ZAC VERDICT !!

[Solar]

So your stance now plunger is that there is a polite period of grace after the whistle is blown, during which our boys should not bump the opposition so as not to cause them any nasty bruises ???

The whistle goes and it is on, 1 second or 10 seconds, it is not relevant. Once the whistle is blown, expect contact. And you also seem to be implying that our boys should exercise restraint and hold back on the intensity, again to avoid bruising the delicate little flowers on the opposition.

The only issue I have with this, is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and one of our blokes got a great bump like that, that you would be taking the stance that "it's a fair bump and we need to harden up and simply move on". Do you actually support St Kilda and follow aussie rules? That was one of the best bumps this year by one of our guys and it is a disgraceful decision, particularly given the outcomes of other cases thus far this year for things like punchung and head-butting, which are clearly outside the rules!!

agree totally with this.... If it's a fair bump and during play then it's play on. Plugger66 the umpire, saw it, called play on. The player was not on the mark as there was no mark anymore. Thats the facts.... the decision was bulls*** and goes against all we ever have been taught about how to play the game.....

So you are happy if Rooy is minding his own business on the mark and half a second after play on is called he is taken out. A team gets away with that so the next week a team takes out 2 of our players. I played footy for 15 years but I was never taught to take out a player as soon as play on was called.

was the bump fair, no elbow or hit to the head? If so then yes!

So from now on you have to wait 3 seconds... c'mon boys count to three before you run and bump and create spce for your team mates. I hope those with the ball get three seconds "to be ready" for a tackle or bump. I have rarely seen a player get badly hurt from a legal bump, seen heaps get hurt badly from elbows and even more knees go in tackles....

So in all seriosness, did zac have to wait for the crows player to sprint forward 10 metres before he bumped him fairly? Whats a reasonable amount of time to give a player once the umpire calls play on.

Funny thing is that if he blocked the crows player he would have given away a free, we would have all cried "stupid thing to do". He does the right thing, lands a very good bump that is legal, no free kick, creates time for his team mate... and gets more weeks then punches and head butts.....

nah keep digging yourself a nice big hole

[Mr Magic]

So your stance now plunger is that there is a polite period of grace after the whistle is blown, during which our boys should not bump the opposition so as not to cause them any nasty bruises ???

The whistle goes and it is on, 1 second or 10 seconds, it is not relevant. Once the whistle is blown, expect contact. And you also seem to be implying that our boys should exercise restraint and hold back on the intensity, again to avoid bruising the delicate little flowers on the opposition.

The only issue I have with this, is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and one of our blokes got a great bump like that, that you would be taking the stance that "it's a fair bump and we need to harden up and simply move on". Do you actually support St Kilda and follow aussie rules? That was one of the best bumps this year by one of our guys and it is a disgraceful decision, particularly given the outcomes of other cases thus far this year for things like punchung and head-butting, which are clearly outside the rules!!

agree totally with this.... If it's a fair bump and during play then it's play on. Plugger66 the umpire, saw it, called play on. The player was not on the mark as there was no mark anymore. Thats the facts.... the decision was bulls*** and goes against all we ever have been taught about how to play the game.....

So you are happy if Rooy is minding his own business on the mark and half a second after play on is called he is taken out. A team gets away with that so the next week a team takes out 2 of our players. I played footy for 15 years but I was never taught to take out a player as soon as play on was called.

What about if he has a free kick, the umpire calls play-on and a player standing 2 metres behind him tackles him into the ground from behind, knocking him out. Is that fair and reasonable?
Should he be expecting to be tackled from behind when he has a free kick?

[plugger66]

But the point is Symes was injured. If he got straight up nothing would have happened. Can you at least see if you were allowed to take players on the mark out every game that it would happen far to often. And yes I know they had called play on but the player had less than a second to prepare for a hit that you would expect as he wasnt even making an effort to get near Joey.

Interesting Symes was injured huh.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/ ... 42,00.html

Well according to the injury update as of 21st of July, he is not on the list.

Want to make anything else up?

Why don't you just do as all a favour and f*** off. ( could not care less if i get a red card suspension whatever)

Your nothing but a troll who tries to promote this vision of us being losers because of our attitude.

I am just playing into your hands with this but you know what I couldn't give a rats toss bag.

mic

Unless I am kicked off i will say what I like. if you dont like it dont read it. Did i say anyone was a loser because they have a different opinion but if the cap fits. As for the injury before you make comments make sure you know all the facts because otherwise the cap might get tighter. If a troll is a supporter who loves the club but doesnt automatically say everything that happens to us is unfair then yes I am a troll. Anyway Bigmicka have a lovely day.

[Sunday Red]

Any word on whether the club has appealed the decision?

[plugger66]

So your stance now plunger is that there is a polite period of grace after the whistle is blown, during which our boys should not bump the opposition so as not to cause them any nasty bruises ???

The whistle goes and it is on, 1 second or 10 seconds, it is not relevant. Once the whistle is blown, expect contact. And you also seem to be implying that our boys should exercise restraint and hold back on the intensity, again to avoid bruising the delicate little flowers on the opposition.

The only issue I have with this, is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and one of our blokes got a great bump like that, that you would be taking the stance that "it's a fair bump and we need to harden up and simply move on". Do you actually support St Kilda and follow aussie rules? That was one of the best bumps this year by one of our guys and it is a disgraceful decision, particularly given the outcomes of other cases thus far this year for things like punchung and head-butting, which are clearly outside the rules!!

agree totally with this.... If it's a fair bump and during play then it's play on. Plugger66 the umpire, saw it, called play on. The player was not on the mark as there was no mark anymore. Thats the facts.... the decision was bulls*** and goes against all we ever have been taught about how to play the game.....

So you are happy if Rooy is minding his own business on the mark and half a second after play on is called he is taken out. A team gets away with that so the next week a team takes out 2 of our players. I played footy for 15 years but I was never taught to take out a player as soon as play on was called.

was the bump fair, no elbow or hit to the head? If so then yes!

So from now on you have to wait 3 seconds... c'mon boys count to three before you run and bump and create spce for your team mates. I hope those with the ball get three seconds "to be ready" for a tackle or bump. I have rarely seen a player get badly hurt from a legal bump, seen heaps get hurt badly from elbows and even more knees go in tackles....

So in all seriosness, did zac have to wait for the crows player to sprint forward 10 metres before he bumped him fairly? Whats a reasonable amount of time to give a player once the umpire calls play on.

Funny thing is that if he blocked the crows player he would have given away a free, we would have all cried "stupid thing to do". He does the right thing, lands a very good bump that is legal, no free kick, creates time for his team mate... and gets more weeks then punches and head butts.....

nah keep digging yourself a nice big hole

See Solar you may not understand but I am not digging myself into a hole because the tribunal agrees with me or i agree with them. You are the one that has jumped in the hole because the tribunal disagrees with you. Everyone just ignoring that they would be going through the roof if the same thing happened to our players. Clubs could do it weekly. that would be good for us and the game.

[markp]

The guy still had his arms in the air ffs.... he was in no way about to contest for the ball, was blindsided, and hit with a high degree of force.

Past and unrelated incidents do not come into it.

[saintsrus]

Any word on whether the club has appealed the decision?

I doubt it

St Kilda football manager Greg Hutchison said the club would have to wear the decision to challenge the charge and take the extra week’s penalty.

“We are obviously disappointed with the result but we have to live by it and move on,â€

[degruch]

Everyone just ignoring that they would be going through the roof if the same thing happened to our players. Clubs could do it weekly. that would be good for us and the game.

I remember thinking Kosi was a bit unlucky when Gia fractured his skull, but that was it. I feel very differently about this crap decision.

Have not seen any news re: challenge yet.

[Solar]

So your stance now plunger is that there is a polite period of grace after the whistle is blown, during which our boys should not bump the opposition so as not to cause them any nasty bruises ???

