West block of Clarke v Baker on Farmer

[Hard at it]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

so you are suggesting that barry hall should have only got 1-2 weeks because it was more than 5 metres off the ball. hitting an unexpecting opponent for little reason is cowardly, and hopefully that prick west gets ironed out by a big bodied opponent this week.

Comparing the Hall and West incidents is ridiculous. You cant be serious. When did i suggest Hall should get 1-2 weeks?

well you mentioned the incident being 5 metres off the ball.

if you cant see that it was a disgusting dog act you obviously have poor vision of what is acceptable.

I said he probably should have got 1-2 weeks, and only because it looked a tad too high. If there wasn't any contact to the head then it is only a free kick at best. Calling it cowardly or comparing it to Barry Hall's incident is idiotic

so a head high hit to an unsuspecting opponent isn't cowardly?

you have confirmed my suspicions that you are a tool.

You have confirmed mine, you are a little boy who is afraid of physical contact.

[Dan Warna]

i can honestly tell you Im not afraid of physical contact old and broken down as I am and I can see the AFL has been inconsistent in its application of the rules.

[Washedup]

You have to wonder whether some of the people who post on here have ever played football at all. West's hit was more than 5m off the ball and should have definitey been a free kick. Was it reportable, unless he hit him high NO. The video was inconclusive. Calling it cowardly or saying it was a dogs act is just plain foolish

[Washedup]

i can honestly tell you Im not afraid of physical contact old and broken down as I am and I can see the AFL has been inconsistent in its application of the rules.

I agree they are definitely inconsistent, but to say what West did was cowardly then you have to wonder whether some on here have ever put the boots on at all.

[The Peanut]

Many people suggest we are not hard enough - I agree, but when you play an uncompromising game like Geelong do, you expect someone to get cited occasionally - therefore West should have been cited and offered a one match ban, at least - even though the outcome was worse than what appeared to be the intention.

It was roughly the same situation as the Bakes case. The blatant uneven findings and the pathetic reasons given on both accounts do not wash with any logic whatsoever, and are as far as chalk and cheese.

Absolutely disgusted with Match Review Panel and with the AFL for not convening after a decision that went opposite the rules, regulations and protocols.

A bit disappointed with the St Kilda players for not demonstrating their support of a fellow player who was completely knocked out by an off-the-ball misdemeanor.

EDIT It has been reported that the club did question the AFL on this topic - well done and I will take back what I wrote here-in-under

A bit disillusioned with the club for not coming out to challenge the AFL. We really are pathetic lot for not at least requesting a 'please explain' re West/Bakes. There are good reasons to be more diplomatic with the AFL than GT was, but a club that gets TV crowds, good match-day attendance and has a 30,000 strong membership should feel confident enough to stand up and ask questions - especially with the press support they would get.

What must X's parents be thinking - 'we are taking good care of their son'??

X's dad played footy for many years so he knows these things will happen from time to time but I would be surprised if St Mary's footy club didn't demonstrate more support both on and off the field.

[fonz_#15]

im a big fan of the "rough stuff" in footy, but some of the cowardly acts on the weekend (namely hall and west) need too be harshly punished.

the fact that west got off makes my blood boil

He probably should have got 1-2 weeks due to it being more than 5m off the ball, and it was a tad too high, but cowardly is a bit strong, we are not playing netball.

so you are suggesting that barry hall should have only got 1-2 weeks because it was more than 5 metres off the ball. hitting an unexpecting opponent for little reason is cowardly, and hopefully that prick west gets ironed out by a big bodied opponent this week.

Comparing the Hall and West incidents is ridiculous. You cant be serious. When did i suggest Hall should get 1-2 weeks?

well you mentioned the incident being 5 metres off the ball.

if you cant see that it was a disgusting dog act you obviously have poor vision of what is acceptable.

I said he probably should have got 1-2 weeks, and only because it looked a tad too high. If there wasn't any contact to the head then it is only a free kick at best. Calling it cowardly or comparing it to Barry Hall's incident is idiotic

so a head high hit to an unsuspecting opponent isn't cowardly?

you have confirmed my suspicions that you are a tool.

You have confirmed mine, you are a little boy who is afraid of physical contact.

afraid of physical contact? how exactly? football is a contact sport, and as long as it is within the rules i expect and anticipate it when it comes to me.

when people hit players that are not a factor in the play (x was nowhere near the ball) then it is a low act to send a player off on a stretcher who is not anticipating contact.

if you cant see that it was a pathetic effort by west, you;re dellusuional.

