I'd like to see what the MRP and Tribunal is howling and ranting at us about.
I'm pretty sure other sides have gotten away with worse crap against us in recent times.
Footage of the reports?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
saintly_safes
- Club Player
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat 26 Jul 2008 9:44pm
-
saintsareprettygoodhey
- Club Player
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Sun 21 Jun 2009 11:12am
-
kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
-
snoopygirl
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3589
- Joined: Tue 18 May 2004 11:56am
- Location: Cranbourne East
-
vacuous space
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
The second-last picture is a split second before contact and Symes still isn't looking at Dawson. He was definitely blindsided. You can also see in the first picture that Joey was clearly kicking the ball before Zac had committed to the contact. IMO it was a stupid, unnecessary hit. I don't know if it deserved weeks, but I don't like it.
It reminds me of the West hit on X. Obviously, there are differences. To me though, in both cases, there's no reason to do it. Neither West nor Dawson can make a case for protecting their teammate since neither one was under any pressure. It just comes off as thuggery, especially since both Dawson and West are considerably bigger than the guys they laid out.
It reminds me of the West hit on X. Obviously, there are differences. To me though, in both cases, there's no reason to do it. Neither West nor Dawson can make a case for protecting their teammate since neither one was under any pressure. It just comes off as thuggery, especially since both Dawson and West are considerably bigger than the guys they laid out.
Yeah nah pleasing positive
-
Dis Believer
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5097
- Joined: Sun 28 Mar 2004 1:42pm
- Location: The terraces at Moorabbin, in the pouring rain.......
- Has thanked: 286 times
- Been thanked: 279 times
Given that in the first frame Zac is about 2 metres from Symes, and travelling at 3/4 pace at least (6 metres per second if you're conservative) that means he had less than 1/3 of a second to change his mind and alter his momentum.
Try that yourself sometime - but make sure you're 6'5" and about 100kg's for a fair indication of what your expecting him to do.
And it doesn't state anywhere in the rules that a player has to be looking at you for you to bump him. Let's not all get carried away with slo-mo and frame by frame vision. Real life doesn't happen in slo-mo.
The umpire had called play on. The incident was almost right in front of me, and in real time both my brother and I thought it was a great bump and perfectly executed. Zac ran in from at least 7 metres away and accelerated as soon as the umpire called play on. Prior to that he wasn't committed. Once play on was called there was no way he could have pulled up or avoided contact. I would estimate that the time from play on being called to when Zac made xontact wass less than 1.5 seconds.
The intention in AFL is to legally hit the opponent hard, effect their mind and make them hesitate. Less than a few minutes later on the opposite flank a Crow took short steps in a contest. Perfect bump within the rules and acheieved the desired outcome.
Try that yourself sometime - but make sure you're 6'5" and about 100kg's for a fair indication of what your expecting him to do.
And it doesn't state anywhere in the rules that a player has to be looking at you for you to bump him. Let's not all get carried away with slo-mo and frame by frame vision. Real life doesn't happen in slo-mo.
The umpire had called play on. The incident was almost right in front of me, and in real time both my brother and I thought it was a great bump and perfectly executed. Zac ran in from at least 7 metres away and accelerated as soon as the umpire called play on. Prior to that he wasn't committed. Once play on was called there was no way he could have pulled up or avoided contact. I would estimate that the time from play on being called to when Zac made xontact wass less than 1.5 seconds.
The intention in AFL is to legally hit the opponent hard, effect their mind and make them hesitate. Less than a few minutes later on the opposite flank a Crow took short steps in a contest. Perfect bump within the rules and acheieved the desired outcome.
The heavy metal artist formerly known as True Believer!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
IF you look around the room and can't identify who the sucker is, then it's probably you!
-
perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9053
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 353 times
Before people get too sanctimonious about things, they might like to look at the tactics of the Geelong back six (especially two of them) in 2007 and the Hawthorn team last year. They used the same tactic for players on the mark time after time with no such penalty. And yet, when we step up to the plate in order to compete, we are punished. No-one has been able to describe what a free kick might have been for (which is why it wasn't paid) and the moment we start paying frees for "unduly rough play" then Pandora's box will be well and truly flung open. So we have the situation where a player gets two weeks for something which is not a free, while other players from other teams get off for forearms to the head which are reported at the time because " the action did not constitute an act forceful enough to warrant a report", the ultimate weasel rationalisation.
The MRP, and Tribunal for that matter, should not step in to introduce a ban on certain tactics. That's not their role. If the AFL wants to ban it, then they should introduce a rule.
The club should take it to Appeal. It may finish up costing us money if the Appeals body dismisses it and deems the appeal frivolous or it could increase the penalty. Both of these are extremely unlikely. We should consider calling the umpire. If he says there was no free, we're safe. If he says there should have been a free at least we, and the rest of the football world, will (or should) know what to expect.
No doubt, our resident Board AFL quisling will say that the AFL is always right and we are always wrong and we should accept anything that happens to us and just go and sit in the corner. I don't agree. We should stand up for many things in this world when "the powers that be" make bad decisions and football is no exception.