The whistle goes and it is on, 1 second or 10 seconds, it is not relevant. Once the whistle is blown, expect contact. And you also seem to be implying that our boys should exercise restraint and hold back on the intensity, again to avoid bruising the delicate little flowers on the opposition.

The only issue I have with this, is that if the shoe were on the other foot, and one of our blokes got a great bump like that, that you would be taking the stance that "it's a fair bump and we need to harden up and simply move on". Do you actually support St Kilda and follow aussie rules? That was one of the best bumps this year by one of our guys and it is a disgraceful decision, particularly given the outcomes of other cases thus far this year for things like punchung and head-butting, which are clearly outside the rules!!

agree totally with this.... If it's a fair bump and during play then it's play on. Plugger66 the umpire, saw it, called play on. The player was not on the mark as there was no mark anymore. Thats the facts.... the decision was bulls*** and goes against all we ever have been taught about how to play the game.....

So you are happy if Rooy is minding his own business on the mark and half a second after play on is called he is taken out. A team gets away with that so the next week a team takes out 2 of our players. I played footy for 15 years but I was never taught to take out a player as soon as play on was called.

was the bump fair, no elbow or hit to the head? If so then yes!

So from now on you have to wait 3 seconds... c'mon boys count to three before you run and bump and create spce for your team mates. I hope those with the ball get three seconds "to be ready" for a tackle or bump. I have rarely seen a player get badly hurt from a legal bump, seen heaps get hurt badly from elbows and even more knees go in tackles....

So in all seriosness, did zac have to wait for the crows player to sprint forward 10 metres before he bumped him fairly? Whats a reasonable amount of time to give a player once the umpire calls play on.

Funny thing is that if he blocked the crows player he would have given away a free, we would have all cried "stupid thing to do". He does the right thing, lands a very good bump that is legal, no free kick, creates time for his team mate... and gets more weeks then punches and head butts.....

nah keep digging yourself a nice big hole

See Solar you may not understand but I am not digging myself into a hole because the tribunal agrees with me or i agree with them. You are the one that has jumped in the hole because the tribunal disagrees with you. Everyone just ignoring that they would be going through the roof if the same thing happened to our players. Clubs could do it weekly. that would be good for us and the game.

please just answer me ONE thing and I will stop

just a ye or no

Over the past 100+ years has the rules of Australian Fooball allowed a player, when the ball is in play and within 10 metres, is allowed to bump an oppoisition player. They may not drag him down, hit him over the shoulder or head. If it is a legal bump, then the umpire shall call play on. If this legal bump is done with the ball further away a free kick is to be payed.

I do have this right? Otherwise I havebeen watching the wrong sport for the past 27 years......

[plugger66]

Everyone just ignoring that they would be going through the roof if the same thing happened to our players. Clubs could do it weekly. that would be good for us and the game.

I remember thinking Kosi was a bit unlucky when Gia fractured his skull, but that was it. I feel very differently about this crap decision.

Have not seen any news re: challenge yet.

I doubt they will challenge. At the time the Kosi incident was legal but Gia would be stuffed now and so he should be. Kosi was basically just running with the other Doggies player but was never trying to catch him.

[degruch]

Everyone just ignoring that they would be going through the roof if the same thing happened to our players. Clubs could do it weekly. that would be good for us and the game.

I remember thinking Kosi was a bit unlucky when Gia fractured his skull, but that was it. I feel very differently about this crap decision.

Have not seen any news re: challenge yet.

I doubt they will challenge. At the time the Kosi incident was legal but Gia would be stuffed now and so he should be. Kosi was basically just running with the other Doggies player but was never trying to catch him.

Stuffed? Like Nick Maxwell pre-season?

[Solar]

The guy still had his arms in the air ffs.... he was in no way about to contest for the ball, was blindsided, and hit with a high degree of force.

Past and unrelated incidents do not come into it.

was the bump legal? Was the bump done within 10 metres of the ball? Had the umpire called play on?

