ZAC VERDICT !!

[kosifantutti23]

stop being obtuse.

when play on was called Montagna was the ball carrier. You shot shows that the ball was well within 5 metres.

But then again we have the knee jerk "rough conduct' to protect everyone

I'm not being obtuse. The ball had been kicked and Symes wasn't influencing the contest.

Rough conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or
negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which
in the circumstances is unreasonable.
When determining whether or not the Conduct was
unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not limited, to
whether the player is not, or would not reasonably be, expected
to influence the contest.
Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above
words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent
he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head
or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be
deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic
alternative to:
(a) contest the ball;
(b) tackle; or
(c) shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances.
In determining whether there was a realistic alternative
to shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances, regard will be given to:
■■ whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping
was excessive for the situation;
■■ whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the
passage of play;
■■ the distance the player applying the bump has run to make
contact;
■■ whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect
himself or is in a vulnerable position;
■■ whether an elbow is part of the contact;
■■ whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to
bump.
The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so
legitimately. He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an
opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible.

[markp]

The guy still had his arms in the air ffs.... he was in no way about to contest for the ball, was blindsided, and hit with a high degree of force.

Past and unrelated incidents do not come into it.

was the bump legal? Was the bump done within 10 metres of the ball? Had the umpire called play on?

You can bump and tackle (as long as it's legal, below the shoulders and not tackled without the ball) if the ball is within 10 metres and the umpire has called play on. thats the beauty of this sport, sometimes you can be blindsided. Otherwise players will need to have to shout "coming" before they go to bump, heaven forbid a player doesn't see him or not braces himself.

Thats why running with th flight of the ball is so gutsy, thats why our sport is the toughest in the world. Rugby and other sports, you have them coming from ONE direction, in ours it can come from anywhere....

go figure.....

Within 10 meters?.... overhead and heading away from him?

So a player standing on the goal line can be taken out as the ball sails overhead if the other player times it right?

Look at it again and imagine the jumpers reversed.

you know what, that is a great example.... full forwards shepard balls over the line every day of the week....

as has already been said, when the whistle went joey had the ball, he is the ball carrier. You saw it on sunday, frontal pressure can cause turnovers. So zac charged in to put on the block, to make sure that joey can get the ball out of there. When the whistle wentand zac made his move joey had not kicked the ball, the ball is in the area. If it's not then it's a free kick. umpire called play on.....

S what your all saying is that you can't bump a player until they are on their way to tackle the player. you know what, in high speed sport you don't get 3-4 seconds to judge this, ask a guy over coffee what his intentions are. You bump the guy, gain your team mate some space and if it's scarlett stick it up him.....

Whatever way you want to paint it, it's in play, fair bump. Remind me, how long did the crows player stay off the ground? If a player was suspended for a legal tackle/bump every time the opposition cried "I'm sore" then 30 players from the cats saints game wouldn't have played the following week....

It all comes down to how hard he hit him..... and it wasn't with a feather.

They judged the charge deserved to be upheld... it may have been line-ball, but it's certainly not an outrageous decision.

[plugger66]

The guy still had his arms in the air ffs.... he was in no way about to contest for the ball, was blindsided, and hit with a high degree of force.

Past and unrelated incidents do not come into it.

was the bump legal? Was the bump done within 10 metres of the ball? Had the umpire called play on?

You can bump and tackle (as long as it's legal, below the shoulders and not tackled without the ball) if the ball is within 10 metres and the umpire has called play on. thats the beauty of this sport, sometimes you can be blindsided. Otherwise players will need to have to shout "coming" before they go to bump, heaven forbid a player doesn't see him or not braces himself.

Thats why running with th flight of the ball is so gutsy, thats why our sport is the toughest in the world. Rugby and other sports, you have them coming from ONE direction, in ours it can come from anywhere....

go figure.....

Within 10 meters?.... overhead and heading away from him?

So a player standing on the goal line can be taken out as the ball sails overhead if the other player times it right?

Look at it again and imagine the jumpers reversed.

you know what, that is a great example.... full forwards shepard balls over the line every day of the week....

as has already been said, when the whistle went joey had the ball, he is the ball carrier. You saw it on sunday, frontal pressure can cause turnovers. So zac charged in to put on the block, to make sure that joey can get the ball out of there. When the whistle wentand zac made his move joey had not kicked the ball, the ball is in the area. If it's not then it's a free kick. umpire called play on.....

