Nastiness Round !!

Eastern · Post: # 547644Post **Eastern** » Sun 13 Apr 2008 7:26pm

Well that's what I've called it.

Boofheads punch on Staker
Nick Maxwell's elbow
West's cowardly hit on our X
Mooney's trip on Joey
Gambles sly punch to Dal's chin
Collingwood-Carlton Mellee
Nick Stevens elbow (he'll get off)

Have I missed anything? Anyway, a fairly busy day awaits the MRP tomorrow followed by a BIG night at the tribunal on Tuesday !!

saintbrat · Post: # 547646Post **saintbrat** » Sun 13 Apr 2008 7:27pm

Tarrent on Solomon- or was it Solomon on Mcguane - with Solly comoing of second best

Iceman234 · Post: # 547680Post **Iceman234** » Sun 13 Apr 2008 8:15pm

At the risk of being howled down because it's a Saint, I was seated near to the X incident and booâ€™d West and Umpire 21 quite severely at the time.

Having seen it several times since, I donâ€™t think West has a case to answer.

X should have had more awareness when the ball was not far from his left hand side, and if Bakes/Hamill had laid that bump we would all be pigeon chested about it.

saintbrat · Post: # 547689Post **saintbrat** » Sun 13 Apr 2008 8:20pm

yet the footballers on tv this morning all said west may be in trouble- force of bump too much when the player was off the ball and unaware;
tomorrow at 5 we may know

although given the number of incidents they will be looking at it may be closer to 7

Quixote · Post: # 547697Post **Quixote** » Sun 13 Apr 2008 8:24pm

I only wish one of our players was up for review at the panel.

With hip and shoulder D Armitage for knocking out Ling the C**T RANGA anyone??

Lacking aggression!!

Eastern · Post: # 547700Post **Eastern** » Sun 13 Apr 2008 8:27pm

Quixote wrote:I only wish one of our players was up for review at the panel.

With hip and shoulder D Armitage for knocking out Ling the C**T RANGA anyone??

Lacking aggression!!

Is Armo that aggressive? If so, bring him into the senior side !!

snoopygirl · Post: # 547963Post **snoopygirl** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 6:19am

Yes, he is. Has just come back from a weeks suspension & is quite hard at the ball & any player in the vicinity of the ball.

meher baba · Post: # 547967Post **meher baba** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 7:08am

Iceman234 wrote:At the risk of being howled down because it's a Saint, I was seated near to the X incident and booâ€™d West and Umpire 21 quite severely at the time.

Having seen it several times since, I donâ€™t think West has a case to answer.

X should have had more awareness when the ball was not far from his left hand side, and if Bakes/Hamill had laid that bump we would all be pigeon chested about it.

I'm certainly not wanting to howl you down, but I feel a strong sense of culture shock come on when AFL people start talking in this way.

While I have been a Sainters fan all my life, I was born and raised in a rugby league/union area and mainly played soccer as a youngster.

In those codes, any sort of contact to the head of an opponent - whether intentional, reckless or simply careless - is a total no-no.

Sure, West was "going for the bump", but the fact of the matter is that his elbow went straight into X's head. It wasn't like the Gian-Kosi incident in 2006 when it was Gian's head that clashed with Kosi's. This was, to be blunt, a deliberate (or, if the aim was to contact X's shoulder, reckless) elbow to X's head when X was looking the other way.
In any other code of football, it would be seen as a cheap shot. In AFL, many see it somehow as being X's fault.

I think the culture of AFL is lagging a bit behind in this respect. I'm sure any medico would tell you that deliberate hits to the head are simply not on in any sport (including boxing, which should be banned IMO: particularly not least because it is a sport that throws up the likes of Mike Tyson, Barry Hall and Tony Abbott).

Mr Magic · Post: # 547983Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 9:23am

meher baba wrote:
Iceman234 wrote:At the risk of being howled down because it's a Saint, I was seated near to the X incident and booâ€™d West and Umpire 21 quite severely at the time.

Having seen it several times since, I donâ€™t think West has a case to answer.

X should have had more awareness when the ball was not far from his left hand side, and if Bakes/Hamill had laid that bump we would all be pigeon chested about it.
I'm certainly not wanting to howl you down, but I feel a strong sense of culture shock come on when AFL people start talking in this way.

While I have been a Sainters fan all my life, I was born and raised in a rugby league/union area and mainly played soccer as a youngster.

In those codes, any sort of contact to the head of an opponent - whether intentional, reckless or simply careless - is a total no-no.

Sure, West was "going for the bump", but the fact of the matter is that his elbow went straight into X's head. It wasn't like the Gian-Kosi incident in 2006 when it was Gian's head that clashed with Kosi's. This was, to be blunt, a deliberate (or, if the aim was to contact X's shoulder, reckless) elbow to X's head when X was looking the other way.
In any other code of football, it would be seen as a cheap shot. In AFL, many see it somehow as being X's fault.

I think the culture of AFL is lagging a bit behind in this respect. I'm sure any medico would tell you that deliberate hits to the head are simply not on in any sport (including boxing, which should be banned IMO: particularly not least because it is a sport that throws up the likes of Mike Tyson, Barry Hall and Tony Abbott).

MB, recently I haven't agreed with much of what you have posted but in this instance ! agree 100%.

The 'duty of care' must be with the person delivering the bump, not the unsuspecting player who gets hit.

How X can be held in any way responsible for being felled by an errant elbow 'off the ball' is mystifying to me.

rodgerfox · Post: # 547986Post **rodgerfox** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 9:33am

Simply put, X wasn't in the legal vicinity of the ball to be collected like that.

Whether or not the AFL has gone soft, what he did was against the rules. Simple.

Clearly X should have been aware of who was around him (well, perhaps he was and just didn't expect someone to pick him off?) but secondly he should have been chasing fu***ing harder!

Either chase the ball carrier with intent, or run to fill space, or get the **** off the ground.

bozza1980 · Post: # 548006Post **bozza1980** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 10:27am

rodgerfox wrote:Simply put, X wasn't in the legal vicinity of the ball to be collected like that.

Whether or not the AFL has gone soft, what he did was against the rules. Simple.

Clearly X should have been aware of who was around him (well, perhaps he was and just didn't expect someone to pick him off?) but secondly he should have been chasing fu***ing harder!

Either chase the ball carrier with intent, or run to fill space, or get the **** off the ground.

Rodger, I agree with most of your post.

Whether X should or should not of been more prepared for contact he was not within the legal vicinity for contact to be delivered.

What I want to know is, what was the umpire doing?? Whether it is reportable or not, it is a straight up and down free kick missed by the miserable men in yellow.

Mr Magic · Post: # 548024Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 10:57am

rodgerfox wrote:Simply put, X wasn't in the legal vicinity of the ball to be collected like that.

Whether or not the AFL has gone soft, what he did was against the rules. Simple.

Clearly X should have been aware of who was around him (well, perhaps he was and just didn't expect someone to pick him off?) but secondly he should have been chasing fu***ing harder!

Either chase the ball carrier with intent, or run to fill space, or get the **** off the ground.

I have just watched the incident on replay again (I taped it from foxtel) and the incident occurred as follows:-

A goal had been kicked, from the ball-up in the centre, we moved the ball forward to a contest.
Geelong player #8 (Hunt?) was awarded the free kick - he gave off a handpass and received a handpass back - X WAS STANDING ON THE MARK and West ran in and 'shepherded him out of the way.

How you can claim he had any fault in this has got me puzzled.

And, the Umpire who gave the decision (questionable in irtself) was standing in a direct line no more than 15 metres away from the 'hit'.

Ice Wolf · Post: # 548048Post **Ice Wolf** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 11:16am

bozza1980 wrote: Rodger, I agree with most of your post.

Whether X should or should not of been more prepared for contact he was not within the legal vicinity for contact to be delivered.

What I want to know is, what was the umpire doing?? Whether it is reportable or not, it is a straight up and down free kick missed by the miserable men in yellow.

The Umpire didn't want to give a free kick because it probably would have resulted in a St.Kilda goal and they just couldn't have that.

bozza1980 · Post: # 548300Post **bozza1980** » Mon 14 Apr 2008 4:31pm

Ice Wolf wrote:
bozza1980 wrote: Rodger, I agree with most of your post.

Whether X should or should not of been more prepared for contact he was not within the legal vicinity for contact to be delivered.

What I want to know is, what was the umpire doing?? Whether it is reportable or not, it is a straight up and down free kick missed by the miserable men in yellow.
The Umpire didn't want to give a free kick because it probably would have resulted in a St.Kilda goal and they just couldn't have that.

I made the same accusation more than once on Saturday.

How about when Roo was ridden from behind into the turf running into and open goal square. If that wasn't in the back, it is one of the most amazing tackles I've ever seen in my life.