MRP - Joey 1 game

[thejiggingsaint]

We can't complain about the actions of Mal Michael and Scott on Nick Riewoldt and then justify what Montagna did. I agree with a previous poster on this topic; just like soft shite Dawson, Montagna needs a week for STUPIDITY!

[Thinline]

I was aggrieved as a loyalist at the time, but Michael and Scott are not doctors and it was at the time a pretty hot game.

Besides, Roo was doubled over in glaringly serious discomfort after an awkward fall and was otherwise stumbling for and/or signoalling the bench.

Curnow was walking around in circles looking confused.

Surely there's an inherent difference.

[plugger66]

I was aggrieved as a loyalist at the time, but Michael and Scott are not doctors and it was at the time a pretty hot game.

Besides, Roo was doubled over in glaringly serious discomfort after an awkward fall and was otherwise stumbling for and/or signoalling the bench.

Curnow was walking around in circles looking confused.

Surely there's an inherent difference.

They both looked injured to me but having been told players dont get to see how injured a player is then it seems Rooy was fair game. Strange at the time I have never heard such outrage by Saints supporters on radio and there wasnt even a rule back then like there is now.

[Devilhead]

Do you want it to be like rugby union where the player can drop to one knee to signal injury.

If it cuts out any grey areas surrounding this subject then a resounding YES!!!

and they cannot move from that position until they are attend to by a trainer and taken off the ground ...... just in case they are faking it to clear space

you may laugh at the "faking it" idea but in this day and age of footy coaches and players are liable to employ any method to gain an advantage such is the nature of todays game

[Devilhead]

We can't complain about the actions of Mal Michael and Scott on Nick Riewoldt and then justify what Montagna did. I agree with a previous poster on this topic; just like soft shite Dawson, Montagna needs a week for STUPIDITY!

We can be aggrieved because once again St Kilda has payed the price for an incident that first occured to us with NO penalty applied only for the rules to change because of that incident - see Baker, see Reiwoldt, see Kosi, See Freo in Tasi .... any other incidents others can think of???

I am sure there are more

[Devilhead]

I was aggrieved as a loyalist at the time, but Michael and Scott are not doctors and it was at the time a pretty hot game.

Besides, Roo was doubled over in glaringly serious discomfort after an awkward fall and was otherwise stumbling for and/or signoalling the bench.

Curnow was walking around in circles looking confused.

Surely there's an inherent difference.

They both looked injured to me but having been told players dont get to see how injured a player is then it seems Rooy was fair game. Strange at the time I have never heard such outrage by Saints supporters on radio and there wasnt even a rule back then like there is now.

Tell me P66 what is your take on Curnow being fair game once he came back out onto the field???

[plugger66]

I was aggrieved as a loyalist at the time, but Michael and Scott are not doctors and it was at the time a pretty hot game.

Besides, Roo was doubled over in glaringly serious discomfort after an awkward fall and was otherwise stumbling for and/or signoalling the bench.

Curnow was walking around in circles looking confused.

Surely there's an inherent difference.

They both looked injured to me but having been told players dont get to see how injured a player is then it seems Rooy was fair game. Strange at the time I have never heard such outrage by Saints supporters on radio and there wasnt even a rule back then like there is now.

Tell me P66 what is your take on Curnow being fair game once he came back out onto the field???

100% fair game when he came back on.

[sunsaint]

I was aggrieved as a loyalist at the time, but Michael and Scott are not doctors and it was at the time a pretty hot game.

Besides, Roo was doubled over in glaringly serious discomfort after an awkward fall and was otherwise stumbling for and/or signoalling the bench.

Curnow was walking around in circles looking confused.

Surely there's an inherent difference.

you're wrong about one thing and right about another
Roo copped two impacts to the shoulder. He stayed on after the first & it was the second time he had to go off & that was when the the "gang" bumping started as he headed toward the interchange.
You are right about curnow looking dazed and confused, but in just the same respect he was doubled up clutching his shoulder and heading away from the contest to the interchange

devilhead surely you are being flippant or just need to read up on the rules. GO off the field of play via the boundary & not the interchange rules you out for the remainder of the match (or if stretchered a mandatory 20min bench time)

[Devilhead]

I was aggrieved as a loyalist at the time, but Michael and Scott are not doctors and it was at the time a pretty hot game.

Besides, Roo was doubled over in glaringly serious discomfort after an awkward fall and was otherwise stumbling for and/or signoalling the bench.

Curnow was walking around in circles looking confused.

Surely there's an inherent difference.

They both looked injured to me but having been told players dont get to see how injured a player is then it seems Rooy was fair game. Strange at the time I have never heard such outrage by Saints supporters on radio and there wasnt even a rule back then like there is now.

Tell me P66 what is your take on Curnow being fair game once he came back out onto the field???

100% fair game when he came back on.

So why was Baker suspended for hitting Johnson's hand???

I mean Johnson was deemed fit enough to stay and play on the field

What is the difference between Baker hitting Johnson's hand a Saints player bumping into Curnow shoulder after he came back on

Both are injured but both were deemed fit to stay on and play

Why should Baker cop a suspension but a player hitting Curnow in his injured shoulder not???

Can you please clarify to me this situation because the way I see it they are both exactly the same

[plugger66]

I was aggrieved as a loyalist at the time, but Michael and Scott are not doctors and it was at the time a pretty hot game.

Besides, Roo was doubled over in glaringly serious discomfort after an awkward fall and was otherwise stumbling for and/or signoalling the bench.

Curnow was walking around in circles looking confused.

Surely there's an inherent difference.

They both looked injured to me but having been told players dont get to see how injured a player is then it seems Rooy was fair game. Strange at the time I have never heard such outrage by Saints supporters on radio and there wasnt even a rule back then like there is now.

Tell me P66 what is your take on Curnow being fair game once he came back out onto the field???

100% fair game when he came back on.

So why was Baker suspended for hitting Johnson's hand???

I mean Johnson was deemed fit enough to stay and play on the field

What is the difference between Baker hitting Johnson's hand a Saints player bumping into Curnow shoulder after he came back on

Both are injured but both were deemed fit to stay on and play

Why should Baker cop a suspension but a player hitting Curnow in his injured shoulder not???

Can you please clarify to me this situation because the way I see it they are both exactly the same

I am unsure Baker got any weeks for hitting Johnsons hand. Can anyone clarify this? Anyway I am unsure what Baker has to do with Joey. And if you are talking about Kosi well unless you want him suspended I dont see why Baker matters. Having said that I dont know if he got any weeks for that anyway.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

I am unsure Baker got any weeks for hitting Johnsons hand. Can anyone clarify this? Anyway I am unsure what Baker has to do with Joey. And if you are talking about Kosi well unless you want him suspended I dont see why Baker matters. Having said that I dont know if he got any weeks for that anyway.

He didn't say that Baker's incident had anything to do with Joey. He was responding to your statement that Curnow was "100% fair game when he came back on.", which is why he then brought up Baker's report for whacking Johnson's obviously injured hand, even though he was playing with the injury, which your statement implied was "100% fair game".
If someone's injury is "100% fair game", if he chooses to play on with it, as you're suggesting, he's was asking why Baker was reported for it (if he was in fact reported for it).

[plugger66]

I am unsure Baker got any weeks for hitting Johnsons hand. Can anyone clarify this? Anyway I am unsure what Baker has to do with Joey. And if you are talking about Kosi well unless you want him suspended I dont see why Baker matters. Having said that I dont know if he got any weeks for that anyway.

He didn't say that Baker's incident had anything to do with Joey. He was responding to your statement that Curnow was "100% fair game when he came back on.", which is why he then brought up Baker's report for whacking Johnson's obviously injured hand, even though he was playing with the injury, which your statement indicated was "100% fair game".

