whelan on ball again

[Mr Magic]

Flame war over
Was just trying to make the point that there was absolutely no evidence that Baker did anything other than what he said he did, and he was probably found guilty on 'suspicion' only because of his record. You think he was guilty of something and so to it would seem does the AFL.

Although he hasn't said it yet, I think that is the point Dan was trying to make in his OP. When confronted with clear indisputable vision/evidence, the AFL through its bodies the MRP and Tribunal make allowances for accidental head clashes but yet when they have not a single shred of evidence they find that a player is guilty of 'reckless' behaviour that reslts in 'rough conduct'.

How is this fair and just?

[stinger]

what alternatives did ball have?

could he have dodged whelan? given whelan didn't line up ball as the tribunal found, ball would have had a fraction of a second to respond so no.

could he back raised his arm to protect himself? well powell was suspended for protecting himself with a raised arm.

the reason whelan was not guilty was he didn't line up ball, and ball wasn't aware enough of his surounds...

if ball was aware what could he do except raise his arm?

as a result of whelans hit ball may have suffered permanent brain damage, missed effectively a month of footy (he was brought back early but had little effect) suffered some internal bleeding and a bruised brain.

what else was whelan aiming for? was he aiming for balls chest? was he aiming for the footy?

what was whelan doing?

saints players get no protection.

when I consider that Ball may have been lost to the game and his own health permanently, when he is clearly a highly intelligent athlete, and according to the tribunal whelan has nothing to answer for, what exactly are the rules to protect the guy who goes for the ball?

people are being suspended for blocks, tummy punches, attempted punches but a blow to the head on someone going for the ball is the fault of the ball gatherer for not enough self awareness?

surely this is a significant flaw in the system?

the whelan decision was plainly wrong...........

[Unforgiven]

Although he hasn't said it yet, I think that is the point Dan was trying to make in his OP. When confronted with clear indisputable vision/evidence, the AFL through its bodies the MRP and Tribunal make allowances for accidental head clashes but yet when they have not a single shred of evidence they find that a player is guilty of 'reckless' behaviour that reslts in 'rough conduct'.

How is this fair and just?

Bakes case was delt with Unjustly I agree, Though you know my thoughts on the Whelan hit. I beleive making allowances of accidental head clashes is 'ok' or fair. I don't think the non evidence and resulatant charge against bakes was fair. taking into account the past or not.

It seems are arugment has moves on from the Ball incident, so agree to disagree on that one?

[JeffDunne]

[satchmo]

Looks to me like whelan tried to kill him.

[JeffDunne]

When this was raised last week, I looked up the MRP ruling because I couldn't remember why he got off.

Two things stood out like dog's balls :

1) It was body and not head contact. Try telling Luke that.
2) He didn't leave the ground.

On refelection, I wonder if they even watched the footage.

[Dan Warna]

it looked clearly like a raised elbow that slipped onto the head.

[plugger66]

I ovoiusly know you disagree Dan but Bally was partly at fault as he didnt have the awareness to see Whelan. I thought there was nothing in it IMO and do know he missed 3 weeks but it was an accident.

[brown-coat]

Very clumsy by Ball.

Almost as clumsy as Kosi.

With that said. Wheelan hit was too high. That was dangerous . Ball could be dead.

Swap these names around. Ball , Judd. Wheelan, Baker.

Baker would be suspended for 3 + weeks.

language edited by mod..watch your language mate

[Dan Warna]

elbow to the head is always illegal.

and that is with video evidence.

what would have happened if that was baker and the runner was judd?

the verbal evidence from the runner indicates that baker never raised his fist or elbow but farmer ran into baker...

off the ball, concur, but free is all it should be even on the freo evidence.

the severity of the injury was accidental even according to the evidence given.

[Unforgiven]

I dont understand how Whelan broke/hurt his jaw in that incident, doesn't look like his face connected though. Whats done is done I guess

[satchmo]

I dont understand how Whelan broke/hurt his jaw in that incident, doesn't look like his face connected though. Whats done is done I guess

Well there's no footage of Baker hitting him so I guess that means he's guilty !

[QueenC]

I dont understand how Whelan broke/hurt his jaw in that incident, doesn't look like his face connected though. Whats done is done I guess

From memory Wrecker did something to his neck rather than his jaw, he missed a couple of weeks early on because of some kind of whiplashy-type injury that came about because of the bump.

But please don't quote me on that, it is going back a way, and keeping track of our injuries this year is near on impossible.

But he did come back and then played like rubbish for a few rounds, got injured again (I want to say hamstring) and hasn't been seen for the rest of the season.

Just like the rest of my team !!!

