Paddy goes *WHACK* D’oh!

[Viscount Jeremiah]

I think he will get 1 week, we will appeal, and then it's 50:50 if he gets off.

[Sainter_Dad]

Day has changed direction after he kicked the ball. If he keeps running in the direction he was going when he kicked it there would be little or no contact.

This - thanks Kosi

Day clearly changes direction to make a lead to the 'fat' side of the ground. Would have run past Ryder if he did not change direction

The simple concept of this is beyond people though

Paddy was not running to run in front of Day - so if he stopped he he must have changed the position that the intersection would have been

Example
Play continues with no stopping
|
|
|
X------
Impact occurs at X

Paddy stops
|
|
|
| ----
No impact

Paddy stops - Day changes direction
|
|
\
X-----
Impact occurs

Days fault - Day should be suspended

[Freebird]

There’s no point comparing this to the Clark broken jaw. The two players were going for the ball on that occasion.

This time the ball was gone.

However. Day has changed direction after he kicked the ball. If he keeps running in the direction he was going when he kicked it there would be little or no contact.

Correct, Day veered into Paddy who stopped trying to avoid contact...what was Paddy meant to do, dive out of his way?

Unfortunately the media have already hung Paddy so will more than likely be suspended...normally the media (ex players) stick up for the player when there is any reason to doubt but not this time

[meher baba]

There’s no point comparing this to the Clark broken jaw. The two players were going for the ball on that occasion.

This time the ball was gone.

However. Day has changed direction after he kicked the ball. If he keeps running in the direction he was going when he kicked it there would be little or no contact.

Correct, Day veered into Paddy who stopped trying to avoid contact...what was Paddy meant to do, dive out of his way?

Unfortunately the media have already hung Paddy so will more than likely be suspended...normally the media (ex players) stick up for the player when there is any reason to doubt but not this time

Can you please provide a link to the footage which shows Paddy trying to avoid contact with Day? The official footage shows Paddy - once he realised Day was running more or less straight towards him - taking a couple of steps forward and initiating a bump. I assume it must have been altered by the corrupt admin. (Sarcasm alert.)

Oh, in relation to players standing up for Paddy, Nathan Buckley certainly did. See my link earlier.

[samoht]

And if it was Nic Nat instead who got Paddy Whacked or who was "unco " and spatially unaware and got himself Paddy Whacked?

What precedent would that have set?

[Life Long Saint]

A player should never be obliged to move out of the way of another player...Not ever!

A player should never line up another player and run though him either.

At the game, it looked like Paddy stood his ground and Day kept running. Haven't seen the replay.

[kosifantutti]

There’s no point comparing this to the Clark broken jaw. The two players were going for the ball on that occasion.

This time the ball was gone.

However. Day has changed direction after he kicked the ball. If he keeps running in the direction he was going when he kicked it there would be little or no contact.

Correct, Day veered into Paddy who stopped trying to avoid contact...what was Paddy meant to do, dive out of his way?

Unfortunately the media have already hung Paddy so will more than likely be suspended...normally the media (ex players) stick up for the player when there is any reason to doubt but not this time

Can you please provide a link to the footage which shows Paddy trying to avoid contact with Day? The official footage shows Paddy - once he realised Day was running more or less straight towards him - taking a couple of steps forward and initiating a bump. I assume it must have been altered by the corrupt admin. (Sarcasm alert.)

Oh, in relation to players standing up for Paddy, Nathan Buckley certainly did. See my link earlier.

Paddy is too late to tackle or smother which is why he stops.

Day is definitely changing direction with that last step and runs straight into him.

[samoht]

I think Paddy braced for contact by taking those couple of steps and moving slowly forward but then stopped before contact.
It was all part of the bracing.


He was aware enough to protect himself and to ensure he didn't end up on the ground himself.

[kosifantutti]

Match review officer Michael Christian ruled that English had no case to answer, his finding that the Bulldog had been in a stationary position when contact was made between the two players effectively suggesting Blakey had run into the big man.

Footage appeared to show head-high contact was made but the AFL’s match review statement made no reference to where Blakey had been hit by English, who did not attempt to tackle, saying his actions were “not unreasonable in the circumstances”.

[samoht]

I think the important thing here is that Paddy was not moving forward when contact was made. Those couple of steps were prior to contact.
So, Paddy had no forward momentum ... Day had a chance to run around Paddy who was a stationary object.
Let's not forget that.

You could argue that Day was concentrating more on delivering the ball well to his team mate - maybe too much - instead of quickly kicking the ball and avoiding running into Paddy.

If the umpire was standing there as the stationary object, instead of Paddy, would Day have run into the umpire?

Paddy was there putting pressure on Day ... not out to hurt him. He was never going to concede space to Day.
Day had options... and Paddy was there to pressure him.

[Sanctorum]

Match review officer Michael Christian ruled that English had no case to answer, his finding that the Bulldog had been in a stationary position when contact was made between the two players effectively suggesting Blakey had run into the big man.

Footage appeared to show head-high contact was made but the AFL’s match review statement made no reference to where Blakey had been hit by English, who did not attempt to tackle, saying his actions were “not unreasonable in the circumstances”.

Love your work Kosi - this footage should ensure Paddy won't be rubbed out. The collision between Blakey and English was far more severe, Paddy simply held his ground and if instead he'd tackled Day that would have resulted in a free against Paddy because Day had kicked the ball. Surely the cub will appeal if he does in fact cop a week, piss weak if they don't!

[meher baba]

Was the Sydney player concussed? Because apparently that's the main issue.

[Sainter_Dad]

Match review officer Michael Christian ruled that English had no case to answer, his finding that the Bulldog had been in a stationary position when contact was made between the two players effectively suggesting Blakey had run into the big man.

Footage appeared to show head-high contact was made but the AFL’s match review statement made no reference to where Blakey had been hit by English, who did not attempt to tackle, saying his actions were “not unreasonable in the circumstances”.

Love your work Kosi - this footage should ensure Paddy won't be rubbed out. The collision between Blakey and English was far more severe, Paddy simply held his ground and if instead he'd tackled Day that would have resulted in a free against Paddy because Day had kicked the ball. Surely the cub will appeal if he does in fact cop a week, piss weak if they don't!

In fact:
English:-
Raised his arms in the contact (contributing to backwards momentum)
Then ran on to contest the next ball
Blakey was hit 5 minutes to go and would not have been Concussion assessed

Paddy:-
Kept his arms away from contact
Looked down to assist Day afterwards
Day got up and did not appear groggy - but later developed concussion??

[bigcarl]

English incident looked similar only worse. The difference being there has been no formal diagnoses of concussion.

[SunnyErnie]

Paddy was not even moving and did not mean to hurt the guy. The AFL though will suspend him for one match because he is not a high profile player playing for a high profile club.

That's ok because it will be be a blessing in disguise as the week off will do him a world of good for his 34 year old body.

The AFL can GAGF.

[Freebird]

Was the Sydney player concussed? Because apparently that's the main issue.

Do I detect a backflip MB?

Please explain what paddy should have done

Tweedeldee or tweedledum (sarcasm alert)

[B.M]

So if two incidents are exactly the same, and one cause injury they incidents have different outcomes?!

If so, I wouldn’t go near Paddy McCartin with fear of getting rubbed out!!!

Using outcome as a guide for suspension is absolutely stupid!

[meher baba]

Was the Sydney player concussed? Because apparently that's the main issue.

Do I detect a backflip MB?

Please explain what paddy should have done

Tweedeldee or tweedledum (sarcasm alert)

No backflip. I have consistently said that I think he was going for a bump, which he was quite entitled to do. And I think he delivered it within the rules of the game. Day’s head accidentally came into contact with the top of Paddy’s shoulder and/or experienced whiplash. I don’t think it should even have been a free kick.

But, as I understand the rules, you can act within the rules of the game, but can still be rubbed out if your action leads to a player becoming concussed which is deemed not to be purely accidental.

A case can be made that the injury to Day’s head was purely accidental. But deliberate bumps seem to be looked at as contributing factors.

I thought the bump on Clark last year was ok too: what the Crows player did was the sort of thing Hamill used to do all the timeBut many Saints fans cried foul. And partly for that reason the rules were changed. So we have to live with the consequences.

[Life Long Saint]

Using outcome as a guide for suspension is absolutely stupid!

So, attempted murder should incur the same punishment as murder?

I'm only being facetious.
Of course, accidental death is considered manslaughter if your actions were reckless or careless enough to cause it.

Paddy should be classed, at worst, as careless, body impact, and low (as Day's momentum caused the severity of the impact).
Fine at worst.
No case to answer at best.

[saynta]

Sure. Attempted murder carries the same penalties in some jurisdictions as murder. You don't get time off for being a bad shot.

[samoht]

There was a young guy about 25 years ago who was thrown from his bike after he hit a parked car - and became a paraplegic as a result.

He couldn't sue for third party compensation - as it was a parked car. It was stationary.

If the car was moving, it would've been a different story.

Day hit a stationary Ryder ... he could've zig zagged ala Gresh or just stopped and propped in order to create some space for himself, but he chose to run straight into Ryder.
He was too focussed on delivering the ball to a team mate, and didn't take any evasive action.

That's Day's fault.

[The Fireman]

Unintentional contact

1 week

The game is so soft now may as well watch soccer

[samoht]

But, it's as clear as Day (or it should be) ... Day was at fault.

Day ran in a straight line and took 7 strides to get to Ryder. At stride number 4, 5 or 6 he could have chosen to take some evasive action. But, he chose stride number 7 instead.

[st.byron]

Unintentional contact

1 week

The game is so soft now may as well watch soccer

How the f*** can you get rubbed out for unintentionally doing something. That is nuts. Yet the dude who smashed Hunter's jaw got zero. We should appeal. F***** ridiculous

[samoht]

Day ran in a straight line and took 7 strides to get to Ryder. At stride number 4, 5 or 6 he could have chosen to take some evasive action. But, he chose stride number 7 instead.
Ryder had no other choice but to brace himself at the end - he would've been surprised that Day chose to run straight at him all that way.