by FlyingHigh » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:20 pm
by Psyber » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:50 pm
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.
by NFC » Mon Apr 02, 2007 1:58 am
FlyingHigh wrote:If Matthew Whelan gets suspended for his bump on Luke Ball, then we should all just give up.
by another grub » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:51 pm
by Aerie » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:59 pm
by Hondo » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Aerie wrote: it's a large part of why people go to watch the footy
by JK » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:31 pm
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.
by Hondo » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:33 pm
FlyingHigh wrote:If Matthew Whelan gets suspended for his bump on Luke Ball, then we should all just give up.
by Hondo » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:36 pm
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?
by JK » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:38 pm
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?
by Hondo » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:42 pm
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??
by scoob » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:43 pm
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?
by JK » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:51 pm
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!
by JK » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:54 pm
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!!!
by Hondo » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:04 pm
by scoob » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:12 pm
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.
by FlyingHigh » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:27 pm
by Aerie » Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:38 pm
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.
by Psyber » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:19 pm
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.
by Hondo » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:06 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |