Would have had noone to play with or against
DISGUSTING
N Riewoldt can accept 1 game rough conduct
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
terry smith rules
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2512
- Joined: Mon 27 Jun 2005 1:27pm
- Location: Abiding
- Has thanked: 169 times
- Been thanked: 369 times
I am so angry and appalled by this decision. It is another nail in the coffin for my love of this game.
I have watched and rewatched this footage and I am not sure what Riewoldt did wrong (read negligent)
He was running towards the ball, crow receives a handball and turns into space that Riewoldt was also running into.
Riewoldt slows and stops, Riewoldt is standing still on contact , with arms held in.
Yes it is bad that the guy is injured, just as it was when Gwilt was bumped and did his knee, stuff happens, it is a contact sport.
To say that he is negligent implies that Riewoldt made a decision that was not bad or irresponsible. From the vision he did not have time to set himself up for a legal tackle. He made a split second decision to take the contact in a way that would have been drilled into him since he started playing.
The MRP is now like most of the umpires out of touch with how the games ebbs and flows and is played out.
I am sad for a game that can be the best in the world but is turning into something that is confusing and disappointing. And by that I don't miss thuggery but I want a contest! There thats a pretty good way to finish
I want a contest where a combination of skill, courage, strength and ability come together.
Give me my game back!!!
I have watched and rewatched this footage and I am not sure what Riewoldt did wrong (read negligent)
He was running towards the ball, crow receives a handball and turns into space that Riewoldt was also running into.
Riewoldt slows and stops, Riewoldt is standing still on contact , with arms held in.
Yes it is bad that the guy is injured, just as it was when Gwilt was bumped and did his knee, stuff happens, it is a contact sport.
To say that he is negligent implies that Riewoldt made a decision that was not bad or irresponsible. From the vision he did not have time to set himself up for a legal tackle. He made a split second decision to take the contact in a way that would have been drilled into him since he started playing.
The MRP is now like most of the umpires out of touch with how the games ebbs and flows and is played out.
I am sad for a game that can be the best in the world but is turning into something that is confusing and disappointing. And by that I don't miss thuggery but I want a contest! There thats a pretty good way to finish
I want a contest where a combination of skill, courage, strength and ability come together.
Give me my game back!!!
-
degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Speaking of Gwilt...2 weeks in 2009 for an opposition player sliding into his legs, whilst he stood still.terry smith rules wrote:Riewoldt slows and stops, Riewoldt is standing still on contact , with arms held in.
Yes it is bad that the guy is injured, just as it was when Gwilt was bumped and did his knee, stuff happens, it is a contact sport.
Good thing the MRP don't accept precedence...Roo would get 5 weeks!
-
St. Luke
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5268
- Joined: Wed 17 Mar 2004 12:34pm
- Location: Hiding at Telstra Dome!
The thing is, Roo isn't a dirty player. He's hard at the ball and more often than not puts himself in harms way. The decision to report him for negligent play is atrocious! It's just not Reiwoldts style. I hope they do contest it, but as we all know it never works in our favor. Never has before, won't now. Smartest thing is to take the week for the sake of the team and have him back fresh for Freo.
When they created LENNY HAYES (in the shadow of Harvs) they forgot to break the mold (again)- hence the Supremely Incredible Jack Steven!!
-
bigcarl
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18520
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1847 times
- Been thanked: 825 times
Look at the bright side. Gives Rooey a chance to freshen up in a game we should be able to win without him (let's face it, if we can't we aren't going deep into September).
That said, it's a harsh decision on a very fair ball player and really, the AFL has made a mighty stiff rod for its own back.
On the one hand, the head is sacrosanct; the AFL has deemed it so.
On the other hand, sometimes collisions to the head are unavoidable ... even to the fairest of ball players.
You can see the conflict here.
Helmets might be the way of the future, given the league's zeal in trying to prevent mums sending their boys to soccer instead of football.
He he not braced himself for impact in the split second that he had, he might be the one with a fractured cheekbone.
Cop it and move on.
That said, it's a harsh decision on a very fair ball player and really, the AFL has made a mighty stiff rod for its own back.
On the one hand, the head is sacrosanct; the AFL has deemed it so.
On the other hand, sometimes collisions to the head are unavoidable ... even to the fairest of ball players.
You can see the conflict here.
Helmets might be the way of the future, given the league's zeal in trying to prevent mums sending their boys to soccer instead of football.
He he not braced himself for impact in the split second that he had, he might be the one with a fractured cheekbone.
Cop it and move on.
Last edited by bigcarl on Tue 26 Jul 2011 12:28am, edited 3 times in total.
Havn't seen the incident since the night, so i have a question.
High impact, Is this the total force applied by both players or just by the player who made the high contact. From what i remember most of the force came from Crows player.
Id understand if roo targeted the head while he stood his ground, but it looked like good body on body contact with no intent. One of those 'well shi* happens' moments that are unavoidable. 3 weeks seems too much, would happily of accepted a couple reduced to 0 (obviously)
On the bright side I wonder if that knob Brownless will have a cry on the footy show like the Selwood suspension, at least one was on the ball.
High impact, Is this the total force applied by both players or just by the player who made the high contact. From what i remember most of the force came from Crows player.
Id understand if roo targeted the head while he stood his ground, but it looked like good body on body contact with no intent. One of those 'well shi* happens' moments that are unavoidable. 3 weeks seems too much, would happily of accepted a couple reduced to 0 (obviously)
On the bright side I wonder if that knob Brownless will have a cry on the footy show like the Selwood suspension, at least one was on the ball.
-
bigcarl
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18520
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1847 times
- Been thanked: 825 times
-
mr six o'clock
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4286
- Joined: Fri 17 Nov 2006 1:05am
- Has thanked: 46 times
- Been thanked: 236 times
-
Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
There is something seriously wrong with our game now! Never suspended before and cops a weeks rest because a player ran into him??? Yet Buddy, who has a poor record for reckless head high contact, only gets a week for deliberately elbowing a player in the face instead of tackling!
Hope no player runs into Bakes, Bakes will get the needle!!!
The AFL are losing me fast!
Hope no player runs into Bakes, Bakes will get the needle!!!
The AFL are losing me fast!
-
saintspremiers
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
The issue is could Roo have grabbed the player rather than bumped him?
Clearly the muppets think he had a reasonable chance of doing it.
Yes it was negligent clearly high contact because his face/head hit the ground.
Had the player just got a sore jaw not a broken one it would've been low impact and prob just a reprimand with good behavior discount.
Roo is plain unlucky.
Pointless trying to argue with the muppets if the bump was avoidable. They can't be bothered looking at a different POV.
Clearly the muppets think he had a reasonable chance of doing it.
Yes it was negligent clearly high contact because his face/head hit the ground.
Had the player just got a sore jaw not a broken one it would've been low impact and prob just a reprimand with good behavior discount.
Roo is plain unlucky.
Pointless trying to argue with the muppets if the bump was avoidable. They can't be bothered looking at a different POV.
Did symes have the ball??
I watched it again on FC, not even sure there was a free kick in it.
If he was caught high, it was almost certainly accidental/incidental contact in a contest....anyone who argues against that is surely an idiot/stupid or has never played a competitive game....the panel just scoffed at the decision.
I understand the tribunial stuffing it up...they are as confused as the umpires when policing the game....because the afl is trying to sanitise a brutal sport so mums will allow there kiddies to play..
I watched it again on FC, not even sure there was a free kick in it.
If he was caught high, it was almost certainly accidental/incidental contact in a contest....anyone who argues against that is surely an idiot/stupid or has never played a competitive game....the panel just scoffed at the decision.
I understand the tribunial stuffing it up...they are as confused as the umpires when policing the game....because the afl is trying to sanitise a brutal sport so mums will allow there kiddies to play..
If the extent of injury is taken into account, wouldn't it have to be taken to the logical (if ridiculous) conclusion that the WCE player who bumped James Gwilt should have had at least a case to answer?
Now dont think he in any way did, but this is the idiocy of this position from the AFL.
Totally and incredibly unworkable and erodes the confidence in the game even more so than the AFL have already managed.
Roo should accept the week and have a spell. Possibly the best time to do it.
Now dont think he in any way did, but this is the idiocy of this position from the AFL.
Totally and incredibly unworkable and erodes the confidence in the game even more so than the AFL have already managed.
Roo should accept the week and have a spell. Possibly the best time to do it.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
-
dragit
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Only the head in these cases so far…joffaboy wrote:If the extent of injury is taken into account, wouldn't it have to be taken to the logical (if ridiculous) conclusion that the WCE player who bumped James Gwilt should have had at least a case to answer?
Now dont think he in any way did, but this is the idiocy of this position from the AFL.
Totally and incredibly unworkable and erodes the confidence in the game even more so than the AFL have already managed.
Roo should accept the week and have a spell. Possibly the best time to do it.
Still surely 'intention' is more important than 'outcome'. Otherwise Mitch Clark should get 6 weeks for recklessness, it was far uglier from a PR POV.
The intentional behind play snipes should be dealt with more harshly than any 'ball playing' incidents that result in accidental injuries > Scarlett, Ottens - one week???
-
prwilkinson
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Tue 21 Sep 2010 12:17pm
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 132 times
-
Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Well maybe. Regardless, he misses either one, or none if contests and wins.Johnny Member wrote:I agree.BigMart wrote:I think he need continuity....rather than a rest..
Like a batsman running into form, the last thi g you want to do is miss a game....especially if hilfy and mitch johnson have the new ball
He seemed to be starting to work himself into it.
Bad result is contest and loses. Out against Suns is bad enough, but against Freo as well could be a big problem.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)