AFL ROUND 7

[wenchbarwer]

I should have clarified in my comment, whilst I think it's reportable, it's not worth 3 weeks. A week seems fair.

The AFL have it backwards.

This is what happens when you let lawyers run the show...

[Jimmy_041]

Footballers have such pi$$weak knees now ( ) they automatically fall forward when tackled

I saw that tackle - it's BS

[Sharksta]

I should have clarified in my comment, whilst I think it's reportable, it's not worth 3 weeks. A week seems fair.

The AFL have it backwards.

This is what happens when you let lawyers run the show...

The problem is both that they are lawyers and not footballers causing issues with their knowledge of the game but also that they think like lawyers and are fully aware of all the lawsuits and damage claims facing the league going forward and are trying to mitigate that albeit it poorly.

It’s the old saying as to what do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dutchy]

Well it was nice to see us competitive for 3 quarters on Saturday, can we deliver that more consistently will be the challenge, if we can then we will start winning games.

The over reaction about the umpires is so annoying as usual, the most critical one was missed with Willie illegally blocking Comben which resulted in the match sealing goal when we had momentum, but why focus on them? As I keep saying players make many many more mistakes which is well within the teams control. i.e. Larkey missing 3 sitters, Durrsma chosing to handball instead of kicking late in the game, SPP kicking into the man on the mark in the goal square, JHF elbowing Simpkin in the head giving away to 50m penalty/goal etc etc

The Curtis ban is predictable, as someone said, just come out and say it - if you concuss a player you will be getting a minimum of 3 weeks.

Didn't you guys get 4 goals from 50m penalties and another 2 from dubious frees in front of goal? The Wines one was disgraceful, there was some deadset shockers.

I didn't expect you guys to get so close, there's a lot to like about the group.

If you look thru Cornes coloured glasses then yes.

[Booney]

He gets more effective possessions of North fans than Simpkin does on a weekend.

[Lightning McQueen]

If you look thru Cornes coloured glasses then yes.

I watched his snippet and thought he was a bit biased with a couple of his interpretations, I still thought there was utter garbage decisions made though.

[Dutchy]

He gets more effective possessions of North fans than Simpkin does on a weekend.

Anything to take some heat off his love child

[Booney]

He gets more effective possessions of North fans than Simpkin does on a weekend.

Anything to take some heat off his love child

He's paddling this year isn't he? Only 24 touches, 5 clearances, 5 inside 50's, 3 tackles and a goal a game.

[Armchair expert]

Hornyball > Sheezeyball

[Rik E Boy]

Dadadadada...

Sing it!

How goods footy!!

Bloody Carlton! We excel in making you blokes look good.

regards,

REB

[Dutchy]

He gets more effective possessions of North fans than Simpkin does on a weekend.

Anything to take some heat off his love child

He's paddling this year isn't he? Only 24 touches, 5 clearances, 5 inside 50's, 3 tackles and a goal a game.

With the footy he is going well, no dispute there.

[PatowalongaPirate]

Curtis 3 game ban upheld.

[MW]

Cerra gets a fine on appeal, Hinge 1 week upheld. Watch the vision of both and tell me the difference.

[Zelezny Chucks]

I spotted it pretty quickly - the guernsey

[Zelezny Chucks]

The guernsey is still the only difference I can see... can someone make it make sense?

Reasons for Hinge decision:

We find that this was an intentional strike.

The Tribunal guidelines provide that where a player intends to forcefully push or fend an opposition player off the ball, including to gain separation for the purpose of contesting the ball, and the effect is that the player commits the reportable offence of striking, the strike will usually be graded as intentional.

Despite Hinge’s evidence that he did not intend to strike Brayshaw, we find that the video evidence is quite inconsistent with this. It shows a forceful movement of his arm in an upward motion. It was a striking or jabbing movement, rather than a push that had no intention to strike.

We do not find that the fact the blow landed on Brayshaw’s face was caused by Brayshaw having lowered his body position. There was some lowering, but Hinge was looking at Brayshaw and the lowering was not significant.

Hinge’s arm and hand did not slide upwards or glance off another part of Brayshaw’s body. It was a blow to the face that was always likely to land on the face.

Hinge did not form a fist, but the upward and forceful motion of his hand was consistent with him having formed an intention to strike.

The guidelines note that “what the player did is often the best evidence of the purpose he had in mind.”

In some cases, the evidence that the act provides may be so strong as to compel an inference of what his intent was, no matter what he might say about it afterwards.

If the immediate consequence of an act is so obvious and inevitable, the deliberate doing of the act carries with it evidence of an intention to produce the consequences.

Tribunal's reasons for Cerra decision:

We are comfortably satisfied that this was a strike. It was a forceful blow delivered with an open hand to the face of Bowes. We reject the characterisation of it as a brushing impact. It was forceful and knocked Bowes off his feet in what was obviously a spontaneous, genuine and immediate response to the blow.

Cerra’s equally spontaneous gesture of surprise and apparent contrition by holding out his left hand as Bowes fell to the ground, is consistent with him having realised that he delivered a blow of some force.

The question is whether this was an intentional strike. We find that it was not.

We note that the Tribunal guidelines provide that ‘where a player intends to forcefully push or fend an opposition player off the ball, including to gain separation for the purpose of contesting the ball, and the effect is that the player commits the reportable offence of striking, the strike will usually be graded as intentional.’

Neither side contended on behalf of Cerra that this guideline had no relevance … but did submit that the guideline could not itself convert a lack of intention to intention.

We find that despite the fact that forceful pushes or fends that result in a strike usually be graded as intentional, it is not appropriate here for the following reasons.

It's clear from the video and as a matter of fact Cerra did not intend to strike Bowes, he intended to push him.

Bowes was attempting to push Cerra off his position, Cerra was attempting to push back to hold his position.

We accept Cerra’s evidence to this effect.

It is also consistent with, as we previously mentioned, Cerra’s spontaneous raising of his arm in surprise and contrition.

There is force in Carlton’s submission. Cerra pushed or fended with equal force with his left and right hands and it is illogical to conclude that he intended to push with one but strike with the other.

Bowes moved lower immediately prior to the moment of contact. The Tribunal has frequently observed that in a fast moving game such as this, players can be taken to know that their opponent may suddenly move in a way that renders a certain act careless.

But here we are addressing whether this act was intentional, and the movement of Bowes at the last second supports the view that Cerra intended to push him in the chest or shoulder, but the strike to the head was not intended.

For these reasons we conclude that while this was a strike, it was careless rather than intentional.

[dedja]

Curtis 3 game ban upheld.

Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bloke …

https://www.facebook.com/reel/135784799 ... ?fs=e&fs=e