S what your all saying is that you can't bump a player until they are on their way to tackle the player. you know what, in high speed sport you don't get 3-4 seconds to judge this, ask a guy over coffee what his intentions are. You bump the guy, gain your team mate some space and if it's scarlett stick it up him.....

Whatever way you want to paint it, it's in play, fair bump. Remind me, how long did the crows player stay off the ground? If a player was suspended for a legal tackle/bump every time the opposition cried "I'm sore" then 30 players from the cats saints game wouldn't have played the following week....

What Zac should have done is block him not bump him so hard that he had to leave the ground and that is what made it illegal. The bump made unduly rough conduct to a player who doesnt expect that type of contact in those circumstances. Plenty of players block the man on the mark as soon as play on is called and that is fine. no one seems to want to say how they would feel if the same thing happened to Rooy one week and the next week it then happened to 2 of our players. We would be upset and justifiable so.

[joffaboy]

Why would they want to remove the ambiguity they intentionally built in?

It's not a court of law, it's the AFL tribunal.

The power of interpretation they have given themselves can be used for good or evil (Barry Hall).... But I think this is the right decision, although 1 week would've been a fairer result.

But that is what the whole debate is about.

Some posters argue that according to the rules something is legal or not legal.

But when the rule is a coverall how can any outcome be black or white?

Fevola knees a player that causes massive internal injuries and put shim in hospital and out of his chosen profession for the season.

Because the AFL have not disciplined Fevola, they have deemed that this type of action is legal and the injuries inflicted are fine.

Why did they not "choose" to cite Fevola under rough play?

Why did they choose to cite Dawson under rough play?

Can you not see where these conspiracy theories come from. The MRP can pick and choose whom they report under the coverall of rough play.

Fevola caused massive injuries to Richards, but is OK to do so. Dawson inflicted minor injuries on Synmes but gets two weeks.

Where is the objectivity?

Oh BTW Fevola should not have been charged, but could have been at the whim of Anderson and the MRP.

[kosifantutti23]

Symes was not influencing the contest.

Off course he was influencing the constest - don't confuse that with laying a tackle. He was standing the mark until the umpire called play on. he was then the closest opposition player and the Crow "responsible" at that time for Montagna. He was watching Montagna and limiting his ability to run and carry and therefore forcing, by his own presence, Montagna to dispose of the ball. Had Joey not disposed of the ball rapidly enough, Symes was the player that would have tackled him.

Still think he wasn't influencing the play? If he wasn't influencing the play Joey could have ambled off up the ground in his own good time with the ball tucked under his arm.

Once Joey has kicked the ball, Symes is not influencing the contest. Zac hit him after Joey kicked the ball. Just like West on Clarke last year and as I have stated before, the rules have been changed since then.

[markp]

Why would they want to remove the ambiguity they intentionally built in?

It's not a court of law, it's the AFL tribunal.

The power of interpretation they have given themselves can be used for good or evil (Barry Hall).... But I think this is the right decision, although 1 week would've been a fairer result.

But that is what the whole debate is about.

Some posters argue that according to the rules something is legal or not legal.

But when the rule is a coverall how can any outcome be black or white?

Fevola knees a player that causes massive internal injuries and put shim in hospital and out of his chosen profession for the season.

Because the AFL have not disciplined Fevola, they have deemed that this type of action is legal and the injuries inflicted are fine.

Why did they not "choose" to cite Fevola under rough play?

Why did they choose to cite Dawson under rough play?

Can you not see where these conspiracy theories come from. The MRP can pick and choose whom they report under the coverall of rough play.

Fevola caused massive injuries to Richards, but is OK to do so. Dawson inflicted minor injuries on Synmes but gets two weeks.

Where is the objectivity?

Oh BTW Fevola should not have been charged, but could have been at the whim of Anderson and the MRP.

I'm not saying the people who think this is unjust are thick.... just a little biased.

Fevola should be pulled up, I agree and feel strongly about that..... but there is a difference between contesting in a pack and standing on the mark.

[Mr Magic]

Joffaboy,
To further your point, there was an incident at teh weekend in the WCE-PA game where Glass ran past teh football adn 'took out' Westhoff with a bump.

This incident was not even looked at by the MRP.
Why?
Surely under the catchall 'rough play' rule this is equally as bad (if not worse because there was some contact to the head) as the Dawson/Symes incident?

