by carey » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:26 pm
by Wedgie » Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:49 pm
carey wrote:I'm just totally confused on the gradings and rulings. In my eyes there were at least 3 maybe even 4 hits/bumps far worse than Hawkings who gets a week yet these blokes got nothing
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
by On The Chest » Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:46 am
carey wrote:I'm just totally confused on the gradings and rulings. In my eyes there were at least 3 maybe even 4 hits/bumps far worse than Hawkings who gets a week yet these blokes got nothing
by Booney » Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:21 am
by JK » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:19 am
by Booney » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:24 am
by Corona Man » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:32 am
Booney wrote:Firrito, he really is a spud, isn't he? Laughed my head off when Breust nails a goal right on 3/4 time to make it just over a goal and North needed two to get in front.
by Dutchy » Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:38 am
Booney wrote:Firrito, he really is a spud, isn't he? Laughed my head off when Breust nails a goal right on 3/4 time to make it just over a goal and North needed two to get in front.
by Zelezny Chucks » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:53 pm
by Rik E Boy » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:55 pm
Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.
Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?
by JK » Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:57 pm
Zelezny Chucks wrote:Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?
by Booney » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:15 pm
Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.
Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?
by Zelezny Chucks » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:39 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.
Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?
Regardless of how hard it was. Never heard of the term 'insufficient force'? Vince elected to bump and got the guy high. You couldn't be more wrong in saying this is consistent.
regards,
REB
by Booney » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:43 pm
Zelezny Chucks wrote:Rik E Boy wrote:Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.
Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?
Regardless of how hard it was. Never heard of the term 'insufficient force'? Vince elected to bump and got the guy high. You couldn't be more wrong in saying this is consistent.
regards,
REB
End result has nothing to do with intent. Bernie was trying to bump Parker legally in the play and carelessly hit him in the head, Hawkins only intent was to hit him in the head in an off the ball situation. If you look back at things that are graded reckless, careless, intentional then I would think this is pretty consistent.
Whether you agree with it or not is another matter.
by Lightning McQueen » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:52 pm
by Booney » Tue Jun 21, 2016 2:55 pm
Lightning McQueen wrote:I would've thought Vince and Ziebell would've both got a game at least judging on previous bumps over the past 12 months.
by Lightning McQueen » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:07 pm
Booney wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:I would've thought Vince and Ziebell would've both got a game at least judging on previous bumps over the past 12 months.
And you would have had a few riding that with you.
by Zelezny Chucks » Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:17 pm
Booney wrote:Zelezny Chucks wrote:Rik E Boy wrote:Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.
Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?
Regardless of how hard it was. Never heard of the term 'insufficient force'? Vince elected to bump and got the guy high. You couldn't be more wrong in saying this is consistent.
regards,
REB
End result has nothing to do with intent. Bernie was trying to bump Parker legally in the play and carelessly hit him in the head, Hawkins only intent was to hit him in the head in an off the ball situation. If you look back at things that are graded reckless, careless, intentional then I would think this is pretty consistent.
Whether you agree with it or not is another matter.
Tried to bump legally but "carelessly got him high". Good, we do agree.
by Spargo » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:01 pm
by Booney » Tue Jun 21, 2016 5:03 pm
Spargo wrote:Ziebell has been royally shafted previously by the MRP/Tribunal, about time he had one go his way.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |