All happened in about 0.003 seconds, how could there have been intent? Both going for the ball, nothing in it.ace wrote:Davis's original intent was to contest the mark but when he realised he wasn't going to make it he took his eyes off the ball, curled up and went for the bump.
His shoulder clearly hit Fisher in the head concussing him.
But no doubt, seeing that he is a Collingwood player and Collingwood is responsible for the largest gates and TV viewing audiences, the match review panel will rule it as only minor impact and thus not reportable.
The 'Bump' on Fisher
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Just defending a contest. Do you get a sore neck at every game looking behind you. Why isnt it a free to Davis because for the same reason it wasnt to Fisher. Both going for the ball and clashed heads. Fisher came off worse. Who should have got the free when Goose and that Richmond player hit heads a few years ago. No one. An accident.ace wrote:Davis's original intent was to contest the mark but when he realised he wasn't going to make it he took his eyes off the ball, curled up and went for the bump.
His shoulder clearly hit Fisher in the head concussing him.
But no doubt, seeing that he is a Collingwood player and Collingwood is responsible for the largest gates and TV viewing audiences, the match review panel will rule it as only minor impact and thus not reportable.
Head high contact however caused has always a free kick in the AFL but then Plugger needs to defend his umpires incompetence with his own.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12792
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 802 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Clashed heads?plugger66 wrote:Just defending a contest. Do you get a sore neck at every game looking behind you. Why isnt it a free to Davis because for the same reason it wasnt to Fisher. Both going for the ball and clashed heads. Fisher came off worse. Who should have got the free when Goose and that Richmond player hit heads a few years ago. No one. An accident.ace wrote:Davis's original intent was to contest the mark but when he realised he wasn't going to make it he took his eyes off the ball, curled up and went for the bump.
His shoulder clearly hit Fisher in the head concussing him.
But no doubt, seeing that he is a Collingwood player and Collingwood is responsible for the largest gates and TV viewing audiences, the match review panel will rule it as only minor impact and thus not reportable.
Head high contact however caused has always a free kick in the AFL but then Plugger needs to defend his umpires incompetence with his own.
I obviously need a new television set.
Mine clearly shows Davis shoulder contacting Fisher's head.
and plugger, you might consider changing 'the sore neck' line - I think it's gone past its use-by date.
Well shoulder then. They both went for a contest. No free. I will give up on the sore neck the very day you dont think the world is against us and you actually watch things through 2 eyes. It is amazing what you can see with both.Mr Magic wrote:Clashed heads?plugger66 wrote:Just defending a contest. Do you get a sore neck at every game looking behind you. Why isnt it a free to Davis because for the same reason it wasnt to Fisher. Both going for the ball and clashed heads. Fisher came off worse. Who should have got the free when Goose and that Richmond player hit heads a few years ago. No one. An accident.ace wrote:Davis's original intent was to contest the mark but when he realised he wasn't going to make it he took his eyes off the ball, curled up and went for the bump.
His shoulder clearly hit Fisher in the head concussing him.
But no doubt, seeing that he is a Collingwood player and Collingwood is responsible for the largest gates and TV viewing audiences, the match review panel will rule it as only minor impact and thus not reportable.
Head high contact however caused has always a free kick in the AFL but then Plugger needs to defend his umpires incompetence with his own.
I obviously need a new television set.
Mine clearly shows Davis shoulder contacting Fisher's head.
and plugger, you might consider changing 'the sore neck' line - I think it's gone past its use-by date.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12792
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 802 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
Given that I only asked the question if it was a free kick and didn't make a statement about it, I'm not sure what you're on about today?plugger66 wrote:Well shoulder then. They both went for a contest. No free. I will give up on the sore neck the very day you dont think the world is against us and you actually watch things through 2 eyes. It is amazing what you can see with both.Mr Magic wrote:Clashed heads?plugger66 wrote:Just defending a contest. Do you get a sore neck at every game looking behind you. Why isnt it a free to Davis because for the same reason it wasnt to Fisher. Both going for the ball and clashed heads. Fisher came off worse. Who should have got the free when Goose and that Richmond player hit heads a few years ago. No one. An accident.ace wrote:Davis's original intent was to contest the mark but when he realised he wasn't going to make it he took his eyes off the ball, curled up and went for the bump.
His shoulder clearly hit Fisher in the head concussing him.
But no doubt, seeing that he is a Collingwood player and Collingwood is responsible for the largest gates and TV viewing audiences, the match review panel will rule it as only minor impact and thus not reportable.