The MRP, and Tribunal for that matter, should not step in to introduce a ban on certain tactics. That's not their role. If the AFL wants to ban it, then they should introduce a rule.
The club should take it to Appeal. It may finish up costing us money if the Appeals body dismisses it and deems the appeal frivolous or it could increase the penalty. Both of these are extremely unlikely. We should consider calling the umpire. If he says there was no free, we're safe. If he says there should have been a free at least we, and the rest of the football world, will (or should) know what to expect.
No doubt, our resident Board AFL quisling will say that the AFL is always right and we are always wrong and we should accept anything that happens to us and just go and sit in the corner. I don't agree. We should stand up for many things in this world when "the powers that be" make bad decisions and football is no exception.
-
matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
maybe ballet is more your cuppa.vacuous space wrote:The second-last picture is a split second before contact and Symes still isn't looking at Dawson. He was definitely blindsided. You can also see in the first picture that Joey was clearly kicking the ball before Zac had committed to the contact. IMO it was a stupid, unnecessary hit. I don't know if it deserved weeks, but I don't like it.
It reminds me of the West hit on X. Obviously, there are differences. To me though, in both cases, there's no reason to do it. Neither West nor Dawson can make a case for protecting their teammate since neither one was under any pressure. It just comes off as thuggery, especially since both Dawson and West are considerably bigger than the guys they laid out.
unreal
yeah he didnt have to do it, so what?
its within 5 meters and its football, a contact sport.
absolute soft this game has been turned into.
-
Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6339
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1124 times
I don't want Zac to lose his aggression - 2 weeks is two weeks and I can cop that - but Zac - dont change your tough approach to protecting the ball carrier. Sitting people on their arse is all fun and games - but you are an integral part of a fantastic backline - you still have a lot to accomplish at St Kilda - a big strong shepherd would hae acheived the same result and you would be free to bully some dogs!
“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!
-
vacuous space
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
Is that the one with the bear in the cart?matrixcutter wrote:maybe ballet is more your cuppa.
Maybe I just like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMx4ystVT-s
...more than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbjiefgRt-g
Yeah nah pleasing positive
-
ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10783
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 830 times
Australian television has a frame rate of 25 per second.
So the time time between frames is 0.04 seconds.
So the time time between frames is 0.04 seconds.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10783
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 830 times
It is clearly in play because the Adelaide player is still trying to smother/ block the kick.
It is a legitimate bump the MRP and Tribunal are corrupt.
It is a legitimate bump the MRP and Tribunal are corrupt.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
bozza1980
- Club Player
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2005 3:42pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Since when has that mattered??vacuous space wrote:He was definitely blindsided.
Play on was called, he was making a play at the player with the ball, he is fair game.
I think they are very similar, yet the tribunal treated both differently.vacuous space wrote:It reminds me of the West hit on X. Obviously, there are differences.
So you can only lay heavy contact on blokes the same size as you??vacuous space wrote:It just comes off as thuggery, especially since both Dawson and West are considerably bigger than the guys they laid out.
-
vacuous space
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
The person before me said he wasn't blindsided. I thought he was, so I said so. It's not rocket surgery. If you read the thread, the context for the comment is clearly there.bozza1980 wrote:Since when has [being blindsided] mattered??
I don't think I said that either. I said I thought it was a thuggish hit and that the respective size of the players made it particularly thuggish.So you can only lay heavy contact on blokes the same size as you??
I didn't say he should have been suspended either. I said he shouldn't have done it.
Yeah nah pleasing positive
-
kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
-
ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10783
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 830 times
Then show us them all.kosifantutti23 wrote:These are not consecutive frames from an Australian TV broadcast.ace wrote:Australian television has a frame rate of 25 per second.
So the time time between frames is 0.04 seconds.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
-
realdeal
- Club Player
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Tue 30 Mar 2004 5:44pm
- Has thanked: 93 times
- Been thanked: 117 times
It wasn't even paid a free kick.
Since when does the player have to be 'ready' for contact? He was within 5m of the ball carrier/kicker. the ump had called play-on. He wa free to be dumped surely....? it was a perfect bump. If he got him high etc then thats a differnt story tho.
Just like the whole 'running past the ball' to bump, if its a fair bump you can do it anytime, there is no rule stating you HAVE to pick up the ball.. geez, its frustrating someimes.
I really would've liked to have heard a stronger comment by saints officials after the tribunal too. We have been screwed by them far to many times in recent years.
Since when does the player have to be 'ready' for contact? He was within 5m of the ball carrier/kicker. the ump had called play-on. He wa free to be dumped surely....? it was a perfect bump. If he got him high etc then thats a differnt story tho.
Just like the whole 'running past the ball' to bump, if its a fair bump you can do it anytime, there is no rule stating you HAVE to pick up the ball.. geez, its frustrating someimes.
I really would've liked to have heard a stronger comment by saints officials after the tribunal too. We have been screwed by them far to many times in recent years.