You can bump and tackle (as long as it's legal, below the shoulders and not tackled without the ball) if the ball is within 10 metres and the umpire has called play on. thats the beauty of this sport, sometimes you can be blindsided. Otherwise players will need to have to shout "coming" before they go to bump, heaven forbid a player doesn't see him or not braces himself.

Thats why running with th flight of the ball is so gutsy, thats why our sport is the toughest in the world. Rugby and other sports, you have them coming from ONE direction, in ours it can come from anywhere....

go figure.....

[plugger66]

Everyone just ignoring that they would be going through the roof if the same thing happened to our players. Clubs could do it weekly. that would be good for us and the game.

I remember thinking Kosi was a bit unlucky when Gia fractured his skull, but that was it. I feel very differently about this crap decision.

Have not seen any news re: challenge yet.

I doubt they will challenge. At the time the Kosi incident was legal but Gia would be stuffed now and so he should be. Kosi was basically just running with the other Doggies player but was never trying to catch him.

Stuffed? Like Nick Maxwell pre-season?

No like Nick Maxwell about round 5.

[Solar]

Everyone just ignoring that they would be going through the roof if the same thing happened to our players. Clubs could do it weekly. that would be good for us and the game.

I remember thinking Kosi was a bit unlucky when Gia fractured his skull, but that was it. I feel very differently about this crap decision.

Have not seen any news re: challenge yet.

I doubt they will challenge. At the time the Kosi incident was legal but Gia would be stuffed now and so he should be. Kosi was basically just running with the other Doggies player but was never trying to catch him.

The gia one is different because the bump was illegal, it was high. This wasn't. End of story....

[kosifantutti23]

[If Zac was found not guilty and the exact same thing happened to Rooy this week what would you say. My guess is you would be wanting blood as I certainly would.

Like when Rooey had a broken shoulder and two Brisbane players hit him from behind???

Apparently that type of action was good for the game and not "rough conduct", because after all the player they were bumping only had a broken shoulder.

Hey but that was Ok. How many weeks did Michael and Scott get for that again???

The rules have changed since the Brisbane incident and it is now a reportable offence. Just like the rules changed since the Clarke / West incident.

Zac took a cheap shot at a player who was not contesting the ball. Was the ball 5m away? It doesn't matter.

When determining whether or not the conduct was unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not limited, to whether the player is not, or would not reasonably be, expected to influence the contest.

Symes was not influencing the contest.



The MRP applied the appropriate parameters and he was offered one week on an early plea. He was never going to get off at the tribunal, I don't know why they went to the tribunal on this one and not the King one which was a joke.

The thing that has got both King and Dawson in is that "Rough Conduct" is seen as a worse crime than striking. Both Zac and Kosi were charged with level 2 offences but Zac was given 225 points and Kosi given 125 points. But this is a rule and not something you can challenge at the tribunal.

But guys, don't let me stop you arguing on the vibe of the thing, because that would get us a long way at an appeal.

[degruch]

Everyone just ignoring that they would be going through the roof if the same thing happened to our players. Clubs could do it weekly. that would be good for us and the game.

I remember thinking Kosi was a bit unlucky when Gia fractured his skull, but that was it. I feel very differently about this crap decision.

Have not seen any news re: challenge yet.

I doubt they will challenge. At the time the Kosi incident was legal but Gia would be stuffed now and so he should be. Kosi was basically just running with the other Doggies player but was never trying to catch him.

The gia one is different because the bump was illegal, it was high. This wasn't. End of story....

Was legal at the time. So was Zac's block. If they clearly made his action illegal (no Plugger, the tribunal finding was anything but clear), I'd be happier with the decision.

[Solar]

thats a great shot... only problem was that th umpire whistled 1 second before hand, zac went in to make the bump and so was in no way expected to know if joey was gong to kick the ball or not. The crows player was in the area, zac did what his coaches have drummed into him. Protect the ball carrier. It's alot to expect him to predict the future. It's a fair bump, espcially in the age of frontal pessure.

