towards a fine for Caminiti - and I do not wish to discuss what the penalty ended up - my SOLE objection to all of this is BEHIND PLAY!
Hammer is a forward - forwards need to create space. If the ball, which was less than 50 metres away, spilled clear, Hammer had pushed off Murphy and made space to lead and taken a chest mark to kick the goal - is that behind play or just good forward craft?
This should have been the focus of the argument - because behind play implies Murphy was sniped - and Hammer was just doing what we see forwards do a dozen times a match when the ball is in dispute forward of Centre.
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
So,,, the tribunal admits that Camminiti had no intention to hit the head and that his opponent lowering his body contributed to the contact being made to the head. There was NO STRIKING ACTION!!!!
YET....that constitutes a three match penalty?
McAdam got two weeks for deliberately lining a bloke up with the intent of smashing him into next week and got two weeks for an action that the every AFL fan thought was worth 4 - 5 weeks??!!!!!
MESSAGE TO TRIBUNAL
STOP FOCUSING ON OUTCOMES AND START FOCUSSING ON ACTIONS AND YOU MAY ACTUALLY GET IT BLODDY RIGHT FOR A CHANGE!!!!!
cwrcyn wrote: ↑Wed 19 Apr 2023 9:12am
So,,, the tribunal admits that Camminiti had no intention to hit the head and that his opponent lowering his body contributed to the contact being made to the head. There was NO STRIKING ACTION!!!!
YET....that constitutes a three match penalty?
McAdam got two weeks for deliberately lining a bloke up with the intent of smashing him into next week and got two weeks for an action that the every AFL fan thought was worth 4 - 5 weeks??!!!!!
MESSAGE TO TRIBUNAL
STOP FOCUSING ON OUTCOMES AND START FOCUSSING ON ACTIONS AND YOU MAY ACTUALLY GET IT BLODDY RIGHT FOR A CHANGE!!!!!
Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Wed 19 Apr 2023 7:33am
All of the above statements point towards a fine for Caminiti - and I do not wish to discuss what the penalty ended up - my SOLE objection to all of this is BEHIND PLAY!
Hammer is a forward - forwards need to create space. If the ball, which was less than 50 metres away, spilled clear, Hammer had pushed off Murphy and made space to lead and taken a chest mark to kick the goal - is that behind play or just good forward craft?
This should have been the focus of the argument - because behind play implies Murphy was sniped - and Hammer was just doing what we see forwards do a dozen times a match when the ball is in dispute forward of Centre.
Wasnt Barry Hall allowed to play in the 2005 GF because the tribunal decided his punch to Matt Maguire’s stomach was ‘in play’ even though the ball was over 50 meteres away?
Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Wed 19 Apr 2023 7:33am
All of the above statements point towards a fine for Caminiti - and I do not wish to discuss what the penalty ended up - my SOLE objection to all of this is BEHIND PLAY!
Hammer is a forward - forwards need to create space. If the ball, which was less than 50 metres away, spilled clear, Hammer had pushed off Murphy and made space to lead and taken a chest mark to kick the goal - is that behind play or just good forward craft?
This should have been the focus of the argument - because behind play implies Murphy was sniped - and Hammer was just doing what we see forwards do a dozen times a match when the ball is in dispute forward of Centre.
Wasnt Barry Hall allowed to play in the 2005 GF because the tribunal decided his punch to Matt Maguire’s stomach was ‘in play’ even though the ball was over 50 meteres away?
Yep. But then the AFL is a law unto itself and the Tribunal is supposedly independent. What a joke.
Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Wed 19 Apr 2023 7:33am
All of the above statements point towards a fine for Caminiti - and I do not wish to discuss what the penalty ended up - my SOLE objection to all of this is BEHIND PLAY!
Hammer is a forward - forwards need to create space. If the ball, which was less than 50 metres away, spilled clear, Hammer had pushed off Murphy and made space to lead and taken a chest mark to kick the goal - is that behind play or just good forward craft?
This should have been the focus of the argument - because behind play implies Murphy was sniped - and Hammer was just doing what we see forwards do a dozen times a match when the ball is in dispute forward of Centre.
Wasnt Barry Hall allowed to play in the 2005 GF because the tribunal decided his punch to Matt Maguire’s stomach was ‘in play’ even though the ball was over 50 meteres away?
Yep. But then the AFL is a law unto itself and the Tribunal is supposedly independent. What a joke.
1999 flag winners North's coach said whilst collecting the trophy up on the stage, ' lot of people in the AFL didn't want this to happen'..He was right. A few years later, and the AFL is determined to help Sydney at all costs again.
The AFL has an agenda, and it 'aint about the mighty Saints winning. Re-locating, perhaps. Merging, yep. Being used as an example , yep...Sunday twilights yep... Winning ? What?
