SA Footy

If Matthew Whelan gets suspended for his bump on Luke Ball, then we should all just give up.

Any player chasing a someone with the ball should be ready half aware that a shepherd might be coming, especially from the angle Whelan came from.

This is different from the Gianciracusa incident, because that bloke ran quite a way to bump Kositschke.

FlyingHigh wrote:If Matthew Whelan gets suspended for his bump on Luke Ball, then we should all just give up.

Any player chasing a someone with the ball should be ready half aware that a shepherd might be coming, especially from the angle Whelan came from.

This is different from the Gianciracusa incident, because that bloke ran quite a way to bump Kositschke.

I think it was more than a "shepherd". He would have been easy enough to shepherd without that much impact that far behind the player he was chasing - I'd give Whelan at least 3 matches, but I expect he'll get off because our sytem is soft on excessive and unnecessary violence.

FlyingHigh wrote:If Matthew Whelan gets suspended for his bump on Luke Ball, then we should all just give up.

Agreed. The perfect bump, and yet he might get done.

thats our game these days... Weak As P##s....... FFS...... Im going to the NRL..... they have lost me..... too soft!!!!

Will be interesting to see the outcome - if he gets off, there is hope for the national game yet....

It was the perfect hard, physical shepherd. He pulled it off to perfection and it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy. He should not get suspended. I will be disgusted if he does.

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

Rubbish ... not one person I speak to who loves the games says that is the reason for their passion.

Having dissed you like that .... I think Whelan is borderline. The point is he could have shephered in another way without laying the shoulder in to a guy who didn't see it coming. However, it's was split second decision stuff and Whelan was almost run in to by Ball. It will come down to whether the tribunal think Whelan had time to keep Ball out of the play in a less dangerous way. Probably not an incident I would use to make an example of if I was on the tribunal - a warning would probably suffice I reckon.

hondo71 wrote:

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

Rubbish ... not one person I speak to who loves the games says that is the reason for their passion.

Having dissed you like that .... I think Whelan is borderline. The point is he could have shephered in another way without laying the shoulder in to a guy who didn't see it coming. However, it's was split second decision stuff and Whelan was almost run in to by Ball. It will come down to whether the tribunal think Whelan had time to keep Ball out of the play in a less dangerous way. Probably not an incident I would use to make an example of if I was on the tribunal - warning would probably suffice I reckon.

I haven't seen the incident, so just asking in general terms: Why in this day and age does everyone seem to think it unreasonable that the pursuing player isn't responsible for his own awareness of other players around him?

FlyingHigh wrote:If Matthew Whelan gets suspended for his bump on Luke Ball, then we should all just give up.

Why say that? You know and I know that you will still watch the AFL even if Whelan gets 10 matches. I keep hearing these veiled threats that "I just won't watch it anymore!!!" yet more and more of us are watching it in Australia. If you want to be a martyr and watch lawn bowls or something else in protest then go ahead.

Constance_Perm wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

I haven't seen the incident, so just asking in general terms: Why in this day and age does everyone seem to think it unreasonable that the pursuing player isn't responsible for his own awareness of other players around him?

Say you are driving along and obeying all the road laws. Someone intentionally drives in to the side of your car and you didn't see them coming and had no opportunity to get out of the way ... is it your fault?

hondo71 wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

I haven't seen the incident, so just asking in general terms: Why in this day and age does everyone seem to think it unreasonable that the pursuing player isn't responsible for his own awareness of other players around him?

Say you are driving along and obeying all the road laws. Someone intentionally drives in to the side of your car and you didn't see them coming and had no opportunity to get out of the way ... is it your fault?

Mate, you're not seriously trying to use a vehicular accident as a comparison to a football field collision??

Constance_Perm wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

I haven't seen the incident, so just asking in general terms: Why in this day and age does everyone seem to think it unreasonable that the pursuing player isn't responsible for his own awareness of other players around him?

Say you are driving along and obeying all the road laws. Someone intentionally drives in to the side of your car and you didn't see them coming and had no opportunity to get out of the way ... is it your fault?

Mate, you're not seriously trying to use a vehicular accident as a comparison to a football field collision??

Don't give me the "shock" icon and avoid the question I am posing ....... answer it!

hondo71 wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

I haven't seen the incident, so just asking in general terms: Why in this day and age does everyone seem to think it unreasonable that the pursuing player isn't responsible for his own awareness of other players around him?

Say you are driving along and obeying all the road laws. Someone intentionally drives in to the side of your car and you didn't see them coming and had no opportunity to get out of the way ... is it your fault?

Stupid comparison...WADH...

Its a part of the game, if you can take someone out fairly you take them out... full stop... if you are chasing someone you have to be aware, if not suffer the consequences and if you dont like getting hit - go back to athletics!!!

hondo71 wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

I haven't seen the incident, so just asking in general terms: Why in this day and age does everyone seem to think it unreasonable that the pursuing player isn't responsible for his own awareness of other players around him?

Say you are driving along and obeying all the road laws. Someone intentionally drives in to the side of your car and you didn't see them coming and had no opportunity to get out of the way ... is it your fault?

Mate, you're not seriously trying to use a vehicular accident as a comparison to a football field collision??

Don't give me the "shock" icon and avoid the question I am posing ....... answer it!

