News Injuries & Suspensions
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
Newman just got cleared for his contact to Neale’s jaw which looked like an elbow - of the 3 cases I thought his was the one that would be upheld 🤷🏻♂️
Just so much confusion these days, the JVR one is ridiculous in my opinion & the dees must appeal. 2 weeks for trying to spoil & trying to make a contest is just bewildering, zero malice in it at all.
Just so much confusion these days, the JVR one is ridiculous in my opinion & the dees must appeal. 2 weeks for trying to spoil & trying to make a contest is just bewildering, zero malice in it at all.
"We find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling in the way he did, would almost inevitably have resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head," Gleeson said.
Two things:
1) Hate the fact they use the term 'reasonable player', implying JVR isn't one?
2) What an earth does this actually mean? What's the alternative? Surely need to offer one with a statement like that.
Two things:
1) Hate the fact they use the term 'reasonable player', implying JVR isn't one?
2) What an earth does this actually mean? What's the alternative? Surely need to offer one with a statement like that.
If the AFL were consistent with their policy of the head is sacrosanct that is exactly what should happen. Have said this a number of times in posts on this site previously. Not saying this is the correct policy. Just that this is the one the AFL hangs their hat on all the time so they need to be consistent. But how could it possibly be okay to break the neck of your team mate but it is not okay to break your opponents neck?
Last edited:
And apparently, that was because of a letter Neale wrote? I am right in that. If so, muddies the waters even more and sets a very dangerous precedent. If the AFL are so serious about head-high contact, how can they let the players say who should and shouldn't be suspended for it? The AFL is ruining the game by their own hand and once again hiding behind players and umpires.
Not sure how much force there was in it but Newman's definitely lucky they charged him with the right arm making contact & not the left arm which was the 1st action they talk about!
"Neale said he felt “a little clip to my jaw” from the first action – but not the second action, for which Newman was charged.
The Blues argued that Newman’s pushing motion was not a strike.
“Why would an AFL footballer intentionally strike Lachie Neale 20m from his goal?” their counsel Peter O’Farrell argued.
“Neale’s evidence was clear that he was hit to the chest with a hand. There’s no better evidence in terms of someone that was hit than from the person that was hit.
"Neale said he felt “a little clip to my jaw” from the first action – but not the second action, for which Newman was charged.
The Blues argued that Newman’s pushing motion was not a strike.
“Why would an AFL footballer intentionally strike Lachie Neale 20m from his goal?” their counsel Peter O’Farrell argued.
“Neale’s evidence was clear that he was hit to the chest with a hand. There’s no better evidence in terms of someone that was hit than from the person that was hit.
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2015
- Messages
- 492
- Likes
- 357
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
On number 2, it's legal jargon, and akin to the "reasonable bystander test" that's applied in many areas of law. The problem with this line of argument is that it sets a really murky precedent for a sport that is inherently very physical in its nature. Do we want a level playing field for players of all shapes and sizes? Because that is where we are seemingly heading. No longer are you rewarded for being the stronger, more physical, more contested player. In fact, you now owe a duty to others to not cause any physical harm, or at least that which is limited to the head. Needs a complete re-clarification at years end, as the messaging is at complete odds with the nature of the game; you can be physical, but if you hurt someone, then you get suspended.
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 19,071
- Likes
- 80,328
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
I'm curious as to what "overseas" sports you watch.
Rugby union? NBA? NFL? All of them penalise actions towards refs a hell of a lot more than a random dissent penalty once every week or two in the AFL.
I guess we don't compare to South America and their killing of refs, but then there was the ref that got his jaw broken in the local Sydney comp last week.
Rugby union? NBA? NFL? All of them penalise actions towards refs a hell of a lot more than a random dissent penalty once every week or two in the AFL.
I guess we don't compare to South America and their killing of refs, but then there was the ref that got his jaw broken in the local Sydney comp last week.