[plugger66]

You have to wonder whether some of the people who post on here have ever played football at all. West's hit was more than 5m off the ball and should have definitey been a free kick. Was it reportable, unless he hit him high NO. The video was inconclusive. Calling it cowardly or saying it was a dogs act is just plain foolish

It is reportable because the player wasnt expecting contact and the contact was forceful enough for concussion. I dont agree it was cowardly but he should have been reported and I have played plenty of footy and still umpire the local seconds side so even though the players mightnt think I know the rules that is the charging rule.

[fonz_#15]

i can honestly tell you Im not afraid of physical contact old and broken down as I am and I can see the AFL has been inconsistent in its application of the rules.

I agree they are definitely inconsistent, but to say what West did was cowardly then you have to wonder whether some on here have ever put the boots on at all.

i have and it is.

[Washedup]

i can honestly tell you Im not afraid of physical contact old and broken down as I am and I can see the AFL has been inconsistent in its application of the rules.

I agree they are definitely inconsistent, but to say what West did was cowardly then you have to wonder whether some on here have ever put the boots on at all.

i have and it is.

I meant something above u/16s. I suggest if you think what West did was cowardly then stay away from the seniors

[Hard at it]

You have to wonder whether some of the people who post on here have ever played football at all. West's hit was more than 5m off the ball and should have definitey been a free kick. Was it reportable, unless he hit him high NO. The video was inconclusive. Calling it cowardly or saying it was a dogs act is just plain foolish

It is reportable because the player wasnt expecting contact and the contact was forceful enough for concussion. I dont agree it was cowardly but he should have been reported and I have played plenty of footy and still umpire the local seconds side so even though the players mightnt think I know the rules that is the charging rule.

I agree Plugger probably 1-2 weeks. People calling it cowardly is ridiculous though.

[Hard at it]

i can honestly tell you Im not afraid of physical contact old and broken down as I am and I can see the AFL has been inconsistent in its application of the rules.

I agree they are definitely inconsistent, but to say what West did was cowardly then you have to wonder whether some on here have ever put the boots on at all.

i have and it is.

I meant something above u/16s. I suggest if you think what West did was cowardly then stay away from the seniors

[fonz_#15]

i can honestly tell you Im not afraid of physical contact old and broken down as I am and I can see the AFL has been inconsistent in its application of the rules.

I agree they are definitely inconsistent, but to say what West did was cowardly then you have to wonder whether some on here have ever put the boots on at all.

i have and it is.

I meant something above u/16s. I suggest if you think what West did was cowardly then stay away from the seniors

so x clarke was expecting to be hit?

the level of contact is not the issue, it is the fact that a man not expecting contact was hit when not in play.

if x was contesting a football in play and got ironed out fairly, then fair play to west for being tough and hard at the footy and the man with the footy.

but if you are trying to say that west was tough in crashing into an unsuspecting opponent you clearly have no idea.

[Dan Warna]

i reckon that had west been baker and had x.clarke been judd or jude bolton or heaven forbid adam goodes that paragon of virtue, baker would have been executed on the spot, his body thrown to starving dogs, his parents rounded up and executed, every girl he's slept with sterilised and the home where he was born demolished and the soil seeded with salt.

[Mr Magic]

For what its worth, I've played senior footy in the Amateurs (even though it was 35 years ago!) and I can tell you that:-

When Yeats ran through Brereton at the opening bounce of the gf

and

when Hocking ran through Harvey at the boundary throw in

they were not 'courageous acts' by 'tough men'.

It takes little or no 'courage' to attempt to 'wipe out' an unsuspecting opponent. It doesn't make you a 'tough guy' either - more of a 'sniper'.
In neither of those cases was the head of the unsuspecting player 'hit', only the body. But both Brereton and Harvey were unaware of the impending contact because they were not in the play and had a reasonable expectation of 'safety' as such.

X Clarke was in a similar position and was 'taken out' just like Brereton and Harvey were, by an opponent who 'hit' him with a 'cheap shot'.

There were plenty of occassions on Saturday that West could have tried a similar tactic on G-Train but he didn't.
Maybe it was because G-Train is 195cms tall and 100+kgs whereas X is much smaller.

What West did was:-
against the rules
reportable
and more 'cowardly' than 'heroic'.

It was also as potentially dangerous as the Swans 'tunnelling' tactics of the first round.

I bet that if Steven King had 'picked off' Bartell or Ablett in the same manner we would have heard from the Geelong supporters about it.

[fonz_#15]

For what its worth, I've played senior footy in the Amateurs (even though it was 35 years ago!) and I can tell you that:-

When Yeats ran through Brereton at the opening bounce of the gf

and

when Hocking ran through Harvey at the boundary throw in

they were not 'courageous acts' by 'tough men'.

