Howard Gets 1 week

[Dirko]

Thanks..the new initial is actually 7 months old ! Bit slack !

[Wedgie]

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.

You're right mate and I have learnt the rules (or is that interpretation?) out of this, up till now I'd only seen instances of head high contact getting a game, I wasn't aware that hip and shouldering a guy in the shoulder was deemed to be just as bad.
Its the first time Ive come across and it and was extremely suprised by it but have learnt out it.
Not sure what I learnt by Weatherley getting off after hitting a guy with a clenched fist to the nose 3 times though.
My only current complaint now is the rule/interpration if it is in fact not only head high contact that is penalised and am scared of the precedent it sets for our great game.
My only other current complaint is with Rushby's stupid comment which Ive since proven to be incorrect.

[Dogwatcher]

I'm unclear as to what happened and I can't truly see from the screen shots.

A) Was the approach to the player front on? And did he make contact from that direction?

B) Or did he approach the player front on and then make contact from the side?

My understanding of the new rules, is that any front on approach and bump (no matter where the contact is made) is regarded as dangerous and results in a free kick and a report.

I have seen this in local football this season.

If it was A) Howard was reported within the rules. And there's little debate about whether he should have been reported . If it was B) he was unlucky.

[Wedgie]

I'm unclear as to what happened and I can't truly see from the screen shots.

A) Was the approach to the player front on? And did he make contact from that direction?

B) Or did he approach the player front on and then make contact from the side?

My understanding of the new rules, is that any front on approach and bump (no matter where the contact is made) is regarded as dangerous and results in a free kick and a report.

I have seen this in local football this season.

If it was A) Howard was reported within the rules. And there's little debate about whether he should have been reported . If it was B) he was unlucky.

At about an 80 degree angle (ie more front on than side on).
I must admit I wasn't aware the shirt front had been completely eliminated from our game but am now.
A very sad day IMHO.

Have to look at the positive side and as BRBRBP said at least he'll be fit and fired up for the Bays, we could always put him on McConnell as he wouldn't have to worry about hitting a player with his head over the ball then!

Hope it doesn't cost us against the Eagles, I think we were planning on Wintle coming back through the ressies this week but he might have to come straight back in. Another option is to fit Stribling into a mid field role and put Bamgord straight back on the wing.

[redandblack]

A night at the tribunal........

OK, next report. Dean Howard for head high contact.

Umpire, what is the basis for your report?

Umpire gives evidence....

Player then has a discussion with his advocate.

Player then pleads GUILTY, your honour.

Tribunal summing up: "Well, what do we do now?"

"Well, he's pleaded guilty to head high contact after seeing the video and hearing the evidence and he has a poor tribunal record.

I know, let's use the 'Wedgie' principle and let him off."

"Perhaps not, it's a no-brainer, we'll be nice to him and only give him one game."

"One game, Mr Howard"

"Thank you, sir, just as well I pleaded guilty."

PS: Detailed discussion proving that he shouldn't have pleaded guilty can be found at SAFooty.net

[Wedgie]

"Well, he's pleaded guilty to head high contact after seeing the video and hearing the evidence and he has a poor tribunal record.

I know, let's use the 'Wedgie' principle and let him off."

I know you're joking mate, but the point I made was that in the paper he didn't plead guilty to head high contact, he pleaded guilty to high contact.
Agreed that if he pleaded guilty to head high contact then its a no brainer and someone at North should be held responsible.
The way the Central player's head doesn't even slightly move in relation to the rest of his body and witnessing for myself that he didn't hit the guy in the head says to me he didn't get hit in the head.

[rod_rooster]

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

Ridiculous and childish statement, I expected better from you.

Really?

[redandblack]

Time for the red and white blinkers to come off, mate.

Reported.

Pleaded guilty.

One match suspension.

All else is irrelevant to the decision.

On a separate note, Ben Hollands (age 29) was reported for lesser high contact last week, was found guilty and told he would have got a game or two, except that he'd never previously been reported in his football career.

Reprimanded.

[Wedgie]

Time for the red and white blinkers to come off, mate.

What, the anti North blinkers?
I said (at least twice), if they pleaded guilty to head high contact then questions should be asked.
Christ, damned if I do and damned if I don't!
Im the only person who has been daming of North (ie red and white) if that was the case.

I assume you'll be chastising cennals05 and spell check for their red and white blinkers too mate?
Not sure how my "red and white blinkers" had me backing up Cupido and Burton last year either mate.

[Punk Rooster]

Why wasn't the Centrals player who hit Wakelin in a similar fashion reported & suspended?

[Wedgie]

Do you remember which quarter it was Punky and which part of the quarter it was?
I'll try and find it.

[Dogwatcher]

Not turning this into a witch hunt are we now?

[TigerBoss]

When I named the THUG during his Westies days, I had a fair idea he would still be conducting his THUGGERY years down the track...

Once a gutless hack, always a gutless hack.

Defendant: "Your honour, I plead guilty for the murder of that man".

Magistrate: "You're free to go then".

[Punk Rooster]

Do you remember which quarter it was Punky and which part of the quarter it was?
I'll try and find it.

it was after after the Howard incident.

[Punk Rooster]

When I named the THUG during his Westies days, I had a fair idea he would still be conducting his THUGGERY years down the track...

Once a gutless hack, always a gutless hack.

Defendant: "Your honour, I plead guilty for the murder of that man".

Magistrate: "You're free to go then".

You'd know a thug when you saw one, given the thugs that have played for the Gays- the Stringers, Salisbury to name a few.

Gayest avatar EVER.

[am Bays]

OK does this thread need to continue??

Seriously what other players have or haven't done is beside the point with the discussion regarding Dean Howard getting suspended, time for locking methinks any objections....

[Dogwatcher]

How about not locking it and getting it back on track.

A) Howard found guilty and suspended
B) Was it worthy of suspension?
C) Do the rules suck?

[TigerBoss]

It was fun watching Salisbury and "The Ant" going at it back in the mid-80s.

PS - I haven't been able to find any word of it anywhere, but did the THUG cop a week for that gutless hit against the Dogs?

PPS - The avatar stays...I raise you a dead-set champion...show us yours...irrespective of who it is, unless it is Barrie himself, he won't have the stature of the great man...

[Wedgie]

PS - I haven't been able to find any word of it anywhere, but did the THUG cop a week for that gutless hit against the Dogs?

Considering the title of the thread you participated in actually reads "Howard Gets 1 week" surely its not even too hard for an occasional troll to work out?
Obviously not improving your brain power over your absence TB but good to have you back none the less.

[Wedgie]

How about not locking it and getting it back on track.

A) Howard found guilty and suspended
B) Was it worthy of suspension?
C) Do the rules suck?

Yes, the rules suck, this is the first time Ive seen a perfect bump with no contact to the head cop a penalty only 2 weeks after I saw a bloke get off after smacking a guy in the face and breaking his nose right in front of an ump.
If other leagues go the same was as the AFL and now SANFL in penalising fair bumps which have been a part of our grand game for over a century and not penalising people for hitting a bloke in the nose Im going to get my son out of footy straight away and into a sport that would be more fitting of a man.
Ironic that people at the footy used to yell out to the umpire "its not basketball".
Its got to the stage where people at the footy will yell out to the referee "its not football"
Things started to get bad a few years ago in the SANFL when we joked noone got reported, got worse last year when a bloke got rewarded for diving and Cupido got games for virtually no contact and has gone even further downhill since culminating in this.