Howard Gets 1 week

[Punk Rooster]

Well he doesn't have the nick name "Thug" for no reason.

Does not have a clean sheet with the Tribunal.

what a surprise, Borat trolls in another North thread....

[Rushby Hinds]

If this wasn't North, this wouldn't be an issue.

Ridiculous and childish statement, I expected better from you.

I was just as animated about the Cupido report last year and Brett Burton's 2 game suspention last year and last time I looked neither played for North or Geelong.
I and most others call them as we see them, don't assume other's have petty biases just because you may do.

Well where is the support for Murphy and I think Colville was it (someone from WWT) who also were suspended for one week.


This rule has been in all year, and has been discussed @ length before.

[Wedgie]

Well where is the support for Murphy and I think Colville was it (someone from WWT) who also were suspended for one week.

I didn't see those incidents, I complain about incidents I see as wrong, if I started guessing about others that would be stupid. Never even heard of Murphy.

I saw the Howard incident, I complain.
I saw the Sporn incident, I complained.
I saw the Cupido incident, I complained.
I saw the Brett Burton incident, I complained.

To suggest that something is only an issue because its a North player is childish and downright insulting, you really should knock the chip off your shoulder. If its only an issue because its a North player explain to me why these posts were taken from 2 topics that were issues, people (and I) make issues from what we see as poor and soft decisions, I look forward to your repsonse:

The AFL is a joke.
I dislike Burton but the report and subsequent 2 games was a joke, if I was Burton I would have smacked the other bloke earlier and harder and I'm no Crows lover! The decision against Pickett was also a joke.

The decision to suspend Cupido would have to be the most disgraceful decision I've seen at any level of football in my life.
And that doesn't even take into account the precedents the SANFL has set in recent years with people who have been seen shooting, murdering and pillaging getting off at the tribunal.
I don't blame for one second South supporters being dirty on this decision and I full support the SAFC in their action, I would have demanded the same action by my club had it happeneds.
An absolute disgrace and the only plausible deduction anyone could make is the SANFL are trying to punish South.

Let's hope the Panthers turn it to their favour and use it to spur themselves to a big win on Sunday.

If that was a reportable offence then approximately 280 events every Aussies Rules game would be reportable.
Wouldn't have even copped a game in netball.

Its piss weak, pure and simple, Im ropable and Im not even a South supporter, just a footy purist.
The SAFC can hold their head high, the SANFL and people agreeing with the suspension came out of this looking like a joke.

[cd]

Personal Post Only

The tribunal has been consistent from the start of the year regarding any front on hit when a player has head down. Standard set in trials with Cica from the Eags when he got suspended.

Players just have to adjust to the new interpretation. The head/neck should always be protected.

Whether it is right or wrong interpretation if contact with shoulders/arms and still coming from front on is topic for another thread.

Col D.

[am Bays]

Wedgie, I must be blind as both the second and the third photos do look as if there is head high contact.

You must be mate, but if I remember correctly you do wear glasses, I recently got my eyes tested at the optometrist though and they're still perfect, as I said previously, I was in a better angle than the camera but even if you do look closely at the following shot which is at impact unlike some of Rushby's efforts you can quite clearly see Howards upper arm/shoulder making contact with the Dogs player lower shoulder/upper arm. Because of the angle Dean hit him at the Central player momentum reversed before any contact was made to the head. The 2nd and 3rd shots (Rushby did some editting since my last post) are before and after impact. Shots before or after impact are irrelevent, it'd be like showing McConnell looking at a ball just before he pulls out of a mark when he hears footsteps!

Looking at this photo the contact appears to be to the top of the shoulder (not the head) to a player with his head over the ball or in teh act of picking it up from a front on direction and that at best in 2007 is just a free kick but if deemed to be reckless, negligent or intentional, a report.

IIRC correctly the laws of Australian football have the following phrase: "for the benefit of this law contact made on top of the shoulder shall be deemed high contact"

[Wedgie]

Personal Post Only

The tribunal has been consistent from the start of the year regarding any front on hit when a player has head down. Standard set in trials with Cica from the Eags when he got suspended.

Players just have to adjust to the new interpretation. The head/neck should always be protected.

Whether it is right or wrong interpretation if contact with shoulders/arms and still coming from front on is topic for another thread.

Col D.

Fair enough CD, Ive only come across incidents when contact has been made to the head (ie Hargs, Wintle and Sporn), this is the first incident Ive come across when a hip and should has hit the other player's hip and shoulder.
Players might as well as run around with their heads continuously down under the current rules as even if they cop a hip and shoulder they'll get a free kick and the other player will get supspended.
I was ropable about the rule before when I thought it was just protecting players that got in the head with a good shirt front and Im even more ropable about the rule now that its protecting players that duck and get hit in the shoulder/arm.
Time to eliminate all contact so there's no grey area.
Stupid part about it is the game isn't soft despite this rule, its just pathetically inconsistant. 2 weeks ago Weatherley smashed a player in the nose 3 times with his fist, put the guys nose all over his face with blood coming out everywhere yet got off.
What a ridiculous game we now have.
I might get my son into Rugby if footy's heading down this pathetic route, Im glad my daughter plays netball as you can shirtfront in that game.