[kosifantutti23]

thats a great shot... only problem was that th umpire whistled 1 second before hand, zac went in to make the bump and so was in no way expected to know if joey was gong to kick the ball or not. The crows player was in the area, zac did what his coaches have drummed into him. Protect the ball carrier. It's alot to expect him to predict the future. It's a fair bump, espcially in the age of frontal pessure.

Are we looking at the same picture? There is no ball carrier.

[joffaboy]

[If Zac was found not guilty and the exact same thing happened to Rooy this week what would you say. My guess is you would be wanting blood as I certainly would.

Like when Rooey had a broken shoulder and two Brisbane players hit him from behind???

Apparently that type of action was good for the game and not "rough conduct", because after all the player they were bumping only had a broken shoulder.

Hey but that was Ok. How many weeks did Michael and Scott get for that again???

The rules have changed since the Brisbane incident and it is now a reportable offence. Just like the rules changed since the Clarke / West incident.

Zac took a cheap shot at a player who was not contesting the ball. Was the ball 5m away? It doesn't matter.

When determining whether or not the conduct was unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not limited, to whether the player is not, or would not reasonably be, expected to influence the contest.

Symes was not influencing the contest.



The MRP applied the appropriate parameters and he was offered one week on an early plea. He was never going to get off at the tribunal, I don't know why they went to the tribunal on this one and not the King one which was a joke.

The thing that has got both King and Dawson in is that "Rough Conduct" is seen as a worse crime than striking. Both Zac and Kosi were charged with level 2 offences but Zac was given 225 points and Kosi given 125 points. But this is a rule and not something you can challenge at the tribunal.

But guys, don't let me stop you arguing on the vibe of the thing, because that would get us a long way at an appeal.

So under the "rule" of rough conduct why wasn't the perfectly legal action of Fevola kneeing Richards in the back deemed to be so?

Cant anything be deemed as "rough conduct" by the way the rule has been written.

"Rough Conduct" is ambigious and not specific. It is open to interpretation and that is what the problem with the rule is.

Look I have no problem with Zac getting rubbed out, however under the Rough conduct rule the MRP can pick and choose any action.

Under the rule Fevola could by cited for doing what FF's have done for 100 years, putting their knees into the back of a defender.

And it would be able to be argued that his action fell under the rule - because that is the way it is written.

This "liberal" application of the coverall "rough conduct" can be seen to be corrupted and open to unfair bias.

What the AFL need to do is to fix these arcane and ambigious coverall rules and put certainty into the rules.

[markp]

The guy still had his arms in the air ffs.... he was in no way about to contest for the ball, was blindsided, and hit with a high degree of force.

Past and unrelated incidents do not come into it.

was the bump legal? Was the bump done within 10 metres of the ball? Had the umpire called play on?

You can bump and tackle (as long as it's legal, below the shoulders and not tackled without the ball) if the ball is within 10 metres and the umpire has called play on. thats the beauty of this sport, sometimes you can be blindsided. Otherwise players will need to have to shout "coming" before they go to bump, heaven forbid a player doesn't see him or not braces himself.

Thats why running with th flight of the ball is so gutsy, thats why our sport is the toughest in the world. Rugby and other sports, you have them coming from ONE direction, in ours it can come from anywhere....

go figure.....

Within 10 meters?.... overhead and heading away from him?

So a player standing on the goal line can be taken out as the ball sails overhead if the other player times it right?

Look at it again and imagine the jumpers reversed.

[joffaboy]

thats a great shot... only problem was that th umpire whistled 1 second before hand, zac went in to make the bump and so was in no way expected to know if joey was gong to kick the ball or not. The crows player was in the area, zac did what his coaches have drummed into him. Protect the ball carrier. It's alot to expect him to predict the future. It's a fair bump, espcially in the age of frontal pessure.

Are we looking at the same picture? There is no ball carrier.

stop being obtuse.

when play on was called Montagna was the ball carrier. You shot shows that the ball was well within 5 metres.