It takes little or no 'courage' to attempt to 'wipe out' an unsuspecting opponent. It doesn't make you a 'tough guy' either - more of a 'sniper'.
In neither of those cases was the head of the unsuspecting player 'hit', only the body. But both Brereton and Harvey were unaware of the impending contact because they were not in the play and had a reasonable expectation of 'safety' as such.

X Clarke was in a similar position and was 'taken out' just like Brereton and Harvey were, by an opponent who 'hit' him with a 'cheap shot'.

There were plenty of occassions on Saturday that West could have tried a similar tactic on G-Train but he didn't.
Maybe it was because G-Train is 195cms tall and 100+kgs whereas X is much smaller.

What West did was:-
against the rules
reportable
and more 'cowardly' than 'heroic'.

It was also as potentially dangerous as the Swans 'tunnelling' tactics of the first round.

I bet that if Steven King had 'picked off' Bartell or Ablett in the same manner we would have heard from the Geelong supporters about it.

spot on Mr.Magic

[bigcarl]

well said fevola

only player on the footy show who doesn't think xavier has an awareness problem.

also the only one with the guts to say that if west was a better known player he would have copped two weeks for his "block".

fev's not such a d*ckhead after all

[saintbrat]

well said fevola

only player on the footy show who doesn't think xavier has an awareness problem.

also the only one with the guts to say that if west was a better known player he would have copped two weeks for his "block".

fev's not such a d*ckhead after all

agreed with him-
but the reverse is also true- if it had been hirdy flattened it would also have been looked at

[Iceman234]

Absolutely no case to answer.

I would be so stoked if one of our young blokes could impose himself on the game as West did.

X, as much as I repect him as a fantastic bloke and a terrific ambassador for our club, should have had the awareness of what was going on around him.

Please suck it up and get over it.

[St. Luke]

so a head high hit to an unsuspecting opponent isn't cowardly?

you have confirmed my suspicions that you are a tool.

It would have been cowardly, if he'd have hit him in the head...but he didn't Am I invisible or something???

[Mr Magic]

so a head high hit to an unsuspecting opponent isn't cowardly?

you have confirmed my suspicions that you are a tool.

It would have been cowardly, if he'd have hit him in the head...but he didn't Am I invisible or something???

Actually the MRP admitted he was 'hit' in the head by saying that the 'hit was mainly to the body.

BUT that's not the point.
The point is he was 'taken out' when not in the play and more than 5 metres away from the ball.

[saintbrat]

I also wondered about the club maybe questioning the hit
The Peanut;

A bit disillusioned with the club for not coming out to challenge the AFL. We really are pathetic lot for not at least requesting a 'please explain' re West/Bakes

but read this this morning
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/a ... 80856.html

The match review panel's decision not to lay a charge has been strongly criticised by Kevin Bartlett, a 400-game player for Richmond, former coach and a senior member of the laws of the game committee. Bartlett called it a "glaring mistake" and called on the AFL to change the review panel's decision. St Kilda has also sought an explanation. Anderson said yesterday that he had questioned the match review panel chairman, former Carlton player Andrew McKay, about the decision. Prima facie, it seems to run counter to an AFL clampdown, at the start of last season, on head-high contact during bumping contests.

I guess unlike Micky M it just doesn't get highlighted in an aftermatch--a yes we will ask about that would probably ahve at elast quelled some of the queriers.
yet when Fraser did try to the other week with an issue people still jumped all over him.
slammed if you do and slammed if you don't.

[The Peanut]

I also wondered about the club maybe questioning the hit
The Peanut;

A bit disillusioned with the club for not coming out to challenge the AFL. We really are pathetic lot for not at least requesting a 'please explain' re West/Bakes

but read this this morning
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/a ... 80856.html

The match review panel's decision not to lay a charge has been strongly criticised by Kevin Bartlett, a 400-game player for Richmond, former coach and a senior member of the laws of the game committee. Bartlett called it a "glaring mistake" and called on the AFL to change the review panel's decision. St Kilda has also sought an explanation. Anderson said yesterday that he had questioned the match review panel chairman, former Carlton player Andrew McKay, about the decision. Prima facie, it seems to run counter to an AFL clampdown, at the start of last season, on head-high contact during bumping contests.

I guess unlike Micky M it just doesn't get highlighted in an aftermatch--a yes we will ask about that would probably ahve at elast quelled some of the queriers.
yet when Fraser did try to the other week with an issue people still jumped all over him.
slammed if you do and slammed if you don't.

I Edited my original post and I will give the club the benifit of the doudt on this and have apologised - however, 'Do you know whether the club actually asked questions camparing the two cases (West/Bakes).