[am Bays]

I've just been talking to Wilson Tuckey and Peter Costello and they both agree that "Howard should go".

GOLD!!!!!

[once_were_warriors]

Should have just tackeled.

10% of the time a bump is effective, the rest of the time I would reccomend the tackle

When a player decides to bump, especially from front on he takes the risk on the variables that can occur, such as a player changing direction etc.

Again I think 1 game was a suitable suspension for this incident.

[once_were_warriors]

Shirt Fronting equals hardness and bravery?

Shirt Fronting has one objective - too cause pain, keep it in if you wish but don't complain when a bloke ends up with spinal injuries

[Wedgie]

Shirt Fronting equals hardness and bravery?

Shirt Fronting has one objective - too cause pain, keep it in if you wish but don't complain when a bloke ends up with spinal injuries

Can you point out who mentioned anything about shirt fronting equalling bravery as I missed that post.

And surely its almost physically impossible for a person to end up with spinal injuries from a shirt front? Ive never come across a case in over 100 years of football, are you getting confused with spear tackles or something?

[LPH]

Neil Sachse ???

"Howard gets 1 week"...

Has Costello given him the tap on the shoulder ???

[Dutchy]

Personal Post Only

The tribunal has been consistent from the start of the year regarding any front on hit when a player has head down. Standard set in trials with Cica from the Eags when he got suspended.

Players just have to adjust to the new interpretation. The head/neck should always be protected.

Whether it is right or wrong interpretation if contact with shoulders/arms and still coming from front on is topic for another thread.

Col D.

well said......not to mention protecting the ball player

[Wedgie]

Neil Sachse ???

Neil Sachse stumbled and fell into the path of Fitzroy’s Kevin O’Keefe and his head was down.
It wasn't a shirt front, a shirt front is when you get squarely down the front of your body.
Not that Howard's was either really as contact was with the hip and shoulder.

[Jar Man Out]

Still looks guilty to me from that photo.

If it was that clearly obvious, why would the umpire immediately blow the whistle and report him?

added to that lets not forget the fact that howard pleaded guilty to the charge of making head high contact.

[Dutchy]

So Howard pleads gulity, yet North fans believe he was innocent?

[Wedgie]

So Howard pleads gulity, yet North fans believe he was innocent?

Umm no, I admitted it was high on the arm and close to the shoulder. I said he was innocent of contact to the head.

Still looks guilty to me from that photo.

If it was that clearly obvious, why would the umpire immediately blow the whistle and report him?

added to that lets not forget the fact that howard pleaded guilty to the charge of making head high contact.

According to the reports he was charged with head high contact but pleaded guilty to high contact.
Big difference.

(The reports could be wrong though, if they were wrong I'd be very critical of North unless they wanted to play it safe)

[once_were_warriors]

Shirt Fronting equals hardness and bravery?

Shirt Fronting has one objective - too cause pain, keep it in if you wish but don't complain when a bloke ends up with spinal injuries

Can you point out who mentioned anything about shirt fronting equalling bravery as I missed that post.

And surely its almost physically impossible for a person to end up with spinal injuries from a shirt front? Ive never come across a case in over 100 years of football, are you getting confused with spear tackles or something?

No wasn't quoting you , just asking a question and then giving my answer to those that like the shirt front

In regards to spinal injury ,head bone is connected to the neck bone, the neck bone is connected to the spine ... hear the word of the Lord.

Hence at the wrong place at the wrong time , spinal injury can occur . Mind you im not a doctor and can accept if it is physically impossible if there is a GP out there.

[Dirko]

IMO...watched the video a few times, and my take on it is that Howard only had eyes on the CD player, not the ball. If he got to the contest and realised that the ball was not going to be his, then go the bump, but IMO I thought Howards only intention was bumping the CD bloke, not getting the ball, and hence gotta protect the player going for the ball...

Don't really agree with it, but that is the way the game is going, and the bump is on the way out...for a young kid who grew up watching the hardness of playing in the 80's...it's a sad thing to say ADIOS to the Bump...

[Dogwatcher]

Well posted SAJBC.
Sad to see this is the way footy is going, but I'm guessing there's a few people with neck injuries who are wishing it happened sooner.

Congratulations on the new initial BTW.

[Grahaml]

Everyone complaining about this needs to learn the rules. It was always goihg to be a report, and he was always going to be found guilty. Forceful front on contact to a guy with his head over the ball WILL be found guilty. He's lucky the centrals player saw him coming and didn't put his head right down. As was said, he should have tackled or gone for the ball.