Official confirmation from the AFL

[Iceman234]

Did you actually see the incident ICeman or are you relying on TV footage, because I saw it as clear as a bell and the ball was nowhere near X and he was blindside by the coward thug West.

But good on you protecting a thug and critisising the victim, must make you feel real superior.

Yeah I was probably closer thqn you Joffa.

At the time I thought it was rude and deserved a free.

On video about fifteen times now I see it as a fair dinkum tough crash hip and shoulder just as footy should be.

Protecting a thug? Whateva.

Superior? You sad man.

Two eyes in? Yep, that's me.

Mixed netball? Go back to it.

[joffaboy]

Did you actually see the incident ICeman or are you relying on TV footage, because I saw it as clear as a bell and the ball was nowhere near X and he was blindside by the coward thug West.

But good on you protecting a thug and critisising the victim, must make you feel real superior.

Yeah I was probably closer thqn you Joffa.

At the time I thought it was rude and deserved a free.

On video about fifteen times now I see it as a fair dinkum tough crash hip and shoulder just as footy should be.

Protecting a thug? Whateva.

Superior? You sad man.

Two eyes in? Yep, that's me.

Mixed netball? Go back to it.

Yes but did you see it?

You didn't answer that question, because it is patently obvious you are talking out of your arse if you didn't see the hit and the aftermath.

Peripheral vision - pfft what a load of crap.

The incident happened at least ten metres off the ball, and if you think that is brave football you really are a sad cabbage.

But thats fine, like arseholes everyone has an opinion.

Oh love the last bastion of the desperate - mixed netball

Do you want to see players off the ball getting hit to prove how tough football is, because you see I dont find that tough. I find Kosi diving head fist a Scarlett and smashing him in a contest when the game was lost tough.

But some people might get a thrill from seeing unprotected players stretchered off. Afraid i am not one of them.

[Saintschampions08]

Did you actually see the incident ICeman or are you relying on TV footage, because I saw it as clear as a bell and the ball was nowhere near X and he was blindside by the coward thug West.

But good on you protecting a thug and critisising the victim, must make you feel real superior.

Yeah I was probably closer thqn you Joffa.

At the time I thought it was rude and deserved a free.

On video about fifteen times now I see it as a fair dinkum tough crash hip and shoulder just as footy should be.

Protecting a thug? Whateva.

Superior? You sad man.

Two eyes in? Yep, that's me.

Mixed netball? Go back to it.

Yes but did you see it?

You didn't answer that question, because it is patently obvious you are talking out of your arse if you didn't see the hit and the aftermath.

Peripheral vision - pfft what a load of crap.

The incident happened at least ten metres off the ball, and if you think that is brave football you really are a sad cabbage.

But thats fine, like arseholes everyone has an opinion.

Oh love the last bastion of the desperate - mixed netball

Do you want to see players off the ball getting hit to prove how tough football is, because you see I dont find that tough. I find Kosi diving head fist a Scarlett and smashing him in a contest when the game was lost tough.

But some people might get a thrill from seeing unprotected players stretchered off. Afraid i am not one of them.

No one's arguing about whether its cowardly or not.

The ball was between 7-12 metres away from Clarke, and he got bumped just before the ball was kicked.

[Enrico_Misso]

X's eyes are on the play.

West's eyes are only on X.
Sees X is unaware of him.
And takes him out.

a) it is a cowardly gutless act against the spirit of fair play
b) the rules should outlaw this

Re a)
Would Robert Harvey do that to an opponent - answer is no.
Re b)
I thought the rules had been changed to protect players away from the ball - the Harvey/Hocking rule ?

[plugger66]

X's eyes are on the play.

West's eyes are only on X.
Sees X is unaware of him.
And takes him out.

a) it is a cowardly gutless act against the spirit of fair play
b) the rules should outlaw this

Re a)
Would Robert Harvey do that to an opponent - answer is no.
Re b)
I thought the rules had been changed to protect players away from the ball - the Harvey/Hocking rule ?

It is more the Kosi rule. This is nothing like the Hocking rule. He probably should have got a week or 2.

[Iceman234]

Did you actually see the incident ICeman or are you relying on TV footage, because I saw it as clear as a bell and the ball was nowhere near X and he was blindside by the coward thug West.

But good on you protecting a thug and critisising the victim, must make you feel real superior.

