11-5
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6323
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1121 times
Re: 11-5
The one I thought was way worse was the mark interference 7 seconds left in the first against Henry - front on contact - running with the flight - does not touch the ball - tunnels Henry
Review the pic - there is no way his fist punches anything but Henry's arm - and he takes the body as well.
Led to Cameron's first goal to take the lead into quarter time.
Review the pic - there is no way his fist punches anything but Henry's arm - and he takes the body as well.
Led to Cameron's first goal to take the lead into quarter time.
“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!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
- King Max
- Club Player
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2018 11:37am
- Has thanked: 117 times
- Been thanked: 243 times
Re: 11-5
So how many weeks on the Webster scale?Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Sun 17 Mar 2024 5:28pmOn this ....Scollop wrote: ↑Sun 17 Mar 2024 12:17pmVery good call. The risk factor has suddenly become secondary and players are exploiting the literal interpretation by 'running over' a player and not even attempting to contest down low to where the footy is.The_Dud wrote: ↑Sun 17 Mar 2024 9:24am
Not saying I called it, but I called it…
The_Dud wrote: ↑Thu 14 Mar 2024 2:24pm On a side note, the 'below the knees' rule is one of the worst in footy due to it rarely being used correctly. Its changed from protecting a player from another who is sliding in dangerously (like Goodes did), to rewarding players who aren't actually trying to win the ball and instead choose to 'run over' the player who's going lower knowing they'll get a free. No different from ducking to get a high tackle or diving to get a push in the back. But that's another debate
The umpires are a laughing stock aren't they? Can't believe they can get sucked in that easily.
I can understand the umpire for making an error and not really understanding what the rule was designed for...but the AFL needs again to change player behaviour if they're trying to milk a free out of the rule.
Why should Paddy Dangerfield get off scott free for a reckless act. Who was the player at risk? He knew exactly what he was doing. He was the perpetrator.
AFL needs to suspend him for rough conduct!! He staged for a free and hurt Stocker in the process.
The MRO needs to ask the question; was Dangerfield making a genuine attempt to contest the footy by hand or by foot? Where is the ball and where is his foot or his hands?
Just like they need to fine this Collingwood player for sucking in another umpire.
https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/controve ... c-13970093
Who is focused on the ball - I will give you a hint - rhymes with Locker
Webster chose to bump, was late and made contact to the head causing injury. 7 weeks
Dangerfield chose to tackle, was late and made contact to the back causing injury. Nothing to see here?
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6323
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1121 times
Re: 11-5
Stocker gets 3 - Reckless, Low Impact (Below the Knees), High Contact (Contact was definitely made and it was higher on Stocker than Danger)
“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!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!