- Joined
- 8 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 6,968
- Likes
- 11,084
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
News Injuries & Suspensions
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 11,737
- Likes
- 34,727
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Is it lucky no contact was made... Yes. Is it a suspendable act... I'd say no.
It wasn't high contact by the AFL's own definition. There was no impact to Rowell as he got straight back up and went on to be best on ground. There was no free kick even paid on the day by the AFL's umpires, and I'm sure Gold Coast's medical report will say there was no damage either... or else how could play on and be best on ground?
If there was even the slightest injury to Rowell, or if it genuinely was a high hit above the shoulders... I'd say yeah he deserves a week, but there wasn't.
The Eagles are challenging it... so I guess we will see.
It wasn't high contact by the AFL's own definition. There was no impact to Rowell as he got straight back up and went on to be best on ground. There was no free kick even paid on the day by the AFL's umpires, and I'm sure Gold Coast's medical report will say there was no damage either... or else how could play on and be best on ground?
If there was even the slightest injury to Rowell, or if it genuinely was a high hit above the shoulders... I'd say yeah he deserves a week, but there wasn't.
The Eagles are challenging it... so I guess we will see.
Last edited:
What if, for argument sake, the report came out with Rowell experiencing delayed concussion symptoms...?
I don't care much for lawyers arguing over the 'technicalities', however, I do care for the welfare of our game's biggest asset...the players!
Whether or not the action caused injury should never be the determining factor, nor should the notion of 'I didn't made contact with the head' be a consideration. Rather the action should be judged on its own merit...decided to bump, with potential of making contact with the head, with potential to cause serious injury.
I don't care much for lawyers arguing over the 'technicalities', however, I do care for the welfare of our game's biggest asset...the players!
Whether or not the action caused injury should never be the determining factor, nor should the notion of 'I didn't made contact with the head' be a consideration. Rather the action should be judged on its own merit...decided to bump, with potential of making contact with the head, with potential to cause serious injury.
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 11,737
- Likes
- 34,727
- AFL Club
- West Coast
We'll see I guess... As we've seen with the AFL and MRO in the past, it depends on the player involved, Look at Cotchin from a couple of seasons ago in the Prelim... Bumps Shiel in the head... Shiel has delayed concussion and can't continue playing... Cotchin gets no suspension.
Lets not forget... All three field umpires thought it was a fair play and not even worthy of a free kick.
If we are going to start suspending players on the potential to cause injury... then half the league will be suspended as there is potential to cause injury in half the plays that occur within any given game.
Might as well start suspending players for taking and attempting speccies too... The potential for injury of a knee direct to the back of another players head is just too much risk for that action to be allowed.
Lets not forget... All three field umpires thought it was a fair play and not even worthy of a free kick.
If we are going to start suspending players on the potential to cause injury... then half the league will be suspended as there is potential to cause injury in half the plays that occur within any given game.
Might as well start suspending players for taking and attempting speccies too... The potential for injury of a knee direct to the back of another players head is just too much risk for that action to be allowed.
Last edited:
You're either missing my point or ignoring them...
My statement was centered around the action which in this case was the decision to go for the bump an unsuspecting player who clearly had eyes only for marking the ball, hence the 'potential to cause serious injury'.
Other actions within the game such as tackling, an accidental spoil to the head, smothering and falling on a player's legs, two rucks jarring knees at a contest, etc. all have the 'potential to cause serious injuries' but are considered incidental acts as opposed to a deliberate bump.
I agree that the MRO has not been consistent in their messaging of this over the years which is why we're still having this debate in a public forum. I see it for the act whereas you see it with your own lens. Would your stance be the same if that was Rowell bumping Rioli...?
My statement was centered around the action which in this case was the decision to go for the bump an unsuspecting player who clearly had eyes only for marking the ball, hence the 'potential to cause serious injury'.
Other actions within the game such as tackling, an accidental spoil to the head, smothering and falling on a player's legs, two rucks jarring knees at a contest, etc. all have the 'potential to cause serious injuries' but are considered incidental acts as opposed to a deliberate bump.
I agree that the MRO has not been consistent in their messaging of this over the years which is why we're still having this debate in a public forum. I see it for the act whereas you see it with your own lens. Would your stance be the same if that was Rowell bumping Rioli...?
The whole "but they didn't pay a free at the time" isn't a defence.
Times are changing,wasn't long ago umpires were paying a free kick for dangerous tackles.
Now they don't because contact to the head is arguably the most serious issue in the game.