[Solar]

The guy still had his arms in the air ffs.... he was in no way about to contest for the ball, was blindsided, and hit with a high degree of force.

Past and unrelated incidents do not come into it.

was the bump legal? Was the bump done within 10 metres of the ball? Had the umpire called play on?

You can bump and tackle (as long as it's legal, below the shoulders and not tackled without the ball) if the ball is within 10 metres and the umpire has called play on. thats the beauty of this sport, sometimes you can be blindsided. Otherwise players will need to have to shout "coming" before they go to bump, heaven forbid a player doesn't see him or not braces himself.

Thats why running with th flight of the ball is so gutsy, thats why our sport is the toughest in the world. Rugby and other sports, you have them coming from ONE direction, in ours it can come from anywhere....

go figure.....

Within 10 meters?.... overhead and heading away from him?

So a player standing on the goal line can be taken out as the ball sails overhead if the other player times it right?

Look at it again and imagine the jumpers reversed.

you know what, that is a great example.... full forwards shepard balls over the line every day of the week....

as has already been said, when the whistle went joey had the ball, he is the ball carrier. You saw it on sunday, frontal pressure can cause turnovers. So zac charged in to put on the block, to make sure that joey can get the ball out of there. When the whistle wentand zac made his move joey had not kicked the ball, the ball is in the area. If it's not then it's a free kick. umpire called play on.....

S what your all saying is that you can't bump a player until they are on their way to tackle the player. you know what, in high speed sport you don't get 3-4 seconds to judge this, ask a guy over coffee what his intentions are. You bump the guy, gain your team mate some space and if it's scarlett stick it up him.....

Whatever way you want to paint it, it's in play, fair bump. Remind me, how long did the crows player stay off the ground? If a player was suspended for a legal tackle/bump every time the opposition cried "I'm sore" then 30 players from the cats saints game wouldn't have played the following week....

What Zac should have done is block him not bump him so hard that he had to leave the ground and that is what made it illegal. The bump made unduly rough conduct to a player who doesnt expect that type of contact in those circumstances. Plenty of players block the man on the mark as soon as play on is called and that is fine. no one seems to want to say how they would feel if the same thing happened to Rooy one week and the next week it then happened to 2 of our players. We would be upset and justifiable so.

so it comes down to whether the player expects the hit to come.

So your telling me that being the closest player to the ball carrier, hearing the play on call and you don't expect ANY contact.... please help me.....

it's a kangaroo court and the fev example is a very good one. just cause he's a big boy and thus his bump is hard should have NO effect if it is to the body, is in play and the player is th closest to the ball carrier....

look lets just say I have seen this happen many a time and never seen a free for it. The umpire needs to be sacked then cause he called play on.

[Dis Believer]

I 'll answer you Plunger. If that had been Rooey, i wouldn't have a problem. I reckon it was opportunistic, but legal and a good, fair bump.

That is my honest feeling about it and how I judge things - would I have the same opinion if the jumpers were swapped. I would have the same opinion. I wouldn't be happy that our bloke had been cleaned up, but I would not want the bloke rubbed out for it because it would not be right.

And for all those carrying on that Joey kicked the ball, I was there and it was virtually right in front of me. In real time, to the naked human eye, the hit looked to occur simultaneously to the kick. In a freeze frame photo 2/100's of a second later the ball is in the air on the way out of the zone, but life doesn't happen in freeze frame.

[joffaboy]

Rough conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or
negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which
in the circumstances is unreasonable.

Why is it unreasonable to bump a player but reasonable to knee a player ion the back causeing massive injury?


When determining whether or not the Conduct was
unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not limited, to
whether the player is not, or would not reasonably be, expected
to influence the contest.

Both Symes and Richards were influencing the contest, Richards was contesting a mark, Symes was standing the mark.


Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above
words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent
he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head
or neck.

Where did Dawson hit Symes high?


Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be
deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic
alternative to:
(a) contest the ball;
(b) tackle; or
(c) shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances.

c covers what Dawson did

In determining whether there was a realistic alternative
to shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances, regard will be given to:
■■ whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping
was excessive for the situation;

How is that objectively determined? A coin toss? A guess? Looking at the entrails of a sacrificed chicken. F*** me what idiotic Anderson legalesse bulls.hite


■■ whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the
passage of play;

Symes was actively involved in the play. he was standing the mark impeding Montagna

■■ the distance the player applying the bump has run to make
contact;

what does this mean? Under Andersons laes you can only run a certain distance to make a bump? Does anybody know how far you are allowed to run? Or is this another discressionary decision by the AFL?

■■ whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect
himself or is in a vulnerable position;

goes back to solars thread - death of the bump. We play a sport where there is no offside - there will always be blindsided players. So this also means that a player going for the ball should not try to mark but cover his ribs so not to get hit in a vunerable position.

Why do backmen never get cited for hitting Roo every time his hands are above his head?

■■ whether an elbow is part of the contact;

wasn't

■■ whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to
bump.

didn't

The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so
legitimately.


did so

He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an
opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible

did so.

[st.byron]

Joffaboy,
To further your point, there was an incident at teh weekend in the WCE-PA game where Glass ran past teh football adn 'took out' Westhoff with a bump.

This incident was not even looked at by the MRP.
Why?
Surely under the catchall 'rough play' rule this is equally as bad (if not worse because there was some contact to the head) as the Dawson/Symes incident?

I saw that vision too Magic and wondered exactly the same thing. Glass flattened Westhoff with a fierce hip and shoulder and not even a murmur from the MRP. I don't understand why one is two weeks and one is play on.

[kosifantutti23]

Here's the rule on Rough Conduct.

Maybe have a read before charging Fevola and Glass with it (neither of which I've seen by the way)

It still doesn't explain why Rough Conduct is treated more seriously than Striking or Head Butting which is why Zac was offered a week instead of a Reprimand.

Rough conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or
negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which
in the circumstances is unreasonable.
When determining whether or not the Conduct was
unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not limited, to
whether the player is not, or would not reasonably be, expected
to influence the contest.
Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above
words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent
he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head
or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be
deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic
alternative to:
(a) contest the ball;
(b) tackle; or
(c) shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances.
In determining whether there was a realistic alternative
to shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances, regard will be given to:
■■ whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping
was excessive for the situation;
■■ whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the
passage of play;
■■ the distance the player applying the bump has run to make
contact;
■■ whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect
himself or is in a vulnerable position;
■■ whether an elbow is part of the contact;
■■ whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to
bump.
The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so
legitimately. He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an
opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible.

[Mr Magic]

Here's the rule on Rough Conduct.

Maybe have a read before charging Fevola and Glass with it (neither of which I've seen by the way)

It still doesn't explain why Rough Conduct is treated more seriously than Striking or Head Butting which is why Zac was offered a week instead of a Reprimand.

Rough conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or
negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which
in the circumstances is unreasonable.
When determining whether or not the Conduct was
unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not limited, to
whether the player is not, or would not reasonably be, expected
to influence the contest.
Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above
words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent
he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head
or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be
deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic
alternative to:
(a) contest the ball;
(b) tackle; or
(c) shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances.
In determining whether there was a realistic alternative
to shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances, regard will be given to:
■■ whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping
was excessive for the situation;
■■ whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the
passage of play;
■■ the distance the player applying the bump has run to make
contact;
■■ whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect
himself or is in a vulnerable position;
■■ whether an elbow is part of the contact;
■■ whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to
bump.
The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so
legitimately. He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an
opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible.

So which part(s) of that definition do you feel Dawson transgressed?

[kosifantutti23]

Comments in italics.

Rough conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or
negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which
in the circumstances is unreasonable.

Why is it unreasonable to bump a player but reasonable to knee a player ion the back causeing massive injury?

Maybe the rules are wrong. The MRP or tribunal can do nothing about that.

When determining whether or not the Conduct was
unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not limited, to
whether the player is not, or would not reasonably be, expected
to influence the contest.

Both Symes and Richards were influencing the contest, Richards was contesting a mark, Symes was standing the mark.

The ball had been kicked. Symes was not influencing the contest


Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above
words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent
he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head
or neck.

Where did Dawson hit Symes high?

Irrelevant if Symes is not influencing the contest


Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be
deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic
alternative to:
(a) contest the ball;
(b) tackle; or
(c) shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances.

c covers what Dawson did

disagree the ball was gone, it was a cheap shot

In determining whether there was a realistic alternative
to shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances, regard will be given to:
■■ whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping
was excessive for the situation;

How is that objectively determined? A coin toss? A guess? Looking at the entrails of a sacrificed chicken. F*** me what idiotic Anderson legalesse bulls.hite


■■ whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the
passage of play;

Symes was actively involved in the play. he was standing the mark impeding Montagna

The ball had been kicked already

■■ the distance the player applying the bump has run to make
contact;

what does this mean? Under Andersons laes you can only run a certain distance to make a bump? Does anybody know how far you are allowed to run? Or is this another discressionary decision by the AFL?

■■ whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect
himself or is in a vulnerable position;

goes back to solars thread - death of the bump. We play a sport where there is no offside - there will always be blindsided players. So this also means that a player going for the ball should not try to mark but cover his ribs so not to get hit in a vunerable position.

Why do backmen never get cited for hitting Roo every time his hands are above his head?

■■ whether an elbow is part of the contact;

wasn't

■■ whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to
bump.

didn't

The onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so
legitimately.


did so

He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an
opponent’s head or neck where reasonably possible

did so.

[/i]

[Life Long Saint]

Symes was not influencing the contest.

Off course he was influencing the constest - don't confuse that with laying a tackle. He was standing the mark until the umpire called play on. he was then the closest opposition player and the Crow "responsible" at that time for Montagna. He was watching Montagna and limiting his ability to run and carry and therefore forcing, by his own presence, Montagna to dispose of the ball. Had Joey not disposed of the ball rapidly enough, Symes was the player that would have tackled him.

Still think he wasn't influencing the play? If he wasn't influencing the play Joey could have ambled off up the ground in his own good time with the ball tucked under his arm.

Once Joey has kicked the ball, Symes is not influencing the contest. Zac hit him after Joey kicked the ball. Just like West on Clarke last year and as I have stated before, the rules have been changed since then.

That is assuming that the kick went to its target. What if Joey miskicked or kicked to a player less than 15m away and the umpire called play on? You can't know any of that if you're watching the player kick the ball. Both Dawson and Symes were doing that.
If you're not watching the player with the ball he is likely to play on to the direction that you're not looking.

The player on the mark is always in-play just after the umpire has called "play-on". With the benefit of a birds-eye view it is easy to tell that Symes was not going to influence the play. But at ground level neither Dawson or Symes could know that for sure!

[kosifantutti23]

Joey had already kicked the ball. What has hitting the target got to do with it?

[plugger66]

The guy still had his arms in the air ffs.... he was in no way about to contest for the ball, was blindsided, and hit with a high degree of force.

Past and unrelated incidents do not come into it.

was the bump legal? Was the bump done within 10 metres of the ball? Had the umpire called play on?

You can bump and tackle (as long as it's legal, below the shoulders and not tackled without the ball) if the ball is within 10 metres and the umpire has called play on. thats the beauty of this sport, sometimes you can be blindsided. Otherwise players will need to have to shout "coming" before they go to bump, heaven forbid a player doesn't see him or not braces himself.

Thats why running with th flight of the ball is so gutsy, thats why our sport is the toughest in the world. Rugby and other sports, you have them coming from ONE direction, in ours it can come from anywhere....

go figure.....

Within 10 meters?.... overhead and heading away from him?

So a player standing on the goal line can be taken out as the ball sails overhead if the other player times it right?

Look at it again and imagine the jumpers reversed.

you know what, that is a great example.... full forwards shepard balls over the line every day of the week....

as has already been said, when the whistle went joey had the ball, he is the ball carrier. You saw it on sunday, frontal pressure can cause turnovers. So zac charged in to put on the block, to make sure that joey can get the ball out of there. When the whistle wentand zac made his move joey had not kicked the ball, the ball is in the area. If it's not then it's a free kick. umpire called play on.....

S what your all saying is that you can't bump a player until they are on their way to tackle the player. you know what, in high speed sport you don't get 3-4 seconds to judge this, ask a guy over coffee what his intentions are. You bump the guy, gain your team mate some space and if it's scarlett stick it up him.....

Whatever way you want to paint it, it's in play, fair bump. Remind me, how long did the crows player stay off the ground? If a player was suspended for a legal tackle/bump every time the opposition cried "I'm sore" then 30 players from the cats saints game wouldn't have played the following week....