Yeah I was probably closer thqn you Joffa.

At the time I thought it was rude and deserved a free.

On video about fifteen times now I see it as a fair dinkum tough crash hip and shoulder just as footy should be.

Protecting a thug? Whateva.

Superior? You sad man.

Two eyes in? Yep, that's me.

Mixed netball? Go back to it.

Yes but did you see it?

You didn't answer that question, because it is patently obvious you are talking out of your arse if you didn't see the hit and the aftermath.

Peripheral vision - pfft what a load of crap.

The incident happened at least ten metres off the ball, and if you think that is brave football you really are a sad cabbage.

But thats fine, like arseholes everyone has an opinion.

Oh love the last bastion of the desperate - mixed netball

Do you want to see players off the ball getting hit to prove how tough football is, because you see I dont find that tough. I find Kosi diving head fist a Scarlett and smashing him in a contest when the game was lost tough.

But some people might get a thrill from seeing unprotected players stretchered off. Afraid i am not one of them.

Uh-oh the internet bully is after me.



Yes I saw it as did my mate beside me and we were initially livid at Umpire 21.

In fact all day after that we were livid at Umpire 21. So point 1 I’m not talking out of my arse.

Peripheral vision crap? Have you actually seen the incident rather than being there bravo’ing from Level 2 and making an emotive decision?

I’m not a sad cabbage. I have two eyes and have played Aussie Rules, something I don’t think you have actually done. I believe you moved here after being a NRL fan and player from memory.

Call me an arsehole again for my informed unblinkered decision and we’ll chat via PM. Say it to my face any day Joffa.

Last bastion of the desperate? You want to treat AFL like this, you deserve the mixed netball diatribe…

I do not like to see anyone carried off for unnecessary hits. But I immediately called Gia’s as being legit and I called this one too. Was I wrong? No.

[joffaboy]

Uh-oh the internet bully is after me.

What bizarre thing to say

Yes I saw it as did my mate beside me and we were initially livid at Umpire 21.

In fact all day after that we were livid at Umpire 21. So point 1 I’m not talking out of my arse.

Fair enough, I did say if. But why were you livid on the day but now think it is all X Clarkes fault?

A day later the hit wa still at least 10 metres from the ball and umpire 21 had still consoled West and did nothing to stopt the game.

Peripheral vision crap? Have you actually seen the incident rather than being there bravo’ing from Level 2 and making an emotive decision?

Yes it was emotive. I dont like seeing coward acts. I dont like seeing unprotected players poleaxed and an umpire 5 metres away do SFA about it.

Wow I must be an hysteric.

I’m not a sad cabbage. I have two eyes and have played Aussie Rules, something I don’t think you have actually done. I believe you moved here after being a NRL fan and player from memory.

Yes you are correct. I came from NSW, but i played for one of the oldest Aussie Rules clubs in the country - Sydney University (founded 1878 I think). Played for three season in my early twenties.

I had to learn about peripheral vision pretty quick after playing confrontational football like Union. I learnt that in Aussies Rules you can be hit from all sides.

So get your facts right.

Call me an arsehole again for my informed unblinkered decision and we’ll chat via PM. Say it to my face any day Joffa.

Learn to read I said opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one.

So before you attempt to win the argument with vieled threats of physical violence - read what I say before you go off half cocked

Last bastion of the desperate? You want to treat AFL like this, you deserve the mixed netball diatribe…

lol - yeah righto. I was wrong. West's action was oe of the bravest, most courageous thing ever done on a football field. Happy now

I do not like to see anyone carried off for unnecessary hits. But I immediately called Gia’s as being legit and I called this one too. Was I wrong? No.

No you were not wrong on the Gia hit, that was an accidental head clash withing 5 metres of the ball, really really bad luck. Same with Whelans hit on Ball, accidental clash of heads.

You are deadsey completely and utterly wrong on this one however, but I better retract before there is another vieled threat of beating me up again

[Mr Magic]

Iceman,
I am watching the repaly again and I am non-plussed as to how you are seeing what you are posting.

In slow motion I am watching the following:-

X gives a free kick to a Geelong player (#44). The ball is squirted out to Hunt as Geelong #44 and X both get up off the ground.

X stands on the mark.

