MW wrote:HH3 wrote:MW wrote:HH3 wrote:[quote="MW"]I think 2 weeks was spot on
its his word, but I agree his intent was to break the carltons player hold on his arm/shoulder. not contact with his jaw and knock him out.
I thought it was judged on the resulting injury, not the intent these days.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
yeah true.
what was the injury to Lamb? concussion, miss one week?
How many weeks did Vickery get for hitting Cox in a ruck contest? 4 was is? Didn't even knock him out.
Concussions can be life changing.
Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
I actually wasn't being sarcastic![/quote]
I dont get what you mean then. Lamb misses a minimum one game. They say they're going to protect the head, then someone who causes another mans brain to force itself into unconciousness to protect itself 2 weeks?
Makes no sense. And allowing character witnesses to have any bearing on the outcome of the suspension is ridiculous. You can't use on field precident, but if you know a Logie winner and the PM you get to have them put in a good word.
I couldn't care less who it is either. I'd feel the same if Jack Ziebell got such allowances that others don't.
Same as protected guys like Selwood and Hodge. It's not what you did, it's who you are, apparently.
Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk