Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11176
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3424 times
- Been thanked: 2403 times
Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/ ... eb338658f6
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/ ... d72eb922a2
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/ ... d72eb922a2
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11176
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3424 times
- Been thanked: 2403 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
No chance in hell would Boyd have been cleared if he was represented by the Saints.
Or does it matter which club you play for, rather than which barrister and solicitor is representing you?
Or does it matter which club you play for, rather than which barrister and solicitor is representing you?
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5488
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 476 times
- Contact:
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
It was the right call, though...Unlike the Cripps one a few years ago.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7150
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 488 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
He bent forward in an effort to pick up the ball and hadn’t had time to stand up straight before he got hit. Are you suggesting that players shouldn’t do that any longer?Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 10:18am It was the right call, though...Unlike the Cripps one a few years ago.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
While we are only talking about the difference between one week and getting off altogether, I reckon it was the worst tribunal decision for many years.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13678
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1312 times
- Been thanked: 2036 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
They should start paying free kicks against players who duck their heads, that will be the quickest way to change behaviour and get it out of the game.
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5488
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 476 times
- Contact:
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
Never stick your head somewhere where your bum will fit.meher baba wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 11:19amHe bent forward in an effort to pick up the ball and hadn’t had time to stand up straight before he got hit. Are you suggesting that players shouldn’t do that any longer?Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 10:18am It was the right call, though...Unlike the Cripps one a few years ago.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
While we are only talking about the difference between one week and getting off altogether, I reckon it was the worst tribunal decision for many years.
He made two actions. One to pick up the ball, looked up, then put his head back down.
Geez, I used to teach my Auskick kids to turn the body slightly when picking up the footy to protect your head. It's not rocket science. It is really a matter of time before someone is seriously injured due to poor technique.
It's equivalent to a better turning their back on a short ball. In that situation, you never take your eyes off the ball and you make sure you get out of the way. Too many batters are hit in the helmet (or just below it) these days becuase they're not taught how to play the short ball properly.
Footballers are ignoring self-preservation in order to get a free kick and the AFL is encouraging it.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11176
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3424 times
- Been thanked: 2403 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
What's the Richmond player supposed to do when he sees someone approaching him while he's crouched down getting the footy?Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 10:18am It was the right call, though...Unlike the Cripps one a few years ago.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
The Richmond player didn't buckle his knees or drop a shoulder or drive with the head
He ducked because that's your first reaction to protect yourself. You're not going to invite the hit smack bang in the middle of your face!!
The Richmond guy will either cop it in his face front on...or he tries to avoid getting his nose broken and tries to get hit on top of his head
The Richmond player wasn't on trial here!! FFS ...you'd think he was by some of the thinking here.
The Carlton player Boyd charged at the guy playing the ball. Simple.
Some of you will believe anything
Some of you still believe Angus Brayshaw veered into Maynard's shoulder
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11176
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3424 times
- Been thanked: 2403 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
Life Long Saint,
I agree with this bit below BUT.... you're forgetting one thing.
Why do you think Boyd was on trial?
Was it maybe because he approached a guy on the ground without a duty of care? I think the answer is yes. I think Boyd should have either dived low to be at the same level or he should have corralled the Richmond player to intercept the footy when he was trying to handball
One other thing...much easier to avoid a cricket ball than a bloke with knees and hips and arms swinging
I agree with this bit below BUT.... you're forgetting one thing.
You can't charge at someone on the ground. Full Stop!He made two actions. One to pick up the ball, looked up, then put his head back down.
Why do you think Boyd was on trial?
Was it maybe because he approached a guy on the ground without a duty of care? I think the answer is yes. I think Boyd should have either dived low to be at the same level or he should have corralled the Richmond player to intercept the footy when he was trying to handball
One other thing...much easier to avoid a cricket ball than a bloke with knees and hips and arms swinging
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5488
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 476 times
- Contact:
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
Turn his body and protect his head.Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 12:49pmWhat's the Richmond player supposed to do when he sees someone approaching him while he's crouched down getting the footy?Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 10:18am It was the right call, though...Unlike the Cripps one a few years ago.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
If you duck into an on coming tackle, then you're inviting a far more serious injury than a broken nose.Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 12:49pm The Richmond player didn't buckle his knees or drop a shoulder or drive with the head
He ducked because that's your first reaction to protect yourself. You're not going to invite the hit smack bang in the middle of your face!!
The Richmond guy will either cop it in his face front on...or he tries to avoid getting his nose broken and tries to get hit on top of his head
The Richmond player wasn't on trial here!! FFS ...you'd think he was by some of the thinking here.
It's hard to argue that the Richmond players actions didn't contribute to the high contact and potential serious injury.
I seriously question your point of view if you're equating this to the Brayshaw/Maynard incident. Not even remotely the same.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11176
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3424 times
- Been thanked: 2403 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
If the Richmond player 'turned his body' he would NOT have avoided being hit high.Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 1:07pmTurn his body and protect his head.Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 12:49pmWhat's the Richmond player supposed to do when he sees someone approaching him while he's crouched down getting the footy?Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 10:18am It was the right call, though...Unlike the Cripps one a few years ago.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
If you duck into an on coming tackle, then you're inviting a far more serious injury than a broken nose.Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 12:49pm The Richmond player didn't buckle his knees or drop a shoulder or drive with the head
He ducked because that's your first reaction to protect yourself. You're not going to invite the hit smack bang in the middle of your face!!
The Richmond guy will either cop it in his face front on...or he tries to avoid getting his nose broken and tries to get hit on top of his head
The Richmond player wasn't on trial here!! FFS ...you'd think he was by some of the thinking here.
It's hard to argue that the Richmond players actions didn't contribute to the high contact and potential serious injury.
I seriously question your point of view if you're equating this to the Brayshaw/Maynard incident. Not even remotely the same.
Boyd is not a cricket ball
You're dreaming if you think that!
Worse still he might have copped a knee to the side if his head and been severely concussed
Boyd charged at the bloke on the ground. Get that through your thick skulls people
Boyd was cited for 'forceful front on contact'
Stop blaming the ball player
Have another look at the video.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/ ... eb338658f6
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 379 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
Nothing in it. Should not have even been cited for a week. Correct decision has been made.Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 1:11pmIf the Richmond player 'turned his body' he would NOT have avoided being hit high.Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 1:07pmTurn his body and protect his head.Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 12:49pmWhat's the Richmond player supposed to do when he sees someone approaching him while he's crouched down getting the footy?Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 10:18am It was the right call, though...Unlike the Cripps one a few years ago.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
If you duck into an on coming tackle, then you're inviting a far more serious injury than a broken nose.Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 12:49pm The Richmond player didn't buckle his knees or drop a shoulder or drive with the head
He ducked because that's your first reaction to protect yourself. You're not going to invite the hit smack bang in the middle of your face!!
The Richmond guy will either cop it in his face front on...or he tries to avoid getting his nose broken and tries to get hit on top of his head
The Richmond player wasn't on trial here!! FFS ...you'd think he was by some of the thinking here.
It's hard to argue that the Richmond players actions didn't contribute to the high contact and potential serious injury.
I seriously question your point of view if you're equating this to the Brayshaw/Maynard incident. Not even remotely the same.
Boyd is not a cricket ball
You're dreaming if you think that!
Worse still he might have copped a knee to the side if his head and been severely concussed
Boyd charged at the bloke on the ground. Get that through your thick skulls people
Boyd was cited for 'forceful front on contact'
Stop blaming the ball player
Have another look at the video.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/ ... eb338658f6
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5488
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 476 times
- Contact:
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
Watched the video again...It's even worse for the Richmond player. He actually went down considerably lower AFTER taking possession.
More confident now that the right call was made.
More confident now that the right call was made.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11176
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3424 times
- Been thanked: 2403 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
That's ok. I understand we can't all agree on everything
Thr real issue many people have... is actually that they can't get their head around the fact that the game of Aussie rules has changed
Assume the Richmond guy doesn't duck...Is Boyd still going to hit him high? Yes or No? Simple
Most of you pine for the good ol days. Back in the day...the little blokes had better awareness to avoid clothes hangers and elbows and shirt fronts. It was a mans game
None of this 'duty of care' rubbish.
Many still believe that it was Hunter Clark's 'awareness' that was the problem. Hunter should have seen Andrew McKay coming and should have taken precautionary measures
Same with Brayshaw. He should have been more aware and he shouldn't have veered into Maynard's path
Thr real issue many people have... is actually that they can't get their head around the fact that the game of Aussie rules has changed
Assume the Richmond guy doesn't duck...Is Boyd still going to hit him high? Yes or No? Simple
Most of you pine for the good ol days. Back in the day...the little blokes had better awareness to avoid clothes hangers and elbows and shirt fronts. It was a mans game
None of this 'duty of care' rubbish.
Many still believe that it was Hunter Clark's 'awareness' that was the problem. Hunter should have seen Andrew McKay coming and should have taken precautionary measures
Same with Brayshaw. He should have been more aware and he shouldn't have veered into Maynard's path
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5488
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 61 times
- Been thanked: 476 times
- Contact:
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
Who knows as he ducked. Therefore that action raises doubt. Simple!
All I know is that may not have been in the firing line for head high contact if he'd have continued upwards after taking possession. The "forceful" front on contact may only have been glancing.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Thu 15 Sep 2011 5:54pm
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 379 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
You'd better let the AFL Tribunal know Scols.Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 1:46pm That's ok. I understand we can't all agree on everything
Thr real issue many people have... is actually that they can't get their head around the fact that the game of Aussie rules has changed
Assume the Richmond guy doesn't duck...Is Boyd still going to hit him high? Yes or No? Simple
Most of you pine for the good ol days. Back in the day...the little blokes had better awareness to avoid clothes hangers and elbows and shirt fronts. It was a mans game
None of this 'duty of care' rubbish.
Many still believe that it was Hunter Clark's 'awareness' that was the problem. Hunter should have seen Andrew McKay coming and should have taken precautionary measures
Same with Brayshaw. He should have been more aware and he shouldn't have veered into Maynard's path
- Saint 58
- Club Player
- Posts: 736
- Joined: Thu 02 Nov 2006 11:10am
- Location: Anywhere the Saints are playing in Melbourne
- Has thanked: 212 times
- Been thanked: 90 times
Re: Carlton successful at tribunal... AGAIN
He picked up the ball, THEN looked up, then dropped his headmeher baba wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 11:19amHe bent forward in an effort to pick up the ball and hadn’t had time to stand up straight before he got hit. Are you suggesting that players shouldn’t do that any longer?Life Long Saint wrote: ↑Thu 04 Jul 2024 10:18am It was the right call, though...Unlike the Cripps one a few years ago.
The Tigers player clearly ducked his head into the tackler and doing everything we were taught not to do as kids.
What the Tigers player did is a spinal injury just waiting to happen.
While we are only talking about the difference between one week and getting off altogether, I reckon it was the worst tribunal decision for many years.
Like we teach the kids at training, turn your body to protect the ball & your head, & crash/bump the guy coming at you
Clark does the same thing which is why he’s always injured (head)
What you do for others will define your life.
[Football isn't everything ... it's the ONLY thing]
[Football isn't everything ... it's the ONLY thing]