Head high contact however caused has always a free kick in the AFL but then Plugger needs to defend his umpires incompetence with his own.
I obviously need a new television set.
Mine clearly shows Davis shoulder contacting Fisher's head.
and plugger, you might consider changing 'the sore neck' line - I think it's gone past its use-by date.
Too much cover-up work for you for the AFL after last night.
Can you let us in on the timetable for the Malthouse sledge whitewash?
And if it's only an incident of accidental contact with them both going for a contest, can you please explain to me why free kicks are paid for accidental pushes in the back in a marking contest?
Are they simply 'just a mistake'?
I really cant be bothered if you honestly think there should be a free for that then you shouldnt watch footy. Actually maybe you watch the game through no eyes.Mr Magic wrote:Given that I only asked the question if it was a free kick and didn't make a statement about it, I'm not sure what you're on about today?plugger66 wrote:Well shoulder then. They both went for a contest. No free. I will give up on the sore neck the very day you dont think the world is against us and you actually watch things through 2 eyes. It is amazing what you can see with both.Mr Magic wrote:Clashed heads?plugger66 wrote:Just defending a contest. Do you get a sore neck at every game looking behind you. Why isnt it a free to Davis because for the same reason it wasnt to Fisher. Both going for the ball and clashed heads. Fisher came off worse. Who should have got the free when Goose and that Richmond player hit heads a few years ago. No one. An accident.ace wrote:Davis's original intent was to contest the mark but when he realised he wasn't going to make it he took his eyes off the ball, curled up and went for the bump.
His shoulder clearly hit Fisher in the head concussing him.
But no doubt, seeing that he is a Collingwood player and Collingwood is responsible for the largest gates and TV viewing audiences, the match review panel will rule it as only minor impact and thus not reportable.
Head high contact however caused has always a free kick in the AFL but then Plugger needs to defend his umpires incompetence with his own.
I obviously need a new television set.
Mine clearly shows Davis shoulder contacting Fisher's head.
and plugger, you might consider changing 'the sore neck' line - I think it's gone past its use-by date.
Too much cover-up work for you for the AFL after last night.
Can you let us in on the timetable for the Malthouse sledge whitewash?
And if it's only an incident of accidental contact with them both going for a contest, can you please explain to me why free kicks are paid for accidental pushes in the back in a marking contest?
Are they simply 'just a mistake'?
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10774
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 827 times
The frame rate on Australian television broadcast is 25 frames per second.degruch wrote:All happened in about 0.003 seconds, how could there have been intent? Both going for the ball, nothing in it.ace wrote:Davis's original intent was to contest the mark but when he realised he wasn't going to make it he took his eyes off the ball, curled up and went for the bump.
His shoulder clearly hit Fisher in the head concussing him.
But no doubt, seeing that he is a Collingwood player and Collingwood is responsible for the largest gates and TV viewing audiences, the match review panel will rule it as only minor impact and thus not reportable.
That means that each frame is 0.04 seconds apart.
You might like to take your millisecond time piece in for repair.
Last edited by ace on Sat 10 Apr 2010 3:32pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 10774
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 827 times
Maybe you should try looking with one eye Plugger then you wont be as embarrassed as you must be for looking with none.plugger66 wrote:Well shoulder then. They both went for a contest. No free. I will give up on the sore neck the very day you dont think the world is against us and you actually watch things through 2 eyes. It is amazing what you can see with both.Mr Magic wrote:Clashed heads?plugger66 wrote:Just defending a contest. Do you get a sore neck at every game looking behind you. Why isnt it a free to Davis because for the same reason it wasnt to Fisher. Both going for the ball and clashed heads. Fisher came off worse. Who should have got the free when Goose and that Richmond player hit heads a few years ago. No one. An accident.ace wrote:Davis's original intent was to contest the mark but when he realised he wasn't going to make it he took his eyes off the ball, curled up and went for the bump.
His shoulder clearly hit Fisher in the head concussing him.
But no doubt, seeing that he is a Collingwood player and Collingwood is responsible for the largest gates and TV viewing audiences, the match review panel will rule it as only minor impact and thus not reportable.
Head high contact however caused has always a free kick in the AFL but then Plugger needs to defend his umpires incompetence with his own.
I obviously need a new television set.
Mine clearly shows Davis shoulder contacting Fisher's head.
and plugger, you might consider changing 'the sore neck' line - I think it's gone past its use-by date.
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