[Dan Warna]

honestly I all I want is frikken consistency.

our players know that 1. retaliation = weeks, opposition players are allowed to retaliate.

our players know that 2. block on a tagger is a free kick against us, oppositions players do it.

our players know that 3. a stop and prop = 4 weeks, oppositions players know its good to go

our players know that 4. an elbow to the head of a prone player = weeks, opposition players know its fine when applied to st kilda players

our players know that 5. an attempted strike = weeks, oppositioin players know they can do it with impunity.

these are things that have happened to saints players, these have all happened in the lst few years.

All I ask for is a consistent interpretation.

when our player gets weeks, fair call but the phuckers who do it to us should get weeks too.

we were told at the tribunal WE CAN"T USE PRECEDENCE as an arguement, precedence has been a tenet of western lawmaking for 3000 years. yet other clubs can use precedence.

seriously the AFL tribunals are a joke.

folks say wests hit on x was fine, so be it, then why the hell did baker get weeks for saying he did what west did...

really baker said he stopped and propped and farmer ran into him, west moved to intercept west, which you'd think was more intentional, taking advantage of x's lack of awareness.

the reality is baker won't ever do what west did again because he'll get more weeks and frankly given the example of baker ANY REASONABLE ST KILDA COACH WILL TELL THEIR PLAYERS NOT TO DO WHAT BAKER DID.

phukcing consistency you drongos, how can any st kilda coach tell our players to do that given bakers case?

really you can see why st kilda players are baffled by tackling rules, holding the ball rules, shepherding rules, hell even when we do get free kicks we don't know because the interpretations seem about as random as anything go along.

you might as well blow the siren every 2 minutes and toss the coin for who gets the free.

[Hard at it]

For what its worth, I've played senior footy in the Amateurs (even though it was 35 years ago!) and I can tell you that:-

When Yeats ran through Brereton at the opening bounce of the gf

and

when Hocking ran through Harvey at the boundary throw in

they were not 'courageous acts' by 'tough men'.

It takes little or no 'courage' to attempt to 'wipe out' an unsuspecting opponent. It doesn't make you a 'tough guy' either - more of a 'sniper'.
In neither of those cases was the head of the unsuspecting player 'hit', only the body. But both Brereton and Harvey were unaware of the impending contact because they were not in the play and had a reasonable expectation of 'safety' as such.

X Clarke was in a similar position and was 'taken out' just like Brereton and Harvey were, by an opponent who 'hit' him with a 'cheap shot'.

There were plenty of occassions on Saturday that West could have tried a similar tactic on G-Train but he didn't.
Maybe it was because G-Train is 195cms tall and 100+kgs whereas X is much smaller.

What West did was:-
against the rules
reportable
and more 'cowardly' than 'heroic'.

It was also as potentially dangerous as the Swans 'tunnelling' tactics of the first round.

I bet that if Steven King had 'picked off' Bartell or Ablett in the same manner we would have heard from the Geelong supporters about it.

No one said West's hit on Clarke was corageous, no one has said his hit was heroic, but there have been a few clowns on here saying it was cowardly. If that is cowardly then a few on here need to take up a different sport

[rodgerfox]

For what its worth, I've played senior footy in the Amateurs (even though it was 35 years ago!) and I can tell you that:-

When Yeats ran through Brereton at the opening bounce of the gf

and

when Hocking ran through Harvey at the boundary throw in

they were not 'courageous acts' by 'tough men'.

It takes little or no 'courage' to attempt to 'wipe out' an unsuspecting opponent. It doesn't make you a 'tough guy' either - more of a 'sniper'.
In neither of those cases was the head of the unsuspecting player 'hit', only the body. But both Brereton and Harvey were unaware of the impending contact because they were not in the play and had a reasonable expectation of 'safety' as such.

X Clarke was in a similar position and was 'taken out' just like Brereton and Harvey were, by an opponent who 'hit' him with a 'cheap shot'.

There were plenty of occassions on Saturday that West could have tried a similar tactic on G-Train but he didn't.
Maybe it was because G-Train is 195cms tall and 100+kgs whereas X is much smaller.

What West did was:-
against the rules
reportable
and more 'cowardly' than 'heroic'.

It was also as potentially dangerous as the Swans 'tunnelling' tactics of the first round.

I bet that if Steven King had 'picked off' Bartell or Ablett in the same manner we would have heard from the Geelong supporters about it.

No one said West's hit on Clarke was corageous, no one has said his hit was heroic, but there have been a few clowns on here saying it was cowardly. If that is cowardly then a few on here need to take up a different sport

What would you call knocking someone out illegally who wasn't looking?


I think cowardly is a pretty fair word to describe it.