Ask a decent question then!

scoob wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Constance_Perm wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

I haven't seen the incident, so just asking in general terms: Why in this day and age does everyone seem to think it unreasonable that the pursuing player isn't responsible for his own awareness of other players around him?

Say you are driving along and obeying all the road laws. Someone intentionally drives in to the side of your car and you didn't see them coming and had no opportunity to get out of the way ... is it your fault?

Stupid comparison...WADH...

Its a part of the game, if you can take someone out fairly you take them out... full stop... if you are chasing someone you have to be aware, if not suffer the consequences and if you dont like getting hit - go back to athletics!!!

I'm not suggesting it's open slather on either a chaser, or a player with the ball, and as I said I haven't seen this particular incident, I just don't think it unreasonable to expect players to have some form of responsibility to knowing what is taking place around him.

CP I can cope with your last comment .... I agree an AFL player has to be aware of his surroundings if he chooses to play a contact sport. You worded it as though its free reign for guys to hit other players and then get off scott-free by using the argument that "they should have seen it coming".

Scoob ..... I think when people look at this thread in the future it will be clear who sounds like a DH.

hondo71 wrote:CP I can cope with your last comment .... I agree an AFL player has to be aware of his surroundings if he chooses to play a contact sport. You worded it as though its free reign for guys to hit other players and then get off scott-free by using the argument that "they should have seen it coming".

Scoob ..... I think when people look at this thread in the future it will be clear who sounds like a DH.

Yeah exactly.

Any footballer at any level knows that if he is chasing a player, then there is a chance he will receive a shepherd. Whelan stopped and braced his body before bumping Ball anyway.

hondo71 wrote:

Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy

Rubbish ... not one person I speak to who loves the games says that is the reason for their passion.

Having dissed you like that .... I think Whelan is borderline. The point is he could have shephered in another way without laying the shoulder in to a guy who didn't see it coming. However, it's was split second decision stuff and Whelan was almost run in to by Ball. It will come down to whether the tribunal think Whelan had time to keep Ball out of the play in a less dangerous way. Probably not an incident I would use to make an example of if I was on the tribunal - a warning would probably suffice I reckon.

Pffft. You either break the rules or you don't. Whelan's shepherd was within the rules. It's fair play.

Part of footy is hitting as hard and tackling as hard as you can within the rules. If the opportunity is there, you make them hurt (within the rules) Personally, I rate a fair and fierce hip and shoulder/shepherd/tackle as highly as a high flying mark, spectacular goal or a dashing run down the wing. It is what makes Australian Rules unique. Should they completely rule out the bump, then that will be unfortunate because it will take away an exciting dimension of the game.

Aerie wrote: Pffft. You either break the rules or you don't. Whelan's shepherd was within the rules. It's fair play.

Part of footy is hitting as hard and tackling as hard as you can within the rules. If the opportunity is there, you make them hurt (within the rules) Personally, I rate a fair and fierce hip and shoulder/shepherd/tackle as highly as a high flying mark, spectacular goal or a dashing run down the wing. It is what makes Australian Rules unique. Should they completely rule out the bump, then that will be unfortunate because it will take away an exciting dimension of the game.

There are factors that affect one's point of view. I made the choice at 13 not to play a sport where someone will try to maim you for life because you are better at getting the ball than they are, taking you out anyway they can because they can't beat you any other way. So, I played Hockey.

My motivation was not that I was "chicken", I had dislocated a kid's elbow at 10 when he tried to stab me with a pointed stick - I didn't run.

I had no problem with the bumping and jostling that is part of competitive sport, and could give as good as I got. But the deliberate attempt to take players out of the game with serious injury lowers the level of genuine skill in the game. I took risks and copped some injuries in Hockey, but they were incidental to the game, not deliberate attempts to cause permanent injury. Those who have careers in mind that require their eyes, brain, hands, and limbs, to go on working can't take part in a game that some people think should resemble the Roman arena. Only those with nothing to lose can afford that - to some extent that was the key to the PAFC's past success in the SANFL.

Perhaps we should look at skilled players who gave up the game because they had something else they needed their bodies intact to do - Peter Oatey, and Andrew Aish, are two to start with.

I have no problem with a strong tackle or strong attack at the footy - even a good bump when both players are going for the ball and are properly braced for impact. It's a physical, contact sport. It's the blind-siding / 'hurt them if you can' stuff that is disappearing from the game and so it should IMHO. I played footy when I was younger and was hit unfairly a couple of times but, TBH, most games were played in the right, competitive spirit.

This tough-guy attitude is one of the factors causing the large drop-off in kids taking up Aussie Rules at junior levels. Parents are now sending their kids off to play basketball or soccer which are now very acceptable from a peer point of view which wasn't the case when I was at school. These less physical sports are now "OK" to play and, in fact, are fast growing in popularity. Once the kids miss that early training in the game, some are lost forever. It will become more of an issue in 10-15 years but the AFL has to guard now against the increasing popularity of these other sports, which is why they are working to change the public perception of the game and not wanting to glorify guys getting intentionally hurt. A lot of us miss the "good old days" and think the game is softer because of the changes, but you only have to go to an SANFL game, sit on the boundary and see and hear what's happening on the field to realise that the game is as tough and hard as it's ever been. It's just a lot cleaner than it used to be.

As for the guy switching to NRL, their supporters have the same issue as some of the people on this site as the NRL cleans up its game as well.