What Zac should have done is block him not bump him so hard that he had to leave the ground and that is what made it illegal. The bump made unduly rough conduct to a player who doesnt expect that type of contact in those circumstances. Plenty of players block the man on the mark as soon as play on is called and that is fine. no one seems to want to say how they would feel if the same thing happened to Rooy one week and the next week it then happened to 2 of our players. We would be upset and justifiable so.

so it comes down to whether the player expects the hit to come.

So your telling me that being the closest player to the ball carrier, hearing the play on call and you don't expect ANY contact.... please help me.....

it's a kangaroo court and the fev example is a very good one. just cause he's a big boy and thus his bump is hard should have NO effect if it is to the body, is in play and the player is th closest to the ball carrier....

look lets just say I have seen this happen many a time and never seen a free for it. The umpire needs to be sacked then cause he called play on.

Well if i was standing the mark and play on was called and wasnt making any attempt to get the player with the ball and certainly wouldnt be expected to be ironed out especially since it was less than a second after play on was called. I might expect a block or shephard but not the bump that was given.

[falka]

My problem with the situation is that if your going to fight it, you fight it all the way. So no appeal is surprising. Should have taken the week. Stupid

[Ghost Like]

That picture shows Symes between Zac and Joey and Joey AND Symes running of the mark and as mentioned earlier the difference between Joey holding on to the ball and kicking it is micro seconds, Zac had already decided the team thing was to run in and block (bump) Symes. Zac would not even have realised Joey had kicked it.

The decision is a joke and yes under these circumstances I would be saying the same thing if it had happened to one of our players.

I hope Zac does not change his style and continues to be the revelation he has been through the finals and if he gets a chance to take out Chapman or S. Johnson in the same way in the GF I hope he takes it without hesitation.

[The Fireman]

That picture shows Symes between Zac and Joey and Joey AND Symes running of the mark and as mentioned earlier the difference between Joey holding on to the ball and kicking it is micro seconds, Zac had already decided the team thing was to run in and block (bump) Symes. Zac would not even have realised Joey had kicked it.

The decision is a joke and yes under these circumstances I would be saying the same thing if it had happened to one of our players.

I hope Zac does not change his style and continues to be the revelation he has been through the finals and if he gets a chance to take out Chapman or S. Johnson in the same way in the GF I hope he takes it without hesitation.

spot on

[Life Long Saint]

Joey had already kicked the ball. What has hitting the target got to do with it?

I assume that you're referring to my post.

If you are, then perhaps you should read my entire post before asking the question as I explained what it has to do with it.

For your benefit, neither Dawson or Symes would not have been aware that Symes was not influencing the play because they were not aware of the effectiveness or length of the kick.

If Joey kicked to a player less than 15m away, it is possible that Symes would have been first on the scene to possibly effect a tackle.

The crowd (and TV) has the benefit of a better view of the play. Dawson and Symes did not.

So in the end, Dawson could not be sure that Symes was not influencing the contest.

Also given that Joey decided to play on before he kicked, Symes (if he had bothered to make an effort), he could have attempted to smother the kick. Dawson (knowing that we tend to play on across the goals from defence) was then protecting the kicker.

[kosifantutti23]

Yes I read your whole post and it didn't make much sense. It still doesn't.

So any player within 70m of Joey could line up their opponent and take them out because you never know where the ball will end up.

The ball had moved on, time for me to move on as well.

[maverick]

Yes I read your whole post and it didn't make much sense. It still doesn't.

So any player within 70m of Joey could line up their opponent and take them out because you never know where the ball will end up.

The ball had moved on, time for me to move on as well.

Finally, just 6 pages too late.

[SaintDippa]

Ah yes. "Unduly rough play."

"Contact between Carlton’s Kade Simpson and St Kilda’s Brendon Goddard from the first quarter of Friday’s match was assessed. The panel said that Simpson tackled Goddard and pinned his left arm. Simpson’s head was positioned behind Goddard’s back, and the Carlton player would not have seen the ball had spilt free before taking Goddard to ground. Given this, the action was not deemed unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken."

Spear tackles OK. Fev kneeing Richards OK. Glass running past the ball to 'unduly rough play' Westhoff OK. Bumps no longer OK.

[desertsaint]

Spear tackles OK. Fev kneeing Richards OK. Glass running past the ball to 'unduly rough play' Westhoff OK. Bumps no longer OK.

all of them okay by me! a joke of a decision.