I was a kid throughout the 1970's, so was only exposed to the games I went to and the odd quarter of footy on a Saturday night, but I have to say that the report of Thomas is the most bewildering I've seen in my time watching football. If it's not thrown out I'll just about give up on the game. He has no case to answer and there's no correlation between his attack on the footy and Goodes reckless attack on the man with the footy. If you didn't know Rohan was injured you'd be amazed to be told there was a report. Accidental incidental contact caused Rohan's injury. Thomas was first to the ball and turned his backside to protect himself.

I heard Paul Roos' comments on The Couch last night and can only assume he has the intellect of a dung beetle, which in itself is an extraordinary accusation against a premiership coach, but I have no other logical explanation. The fact that Mark Robinson wants the ban upheld only supports my stance. The match review panel should resign on mass.

Without question it's the most illogical kneejerk reaction to an injury I've ever encountered.

Hadn't seen/heard it. Then I was watching Garry and co. replay it over and over, yet couldn't understand why (the digital sound was cutting in and out in some poor weather). They'll have to go retrospective soon - re outcome over intent - if they want to take it any further.

'You did damage to your opponent on the day last week (even though you had eyes for the ball), and duly copped a 3 week suspension.

Further scans have revealed associated head trauma. Your suspension has been increased to 8 weeks.'

its typical of the AFL's match review pannel - if an injury occurs they seek to blame a person rather than admit that the game has the ability to hurt players

this would be worse than the trengove sling tackle. It would be punishing Thomas for going hard and beating his oponant to the the ball.

This goes contrary to everything the AFL PR is saying about protecting the man going for the ball. Thomas won the ball and made incidental contact after the event. Sooner or later htey are going to have to realise that it is a contact sport and occasionally injuries happen. Next they're going to be blaming tacklers for ACL injuries.

I heard the incident referred to as a "slide tackle" - you have got to be kidding me, he slid in to collect the ball, it wasnt a tackle and their was no intent to take rohan out at all.

Where is the footage?

I think they're trying to ascertain negligent intent - sliding in like that is thoughtless.....he was always going to do some damage.

Rohan's break is horrific - the same sort of break that finished that Geelong player's career (his name escapes me...against big Al Nicholson???)

There are other ways to be first to the ball. Duty of care.

How does one see this footage?

Rohan's break is horrific - the same sort of break that finished that Geelong player's career (his name escapes me...against big Al Nicholson???)

Jason Snell.

Surely you can't be rubbed out for that? What is this game turning to?

Whelan would have been rubbed out for years if this crap was going on in the Nathan Brown days?

The outcome of this will be huge. This can be game changing, pretty soon players are going to be scared to go for the ball. This game is turning into Soccer/basketball more and more every week. The reason I watch this sport is because it is bloody hard!

couldn't see anything wrong with that

purely a possession attempt with no intent or malice to rohan

sort of thing you see many times in a game

just an unfortunate accident

Surely you can't be rubbed out for that? What is this game turning to?

Whelan would have been rubbed out for years if this crap was going on in the Nathan Brown days?

The outcome of this will be huge. This can be game changing, pretty soon players are going to be scared to go for the ball. This game is turning into Soccer/basketball more and more every week. The reason I watch this sport is because it is bloody hard!

Wheels' tackle on Nathan Brown was completely different....he went smother the ball with his hands and it there was never any 'intent'.

Jason Snell.

Thanks

The MRP is an absolute joke. How Thomas can be given weeks is an indictment on the game.

It also highlights the MRP's unbelievable inconsistency. If injury plays a part in sanctions and if Thomas has a case to answer then why didn't Butcher and Josh Kennedy's incidents get weeks from the MRP? 'Amateurish' flatters the numbskulls that make up this joke of a review panel.

It certainly looked to me like some endeavour to get the ball

Eyes were on the ball

What would have been said if Thomas had incurred a brocken back as rohan fell on him??

The MRP is an absolute joke. How Thomas can be given weeks is an indictment on the game.

It also highlights the MRP's unbelievable inconsistency. If injury plays a part in sanctions and if Thomas has a case to answer then why didn't Butcher and Josh Kennedy's incidents get weeks from the MRP? 'Amateurish' flatters the numbskulls that make up this joke of a review panel.

I agree with the inconsistency - Butcher should have been cited for intent. His sole purpose was to tunnel Col Sylvia.

The way i see it every other team will be rubbed out and our bruise free style we win the flag

Is there anyone that thinks Thomas should be suspended?

There. Didn't think so.

Wheels' tackle on Nathan Brown was completely different....he went smother the ball with his hands and it there was never any 'intent'.

Thomas went to get the ball too and there was never any intent. What is your point?

I'm totally with the AFL on this one . That sort of studs up tackle could end a players career .

As it is Gary Rohan has a break fairly close to his ankle .

In our game we don't go in feet first . Or is that somehow ok now ?

In Soccer you get a 3 match ban and red carded for a studs up tackle . Even if you don't connect .

Just imagine you were playing and you go to pick the ball up , then some opposition player comes flying in feet first and breaks your leg . It's a weak way of trying to get the ball . Incredibly dangerous . Just ask Gary Rohan .

An accident ? More like an accident waiting to happen .

Zero tolerance on this one . Put your head down and win the ball . Just like it's been done for over 100 years .

Thomas went to get the ball too and there was never any intent. What is your point?

The intent - sliding feet 1st.

Not good.

Is there anyone that thinks Thomas should be suspended?

There. Didn't think so.

Me - 5-6 weeks.

Is there anyone that thinks Thomas should be suspended?

There. Didn't think so.

Yes , just like 'jumbo returns' , 5 - 6 weeks . That will put a stop to it . Head over the ball . Not feet first .

The match review panel are used to push the AFL's adgenda to mould the game into somthing else entirely. They shouldnt give Thomas weeks for this. If they want it stamped out, send a DVD to the clubs with similar footage and say "this ttype of thing is unacceptable etc etc". You cant make some poor bloke the fall guy just becasue someone finally got hurt by an incident that happens regularly in the game with no consiquence. It was an accident IMO