AFL Round 5 already and what goes with it

[Booney]

I haven't seen any netballers get suspended from their sport recently as a result of the physical nature of their sport. They just pick themselves up off the boards and get on with....

Well, the next time a net baller gets dropped by a bump from the blind side and is knocked out you send me a link to the footage, ok?

[Footy Smart]

I agree Douglas will get get 2-3. He didnt need to make contact with Ward..... very silly IMO

I have only seen 1 replay, did he actually make contact with Wards head? you dont have to be hit in the head to get concussion.

The charge is rough conduct so dont spose it matters if the contact was to the head or not. Which is why the rule stink!

[Mr Beefy]

I haven't seen any netballers get suspended from their sport recently as a result of the physical nature of their sport. They just pick themselves up off the boards and get on with....

Well, the next time a net baller gets dropped by a bump from the blind side and is knocked out you send me a link to the footage, ok?

he he

[Booney]

Team mates. Doesn't count.

[Q.]

Team mates. Doesn't count.

Uncoordinated people don't count either.

[Coach Bombay]

0 weeks for mine re Douglas

Great bump, Non issue, too bad if you get concussion...shit happens in a contact sport. Didnt leave the ground, didnt aim for the head, just a bump ffs.

Are you a bit slow on the uptake?
You can't do what Douglas did anymore - whether we like it or not.
Ward wasn't even chasing the crows player with the ball (if you watch the angle from behind).
Douglas picked him off, pretty much coming from the blindside. To say Ward should have been more aware is folly.

Too bad he got concussion? Your player Douglas won't be thinking that when it's taken into account on how many games he'll be suspended.

Didn't aim for the head? Irrelevant and not a defence.

He'll get 3 matches I reckon.

not slow at all, just not going to conform to the way the mrp view this rule. I wouldnt have given Fyfe anything or ziebelll from years past. Some players concuss easier than others an therefore a weaker bump can have more of an impact that a more reckless bump and therefore the players medical diagnosis should be irrelevant as players some do not injure as easy as other players. Still hoping for 0 weeks, but an educated guess would say 2-3 weeks.

[Reddeer]

just goes to show how inconsistent the AFL is with the tribunal system thee days.
Ward was well within the 5 metres that allows a shepherd. the clash of heads is what did ward in which was an accidental part of the shepherding
.
What about the charge by Glass against Wingard In the SANFL Grocke got 7 matches for the exact same thing

[Phantom Gossiper]

Hard to believe wasnt that long ago the AFL used to promote and celebrate hits like Douglas's.

[Booney]

just goes to show how inconsistent the AFL is with the tribunal system thee days.
Ward was well within the 5 metres that allows a shepherd. the clash of heads is what did ward in which was an accidental part of the shepherding
.
What about the charge by Glass against Wingard In the SANFL Grocke got 7 matches for the exact same thing

I don't think that was the case at all.

[Phantom Gossiper]

Ward was well within the 5 metres that allows a shepherd.

I don't think that was the case at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek9TDR6J4SE

44 second mark.. filthy uncalled for and no way within 5m

[Phantom Gossiper]

Poor Ward wasnt even giving chase, unaware..

douglas frame 1.JPG (28.17 KiB) Viewed 829 times

douglas frame 2.JPG (27.81 KiB) Viewed 829 times

douglas frame 3.JPG (28.62 KiB) Viewed 829 times

[PatowalongaPirate]

just goes to show how inconsistent the AFL is with the tribunal system thee days.
Ward was well within the 5 metres that allows a shepherd. the clash of heads is what did ward in which was an accidental part of the shepherding
.
What about the charge by Glass against Wingard In the SANFL Grocke got 7 matches for the exact same thing

You don't sell real estate by any chance do you?

[stan]

The problem is that while Douglas was probably trying to create space for the ball carrier, the AFL are hell bent on stamping this out. Hence he is probably looking at one of those 2 - 3 week suspensions that will no doubt bring up calls for the crows to challenge it for the good of football.

[Booney]

The problem is that while Douglas was probably trying to create space for the ball carrier, the AFL are hell bent on stamping this out. Hence he is probably looking at one of those 2 - 3 week suspensions that will no doubt bring up calls for the crows to challenge it for the good of football.

I don't see that as being good for football, and I love a bit of biff. Picking off an unsuspecting player who is just covering ground without any real intent or influence on the game, pretty low IMO.

I'm surprised more has been made of "What will happen to Douglas?" as opposed to "How was the cheap shot by Douglas?". For it was, IMO, a pretty cheap shot.

Just my view.

[stan]

The problem is that while Douglas was probably trying to create space for the ball carrier, the AFL are hell bent on stamping this out. Hence he is probably looking at one of those 2 - 3 week suspensions that will no doubt bring up calls for the crows to challenge it for the good of football.

I don't see that as being good for football, and I love a bit of biff. Picking off an unsuspecting player who is just covering ground without any real intent or influence on the game, pretty low IMO.

I'm surprised more has been made of "What will happen to Douglas?" as opposed to "How was the cheap shot by Douglas?". For it was, IMO, a pretty cheap shot.

Just my view.

Maybe Booney, I'm just saying that whenever someone is rubbed out for a bump or anything physical you always get the calls to challenge it for the good of football.

To me it just seemed to be a strange move by Douglas, although perhaps he thought he needed to clear some space for the ball carrier. I dont know. All I know is that the AFL is keen on stamping that out. 2 - 3 weeks is probably likely IMO.

[carey]

Should get life for wearing that jumper and 3 weeks on top for the bump...

[kneedeepinthehoopla]

just goes to show how inconsistent the AFL is with the tribunal system thee days.
Ward was well within the 5 metres that allows a shepherd. the clash of heads is what did ward in which was an accidental part of the shepherding
.
What about the charge by Glass against Wingard In the SANFL Grocke got 7 matches for the exact same thing

You don't sell real estate by any chance do you?

Ha, if he's within 5m then the ball carrier is only 55m out from goal...
I doubt that will be used in his defence, reddeer. He just sniped him, plain and simple. Dumb play.

[cokadonkeytoo]

I actually think it was a reaction to Ward being moved onto Danger. The move had taken place not long before the hit so maybe Douglas was trying to put a hit on to help Danger (I realise Danger was no where near this contest at the time). Maybe some of the players took the 'help Paddy' too literally. I agree he should get games as it was a cheap shot and un called for. Would've been great if he had done it in a contest though

[TEX07]

Watching it live I though at first nothing rally in it - however I was cooking the bbq at that time so I only saw it once. Thosepics are pretty damning though - Ward was never going to put any pressure on Dangerfield from where he was, looks as though he had given up the chase IMO. 3-4 weeks is what I would want if it was on the other foot. especially since Ward didnt come back on and he is such an important player to GWS.

[Jim05]

Douglas copped 2 games