[Dan Warna]

this isn't so much an attack on whelan but the consistency of the tribunal interpreting who is responsible and who has a duty of care to minimise impact, relative vision and the responsibility to be aware of incoming traffic.

ball was watching the man and going for the ball, and whelan got him from the side.

the tribunal said ball wasn't aware enough of a elbow to the face ><

farmer ran into the back of baker, and its bakers fault that farmer wasn't aware and baker had the duty of care?

[plugger66]

this isn't so much an attack on whelan but the consistency of the tribunal interpreting who is responsible and who has a duty of care to minimise impact, relative vision and the responsibility to be aware of incoming traffic.

ball was watching the man and going for the ball, and whelan got him from the side.

the tribunal said ball wasn't aware enough of a elbow to the face ><

farmer ran into the back of baker, and its bakers fault that farmer wasn't aware and baker had the duty of care?

Ball wasnt watching that was the problem and he didnt get hit with elbow. It was clearly tucked in but funny how people see things differently

[Dan Warna]

this isn't so much an attack on whelan but the consistency of the tribunal interpreting who is responsible and who has a duty of care to minimise impact, relative vision and the responsibility to be aware of incoming traffic.

ball was watching the man and going for the ball, and whelan got him from the side.

the tribunal said ball wasn't aware enough of a elbow to the face ><

farmer ran into the back of baker, and its bakers fault that farmer wasn't aware and baker had the duty of care?

Ball wasnt watching that was the problem and he didnt get hit with elbow. It was clearly tucked in but funny how people see things differently

watch the video at the point of impact the elbow is raised it seems to me.

[St DAC]

Look a bit closer Dan. (I've just watched it again a few times) At the point of contact his elbow is clearly tucked in. It raises outside his body after contact, as a consequence of the contact.

It's pretty much a perfect shirt-front. The target was Ball's body, the head clash is purely accidental.

[joffaboy]

Look a bit closer Dan. (I've just watched it again a few times) At the point of contact his elbow is clearly tucked in. It raises outside his body after contact, as a consequence of the contact.

It's pretty much a perfect shirt-front. The target was Ball's body, the head clash is purely accidental.

Correct St. DAC, however the premis of Dans argument still stands up.

If Ball had a duty of care in the Whelan incident to be aware of Whelan, and therefore it was not reportable, why was it deemed that this rule did not apply to Farmer?

Why is it applied to a St.Kilda victim of a accidental head clash, but not the St.Kilda instigator of an accidental head clash?

Why is the AFL so inconsistant? This type of incompetence lends itself to conspirarcy theories and out and out dissillusionment.

We see interstate players get off all the time for blatant strikes (Hall, Kerr) for blatant head high hits (Buchanan) and we have Saints players getting weeks for "attempted" strikes, and accidental head high hits.

The point is that the AFL's tribunal under Anderson is a complete and utter joke. It lacks all credibility, it lacks consistancy, it makes up rules as it goes along, it favours the interstate teams (Barry Hall, what a complete joke), and still wants us to believe that the fix is not in.

Then compunding this travesty, is our lily livered weak willed, gutless, arselicking board who are "dissapointed" with this outcome and that outcome and "oh please bend me over and roger me once again" President talking tough but being the AFL pussy and pansy.

This is why many, many supporters are seriously considering the extent of their financial support for a competition that is so tainted that there is little hope that we will ever see a flag.

if Casey wasn't so far away, i would consider just supporting them. The VFL in style and action and physicality is a long way above AFL ATM.

[St DAC]

Joffa, the fact that Baker was royally shafted doesn't make Whelan's hit on Ball any less legal. My take? The difference between them is the distance off the ball. Baker's was clearly not in play, Whelan's was. Other than that who can say what part of Baker hit what part of Farmer? I certainly can't, and I'm buggered if I know how the tribunal were able to draw the conclusion they did without any vision. So, yes, Bakes was shafted bigtime, no argument from me on that.

On the club not taking the matter to court I agree with them. Clearly, we would struggle to win the case; we'd have the AFL offside (yet again) for no tangible gain, and it would cost us a fortune better spent on developing the players, rather than making some lawyer richer. At some point you have to cut your losses; IMO that's what the club did, and IMO it was the right call given all the circumstances involved.

[joffaboy]

Joffa, the fact that Baker was royally shafted doesn't make Whelan's hit on Ball any less legal. My take? The difference between them is the distance off the ball. Baker's was clearly not in play, Whelan's was. Other than that who can say what part of Baker hit what part of Farmer? I certainly can't, and I'm buggered if I know how the tribunal were able to draw the conclusion they did without any vision. So, yes, Bakes was shafted bigtime, no argument from me on that.

Never said that Whelans hit was illegal. At the time I spoke to you and we both agreed that it seemed fair but an accidental head clash.

No the point is that the AFL choses to ignore some accidental clashes and then shafts other players with no video evidence and gives them 4 weeks.

It is a denial of natural justice, however the tribunal is not a court of law.

On the club not taking the matter to court I agree with them. Clearly, we would struggle to win the case; we'd have the AFL offside (yet again) for no tangible gain, and it would cost us a fortune better spent on developing the players, rather than making some lawyer richer. At some point you have to cut your losses; IMO that's what the club did, and IMO it was the right call given all the circumstances involved.

Not it is not clear that we would have lost. A court of law works on different principles to the tribunal and arguments could be much different especially on points of law and precedent.

No tangible gain you say???? To win a court case against the incompenent or corrupt AFL would indeed be a tangible gain. The injustice of the tribunal and its biased and corrupt findings (Barry Hall, Daniel kerr anybody????) would be great for the credibility of the game and show Dimwit and his monkey that the AFl is not his little fiefdom.

As for cut our losses. We had two points taken off us last year, ultimately costing us a top four spot. Now that is cutting our losses. If the club exists to win premierships, the AFl in cheating us out of 2 competition points after changing the rules certainly cost us a chance of going forthe flag last season.

So we cut our losses, we dont upset the commission, we dont rock the boat, all the time the AFL knows it can F*** us over while our players get fractured skulls and bruised brains with no case to answer, they vindictively pull out a 7 week suspension because Baker made a fool of their system earlier in the year.

Its better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

The action of our gutless, spineless board has cost them $500 of my money for next season. If the new ticket guarantees it will protect the name of our players and the integrity of the club, it now has my vote.

You may not want to rock the boat, and accept the club can be the AFL whipping boy and allow the AFl to blatantly apply rules to the Saints but not to others, but I, in all consciousness cannot.

I try to teach my children the meaning and essence of pride, integrity, decency, and self esteem. The STKFC shows that it has none of these attributes.

how can I financially support an organisation that is so timmid that it allows itself to be walked over to the point where the AFl is laughing at it?

Tell me.

[JeffDunne]

If you read the AFL's interpretation on duty of care then Whelan should have been reported.

Remember, the AFL now claim the hit on Kosi would be reportable under their new interpretation. I don't see how Whelan's is any different than that.

Shepparding should be running to the space between the ball carrier and the player attempting to tackle and holding your ground. Whelan ran past the ball carrier, and rather than Sheppard, he charged Ball.

The MRP's ruling on this said 1) He didn't make contact with his head & 2) Whelan didn't leave the ground.

They were wrong on both counts.

[St DAC]

What can I say Joffa? Life ain't fair. Adults know this to be true. I'm not a fan of throwing good money after bad, and I believe that would be the case if we took Baker's case to the courts. I'd rather that money was spent on developing players. I don't see that as kowtowing to the evil bastards running the AFL.

Frankly I'd rather lose $500 of your money than $250K of the clubs, but I'm still sorry you feel that way.

I guess (once again!) we'll have to disagree. I'm getting used to it ...

[joffaboy]

I guess (once again!) we'll have to disagree. I'm getting used to it ...

Hey St.DAC its a public forum for opinion. Your opinion is always welcome even if its is usually wrong

[St DAC]

Remember, the AFL now claim the hit on Kosi would be reportable under their new interpretation. I don't see how Whelan's is any different than that.

I think they are different issues, but I disagree on which of the two was reportable. Obviously, I think Whelan's was OK. In the case of Giansiracusa's kit on Kosi he jumped into Kosi and headbutted him (accidentally, but he hit him primarily in the head). The hit was also more than 5 metres off the ball. Whelan primarily hit Ball in the body, within 5 metres, and the headclash was the whiplash action of Whelan's head head after initial contact.

I'd have reported Giansiracusa, but not Whelan. I guess the fact that so many differing opinions of the same incident abound means it's not cut and dried.

All IMO of course.

[joffaboy]

What can I say Joffa? Life ain't fair. Adults know this to be true.

yes true, but why the pretence by the AFL. It pretends to be fair and impartial when blind freddy can see they are not.

It comes down to credibility and integrity which the AFL has a scarcity.

And I dont just give up when I see blatant injustices.

However the STKFC are just surrendour monkeys who will let the AFl shaft them time and time and time again.

If you like to give up so be it. If the STKFC like to give up so be it. If I choose to withhold my financial support it is my decision.

And it wont be just my $500. We lost 2000 members this season, over a qtr of a million dollars.

get ready for another drop of membership and more lost revenue. Could reach half a mill next year.

So it is more than $500.