I still dont get what the point of that is unless we are either trying to get Baker off or Kosi suspended. Anyway it seems you know Baker got weeks for it. How many did he get?

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

One: "Baker was suspended for three games each for three striking charges, plus an extra game for the misconduct charge of making "unreasonable and unnecessary contact with an injured player".

After Johnson broke his hand early in the match, Baker was seen hitting the injured area. ":
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/art ... 1_gfc.html

[dragit]

As long as we take it right in the arse....

So you cant touch a suspected injued player???

What if you didnt see or suspect the injury....should you be aware of the fitness of all 22 opponents during a game as to ascertain as to whether you can touch them....


In the hands of the trainers, going off the ground or on the deck....

Standing around on the ground......er, no...

I don't see why anyone can see anything remotely controversial in what you're saying.

Spot on.

+100
No-one wants to see an injured player being roughed up while trying to leave the field, we've been told it's 'un-australian' by glenn archer no less…
However some common sense needs to be exercised,
The question should be "was Montagna trying to exacerbate Curnow's injury with that contact?" - The contact was made in the middle of a stoppage and so mild that really he needs some benefit of doubt.
I imagine that a charge like this could be pretty damaging for his media career and own brand. Fighting the charge could make it even worse?
"un-australian' - what a joke!

[plugger66]

One

Are you 100% sure on that?

[Devilhead]

devilhead surely you are being flippant or just need to read up on the rules. GO off the field of play via the boundary & not the interchange rules you out for the remainder of the match (or if stretchered a mandatory 20min bench time)

Sorry Sunstroke but lets look at at the Hansen incident last week - Hansen hits the boundary fence and is attended to by trainers next to the fence off the ground - now in this case Hansen did not come back onto the field however if after being attended to and finding he was ok would he be allowed to rejoin the game from the boundary line where he crossed chasing the ball or does he have to do it via the interchange bench or is he not allowed to come back on at all - taking into account that he left the field via the boundary line!!

Hmmmmm another grey area!!!

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

100% certain, unless this article is not correct. So if that is the precedent, Kosi could have been suspended as well, if he'd gotten him on the injured side:

"Baker pleaded guilty to three charges of striking Geelong forward Steve Johnson at the MCG last Friday night, and last night lost an appeal against a fourth charge of misconduct for interfering with an injured player for hitting Johnson's broken hand."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/c ... 5885664182

[plugger66]

"Baker pleaded guilty to three charges of striking Geelong forward Steve Johnson at the MCG last Friday night, and last night lost an appeal against a fourth charge of misconduct for interfering with an injured player for hitting Johnson's broken hand."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/c ... 5885664182

Well then Baker should have not got a week IMO. What this has to do with Joey is anyones guess.

[Devilhead]

I am unsure Baker got any weeks for hitting Johnsons hand. Can anyone clarify this? Anyway I am unsure what Baker has to do with Joey. And if you are talking about Kosi well unless you want him suspended I dont see why Baker matters. Having said that I dont know if he got any weeks for that anyway.

He didn't say that Baker's incident had anything to do with Joey. He was responding to your statement that Curnow was "100% fair game when he came back on.", which is why he then brought up Baker's report for whacking Johnson's obviously injured hand, even though he was playing with the injury, which your statement indicated was "100% fair game".

I still dont get what the point of that is unless we are either trying to get Baker off or Kosi suspended. Anyway it seems you know Baker got weeks for it. How many did he get?

Standard classic P66 response once he is cornered

You know exactly what my point is

How extremely predictable

[plugger66]

I am unsure Baker got any weeks for hitting Johnsons hand. Can anyone clarify this? Anyway I am unsure what Baker has to do with Joey. And if you are talking about Kosi well unless you want him suspended I dont see why Baker matters. Having said that I dont know if he got any weeks for that anyway.

He didn't say that Baker's incident had anything to do with Joey. He was responding to your statement that Curnow was "100% fair game when he came back on.", which is why he then brought up Baker's report for whacking Johnson's obviously injured hand, even though he was playing with the injury, which your statement indicated was "100% fair game".