But then again we have the knee jerk "rough conduct' to protect everyone

[Dis Believer]

Symes was not influencing the contest.

Off course he was influencing the constest - don't confuse that with laying a tackle. He was standing the mark until the umpire called play on. he was then the closest opposition player and the Crow "responsible" at that time for Montagna. He was watching Montagna and limiting his ability to run and carry and therefore forcing, by his own presence, Montagna to dispose of the ball. Had Joey not disposed of the ball rapidly enough, Symes was the player that would have tackled him.

Still think he wasn't influencing the play? If he wasn't influencing the play Joey could have ambled off up the ground in his own good time with the ball tucked under his arm.

[bozza1980]

So a player standing on the goal line can be taken out as the ball sails overhead if the other player times it right?

As I understood the laws of the game, yes they could.

However, I may not understand the rules as well as I thought.

I mistakenly thought when Xavier Clarke was cleaned up 30m off the ball last year, and needed a stretcher to leave the ground, that the MRP decided that he should have expected contact.

Very similar incident very different outcome.

[Solar]

The guy still had his arms in the air ffs.... he was in no way about to contest for the ball, was blindsided, and hit with a high degree of force.

Past and unrelated incidents do not come into it.

was the bump legal? Was the bump done within 10 metres of the ball? Had the umpire called play on?

You can bump and tackle (as long as it's legal, below the shoulders and not tackled without the ball) if the ball is within 10 metres and the umpire has called play on. thats the beauty of this sport, sometimes you can be blindsided. Otherwise players will need to have to shout "coming" before they go to bump, heaven forbid a player doesn't see him or not braces himself.

Thats why running with th flight of the ball is so gutsy, thats why our sport is the toughest in the world. Rugby and other sports, you have them coming from ONE direction, in ours it can come from anywhere....

go figure.....

Within 10 meters?.... overhead and heading away from him?

So a player standing on the goal line can be taken out as the ball sails overhead if the other player times it right?

Look at it again and imagine the jumpers reversed.

you know what, that is a great example.... full forwards shepard balls over the line every day of the week....

as has already been said, when the whistle went joey had the ball, he is the ball carrier. You saw it on sunday, frontal pressure can cause turnovers. So zac charged in to put on the block, to make sure that joey can get the ball out of there. When the whistle wentand zac made his move joey had not kicked the ball, the ball is in the area. If it's not then it's a free kick. umpire called play on.....

S what your all saying is that you can't bump a player until they are on their way to tackle the player. you know what, in high speed sport you don't get 3-4 seconds to judge this, ask a guy over coffee what his intentions are. You bump the guy, gain your team mate some space and if it's scarlett stick it up him.....

Whatever way you want to paint it, it's in play, fair bump. Remind me, how long did the crows player stay off the ground? If a player was suspended for a legal tackle/bump every time the opposition cried "I'm sore" then 30 players from the cats saints game wouldn't have played the following week....

[markp]

So under the "rule" of rough conduct why wasn't the perfectly legal action of Fevola kneeing Richards in the back deemed to be so?

Cant anything be deemed as "rough conduct" by the way the rule has been written.

"Rough Conduct" is ambigious and not specific. It is open to interpretation and that is what the problem with the rule is.

Look I have no problem with Zac getting rubbed out, however under the Rough conduct rule the MRP can pick and choose any action.

Under the rule Fevola could by cited for doing what FF's have done for 100 years, putting their knees into the back of a defender.

And it would be able to be argued that his action fell under the rule - because that is the way it is written.

This "liberal" application of the coverall "rough conduct" can be seen to be corrupted and open to unfair bias.

What the AFL need to do is to fix these arcane and ambigious coverall rules and put certainty into the rules.

Why would they want to remove the ambiguity they intentionally built in?

It's not a court of law, it's the AFL tribunal.

The power of interpretation they have given themselves can be used for good or evil (Barry Hall).... But I think this is the right decision, although 1 week would've been a fairer result.