SA Footy

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:McAdam should have got 2, Pickett 3. atleast the player McAdam hit actually had the ball.

Should’ve tackled him, he had time

Lightning McQueen wrote:

locky801 wrote:Crows challenging the McAdam report

That’s plain silly

They have not challenged the verdict, they were challenging the charge during the hearing.

Watching live, I said "that's 4 weeks" when i saw the hit. I am not worried about Shane getting 3. Its Pickett getting 2 and Buddy getting 1 is the concern.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:McAdam should have got 2, Pickett 3. atleast the player McAdam hit actually had the ball.

Should’ve tackled him, he had time

yes, but players in recent years have gone away from tackling to bumping which is bloody frustrating

MW wrote:Watching live, I said "that's 4 weeks" when i saw the hit. I am not worried about Shane getting 3. Its Pickett getting 2 and Buddy getting 1 is the concern.

Yep baffling, near identical action to Pickett's I thought. Toby would have got 6 weeks.

[quote="MW"]Watching live, I said "that's 4 weeks" when i saw the hit. I am not worried about Shane getting 3. Its Pickett getting 2 and Buddy getting 1 is the concern.[/quote]

Exactly, if the Pickett incident didn't happen noone looks twice at McAdam getting 3

PatowalongaPirate wrote:I wonder if individual players will be held to account in future years for causing head trauma in their playing days. Will the AFL take the angle of "it wasn't the game that hurt him, it was the bump by player x".

The AFL may use that in the future to defend themselves. But it will be too hard to prove one specific player/incident caused long term injury unless a player never plays again from the immediate point of the incident.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:McAdam should have got 2, Pickett 3. atleast the player McAdam hit actually had the ball.

Should’ve tackled him, he had time

Someone who’s played the game! Bout time.

Not blokes on here posting thinking they’re actual AFL media. Seriously.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:McAdam should have got 2, Pickett 3. atleast the player McAdam hit actually had the ball.

Should’ve tackled him, he had time

yes, but players in recent years have gone away from tackling to bumping which is bloody frustrating

This is because they are trained to use "bumper bars" to stop the run of players being involved in the next passage of play, McAdam got it a bit wrong tho

The ACTION should be the issue not the outcome.
Pickett very lucky

shoe boy wrote:The ACTION should be the issue not the outcome.
Pickett very lucky

Exactly!!!
That could've ended very badly. Couple of inches either way, at speed and Smith is broken badly.
Hes is a very lucky boy.