I still dont get what the point of that is unless we are either trying to get Baker off or Kosi suspended. Anyway it seems you know Baker got weeks for it. How many did he get?

Standard classic P66 response once he is cornered

You know exactly what my point is

How extremely predictable

I have no idea what your point is. Joey hit a guy that was injured. He hadnt come back on the ground as he hadnt been off. If you are trying to prove Joey should have got a week then you are doing it very well.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

I think it's pretty clear he was simply asking you a simple question. It may have been slightly off topic, but it was definitely in the same ballpark and since when do these threads stay 100% on topic?
It seems to me he just wanted to know your point of view on the issue and didn't think it warranted starting a whole new thread, just to do so.

[desertsaint]

I was aggrieved as a loyalist at the time, but Michael and Scott are not doctors and it was at the time a pretty hot game.

Besides, Roo was doubled over in glaringly serious discomfort after an awkward fall and was otherwise stumbling for and/or signoalling the bench.

Curnow was walking around in circles looking confused.

Surely there's an inherent difference.

They both looked injured to me but having been told players dont get to see how injured a player is then it seems Rooy was fair game. Strange at the time I have never heard such outrage by Saints supporters on radio and there wasnt even a rule back then like there is now.

Tell me P66 what is your take on Curnow being fair game once he came back out onto the field???

100% fair game when he came back on.

So why was Baker suspended for hitting Johnson's hand???

I mean Johnson was deemed fit enough to stay and play on the field

What is the difference between Baker hitting Johnson's hand a Saints player bumping into Curnow shoulder after he came back on

Both are injured but both were deemed fit to stay on and play

Why should Baker cop a suspension but a player hitting Curnow in his injured shoulder not???

Can you please clarify to me this situation because the way I see it they are both exactly the same

I am unsure Baker got any weeks for hitting Johnsons hand. Can anyone clarify this? Anyway I am unsure what Baker has to do with Joey. And if you are talking about Kosi well unless you want him suspended I dont see why Baker matters. Having said that I dont know if he got any weeks for that anyway.

'charge of misconduct for interfering with an injured player for hitting Johnson's broken hand...

Baker, who earlier pleaded guilty to a third striking charge, was found guilty of misconduct in that he made unreasonable and unnecessary contact with an injured player.'

'The misconduct offence, which involved hitting Johnson's damaged hand, was deemed intentional conduct and body contact.

[Devilhead]

Its seems that the AFL stance on players entering the field iin an injured state is that they can only be contacted if they have the ball - if they dont then you are at extreme risk of being cited and suspended because they are knowingly injured

Obviously if you are not injured then you can be bumped pushed nudged elbowed roughed up and harrassed without fear of recriminations as per the start of every match but if they are injured ..........WATCH OUT THEY ARE WATCHING YOU

It wont be long until Clubs are releasing information before games stating that x, y and z are playing severly injured and therefore should be protected at all times during games and are in effect "HANDS OFF" in non contested situations

[plugger66]

I think it's pretty clear he was simply asking you a simple question. It may have been slightly off topic, but it was definitely in the same ballpark and since when do these threads stay 100% on topic?
It seems to me he just wanted to know your point of view on the issue and didn't think it warranted starting a whole new thread, just to do so.

But he says he has cornered me. Love to know how he has done that.

[stinger]

Seriously cannot believe some of the crap in this post.

Seriously if the situation had been reversed people on here would have been calling for Curnow's head.

It is irrelevant how hard Joey bumped him , it is the principal. You cannot touch a player when he is coming off hurt, it is a clear and simple ruling.

If he goes back on or starts the game strapped, clearly he is able to be bumped.

Like Dawson the week before Joey deserves the week for pure stupidity.

I believe he deserves the week, there was nothing tough about his action, there was nothing sporting.

Players show there courage in dozens of way each week, the game is not soft. Let Joey show his courage and "toughness"if you like in those ways.

your post sums it up perfectly for me....