Hunt gives the ball back to Geelong #44 as the umpire has not called 'advantage'. Dempster (I thnk it is him) is between Geelong #44 and Hunt. X is some 8-10 metres away on the mark. (If you calculate that a plsyer is aprox 2 metres tall, then X is 4-5 body lengths away from the player with the ball)

Geelong #44 walks back to take his kick, with his back to X (ie walking away from X standing on the mark).

Geelong #44 handballs to Hunt who runs off to his (Hunt's) left. X is now 15 to 20 metres away from the player with the ball (Hunt). The umpire is running next to Hunt and calls play on.

X is watching Hunt when West 'hits' him from 45 degree angle from behind on X's right. There is absolutely no way X could have seen him coming unless he turned his ghead away from teh player with the ball and he had no reason to do that.

Please tell me what I am missing or explain how
1. It is X's lack of peripheral vision that caused this
2. West did not lay an illegal 'block'/shepherd/bump/'hit' whatever you want to call it on an unsuspecting player who was well off the ball.

[Iceman234]

Sorry MM I was drafting a reply to joffaboy and then saw yours and lost the other one, and I'd typed so much to that ......aaaaugggghhhhhh

My point of view, and clearly that of the MRP, but not of some, is that it was a legal bump.

I reckon my assessment of the incident is clear, unless you have an in with the MRP/Tribunal that will bring the matter to the court situation.

To me on replay it was a clear good bump, and wish our players had the attitude to dish them out exactly that way.

[joffaboy]

Oh well it is over now - I disagree wholeheartedly with Iceman, but that wont change the idiotic ridiculous decision.

How much are we gunna thrash those Bomber pussies by boys???

[ratismeat]

I know X was a bit unaware and the whole incident was pretty borderline but we've got to be happy that clean, hard bumps are still in the game. If the ball had been a couple metres closer there'd be no discussion, if X had his head turned 45% more towards West again no discussion. Pretty hard to rub a bloke out for a borderline bump like that. All I hope is next time we see the Pussies we give them a couple clean ones back (and probably get 3-5 weeks for our trouble).

[Iceman234]

Oh well it is over now - I disagree wholeheartedly with Iceman, but that wont change the idiotic ridiculous decision.

How much are we gunna thrash those Bomber pussies by boys???

And I disagree wholeheartedly with Joffaboy.

And I say it's not a ridiculous decision because I have two eyes.....

[jill]

From the replay I saw & NOT the highlighted incident there is NO WAY X WAS IN/NEAR PLAY - he was just following play with eyes ONLY only ball - which was just what he should have been doing - West's hit cowardly/not in the course of play & reportable!
But it's ok - only Saints - they'll do/say nothing!

[Iceman234]

End result no matter how one eyed we are - no case to answer.

Build a bridge.

[Grimfang]

All I hope is next time we see the Pussies we give them a couple clean ones back (and probably get 3-5 weeks for our trouble).

Given our strike rate at the tribunal over recent years, that's a certainty.

[The_Dud]

i thought there was nothing much wrong with it, nothing more than a free kick (which would have been handy at the time)

[bozza1980]

End result no matter how one eyed we are - no case to answer.

Build a bridge.

I don't have an issue with it not being deemed reportable.

However I believe that it should have been a free kick for two reasons, one it was more than 10 metres from the ball and high contact was made.

[Dan Warna]

xavier is running towards the ball, another player stops and props and cleans xavier up, xavier is dropped and bloodied, all caught on video.

this reminds me of another event, exactly the same but no video evidence.

7 weeks, 4 weeks + 3 from previous points and suspended sentence.

baker must be scratching his head right now

[bozza1980]

xavier is running towards the ball, another player stops and props and cleans xavier up, xavier is dropped and bloodied, all caught on video.

this reminds me of another event, exactly the same but no video evidence.

7 weeks, 4 weeks + 3 from previous points and suspended sentence.

baker must be scratching his head right now

Unfortunately the fact there was no video footage of the Baker incident required an investigation by the AFL and allowed a Freo trainer to tell a rather fanciful tale that meant a report needed to be laid.

Once there's a tribunal case anything can happen.

I didn't think the X bump warranted a report but would understood had it been deemed reportable. I'm still shaking my head as to why it wasn't a free kick??

[borderbarry]

I also dont agree with you Iceman. X was moving slowly forward, looking to his left where the play was. He was making no move to get invovled in the play, so no shepherd was required. West took advantage and charged him. Simple.