Only Rioli knows what he was trying to do but it looks as if Rowell had already marked it.
Perhaps his timing was just out but he's fairly skilled in most parts of the game.
Times are changing,wasn't long ago umpires were paying a free kick for dangerous tackles.
Now they don't because contact to the head is arguably the most serious issue in the game.
Only Rioli knows what he was trying to do but it looks as if Rowell had already marked it.
Perhaps his timing was just out but he's fairly skilled in most parts of the game.
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2012
- Messages
- 11,737
- Likes
- 34,727
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I'm not missing your point at all. My stance would be exactly the same had the roles been reversed, regardless of if an Eagles players was involved or not.
I don't like a lot of the decisions made by the current MRO even for incidents not involving any Eagles players. I don't think he is fit for the job and I also think the whole system needs a fair bit of work.
I just don't see the Rioli play like you do. The Eagles don't see it your way either for the record and there's nothing that says we all have to agree on a view.
You are enitiled to your own view, just like I am mine.
I don't like a lot of the decisions made by the current MRO even for incidents not involving any Eagles players. I don't think he is fit for the job and I also think the whole system needs a fair bit of work.
I just don't see the Rioli play like you do. The Eagles don't see it your way either for the record and there's nothing that says we all have to agree on a view.
You are enitiled to your own view, just like I am mine.
Last edited:
The big issue I have with the Rioli/ Rowell incident is Rioli jumped off the ground before contact - he is very lucky that he didn't collect Rowell's head as the ramifications would of been huge, must admit I was very concerned for Rowell's welfare (not from a SC POV but as a fan of the game, young star has been through enough tough times to start his career) & was very relieved to see him get up/ continue on, he is one tough kid. Think WCE will argue it wasn't high/ upper arm & was attempting to mark but was a split second too late so turned to brace for inevitable contact. Personally thought it was reckless on Rioli's behalf, there is a duty of care involved - I understand he was trying to get to the contest but jumping in the air towards a player coming the other way who only has eyes for the ball can mean big trouble, if Rowell was a bit shorter he would of been collected in the head. The head is sacrosanct, the fact that Rioli was very close to collecting Rowell in the head with his reckless attack on the ball means the suspension should stand in my opinion, it was a very dangerous action that can't be dismissed unpunished. Probably a surprising POV from a WCE supporter but having seen the consequences of head knocks to players like Venables & one of my favourites in Brad Sheppard (still has bleeding on the brain 
), I think we really need to send a clear message to the players that jumping in the air like that when about to have a collision must be avoided, instead you should brace yourself with your feet on the ground/ turn side on so collide with your opponent in the side.
), I think we really need to send a clear message to the players that jumping in the air like that when about to have a collision must be avoided, instead you should brace yourself with your feet on the ground/ turn side on so collide with your opponent in the side.
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2012
- Messages
- 638
- Likes
- 1,587
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Kreuger, Robinson and Rioli all got to the ball second.
One injured himself, one the other player and one was a negligible injury.
All three had no option but to brace for impact.
All get 1 week.
I think all we can conclude is that if you get to the ball second you are in trouble.
Rioli's action looked the worst because he was in the air but he was in the air because he was trying to mark it.
One injured himself, one the other player and one was a negligible injury.
All three had no option but to brace for impact.
All get 1 week.
I think all we can conclude is that if you get to the ball second you are in trouble.
Rioli's action looked the worst because he was in the air but he was in the air because he was trying to mark it.
Essendon midfielder Kyle Langford faces up to 10 weeks on the sidelines recovering from his hamstring setback in the Bombers’ nightmare round 1 defeat to Geelong.
The 25-year-old was due to play his 100th game this weekend but will instead watch from the sidelines as Essendon tries to avoid a second-straight season defeat to Brisbane on Saturday.
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/superfooty/status/1506143647296675841
The 25-year-old was due to play his 100th game this weekend but will instead watch from the sidelines as Essendon tries to avoid a second-straight season defeat to Brisbane on Saturday.
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/superfooty/status/1506143647296675841
- Joined
- 7 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 12,068
- Likes
- 42,449
Article was mostly about Langford but this was also in there:
Essendon said small forward Will Snelling would be sidelined for "a few" weeks with a calf strain suffered in the lead-up to round one.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/724968/bomber-faces-10-weeks-out-stringer-could-return
Essendon said small forward Will Snelling would be sidelined for "a few" weeks with a calf strain suffered in the lead-up to round one.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/724968/bomber-faces-10-weeks-out-stringer-could-return
