it's all in those "eyes"

Hunter initially says he's "fairly sure" his eyes are on the ball for the whole duration of the contest, but on re-examination admits it is "slightly harder to tell" near the point of contact.

Love it !!!

Jeff Gleeson says Hunter is "an intelligent, articulate fellow who's got a clear view about what happened in this matter" and should stay for further questions if he can.

Hunter: "I've got nowhere to be mate other than Saturday at the G'."

31 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Gleeson refused to accept videos of similar incidents as it does not comply with the infamous Rule 5.5

We may have our Appeal Ground right here if needed.

 

I liked this one.

AFL: One of the things you could've done to avoid this impact was to step either to your left or right prior to impact. Hunter: No, because you're asking me to concede the ball to Port Adelaide.

Beat me to it

Edited May 23, 20232 yr by Mickey

14 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

it's all in those "eyes"

Hunter initially says he's "fairly sure" his eyes are on the ball for the whole duration of the contest, but on re-examination admits it is "slightly harder to tell" near the point of contact.

I hope we aren't arguing solely on the basis of "he had eyes for the ball at all times" then.

If so it would seem to be not all that convincing or alternatively an argument that might be easily picked off by the AFL cronies.

The argument that Hunter arrived at the contest before Rozee, braced as you are trained to do, and that Rozee could have either pulled up or kept his feet / stayed upright in the contest but instead 'chose' to dive at the ball head first afterwards.... to me is more compelling and somewhat less flimsy for mine.

3 minutes ago, Mickey said:

AFL: One of the things you could've done to avoid this impact was to step either to your left or right prior to impact.

Hunter: No, because you're asking me to concede the ball to Port Adelaide.

Great answer because if the Tribunal finds him guilty, the game becomes a non contact sport.

5 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

I liked this one.

AFL: One of the things you could've done to avoid this impact was to step either to your left or right prior to impact. Hunter: No, because you're asking me to concede the ball to Port Adelaide.

AFL: sorry im stupid and have never played the game. I'll see myself out

Interesting comment by Gleeson....

Gleeson: It's an interesting question. Contesting the ball, if it becomes too remote from the act of trying to gather the ball, then almost everything is contesting the ball, including just bumping your opponent out of the way so you can pick the ball up.

Has anyone read the actual charge? Christian hasn't by some miraculous stroke of luck, charged Hunter with contact with the incorrect hip has he?

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting comment by Gleeson....

Gleeson: It's an interesting question. Contesting the ball, if it becomes too remote from the act of trying to gather the ball, then almost everything is contesting the ball, including just bumping your opponent out of the way so you can pick the ball up.

Wow, he's on some serious crack tonight

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting comment by Gleeson....

Gleeson: It's an interesting question. Contesting the ball, if it becomes too remote from the act of trying to gather the ball, then almost everything is contesting the ball, including just bumping your opponent out of the way so you can pick the ball up.

well said Gleeson. When you think about it, walking down the street?  contesting the ball

dropping the kids off at school?  contesting the ball

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!??

How has footy been reduced to this farce!?

Hunter: There comes a point in which my version of contesting the ball is stopping Connor Rozee's tap from going on to the next person ... I think I can gain possession by stopping that tap and winning that secondary contest.

...

Hunter: The intention is always to get the ball, but there's always going to be dangers involved ... Connor Rozee's approach in this example is extremely dangerous. 

AFL: One of the things you could've done to avoid this impact was to step either to your left or right prior to impact.

Hunter: No, because you're asking me to concede the ball to Port Adelaide.

Gleeson (Tribunal chair): It's an interesting question. Contesting the ball, if it becomes too remote from the act of trying to gather the ball, then almost everything is contesting the ball, including just bumping your opponent out of the way so you can pick the ball up.

 

------------------------

 

That is the crux of the argument there. 

I don't think Hunter is wrong. He decelerated as much as possible. If Rozee picked the ball up Hunter could have tackled. But Rozee chose to try to knock it through Hunters legs, while lunging head first.

If Hunter isn't contesting the ball, because he isn't trying to take possession, then I think there is a very reasonable argument that Rozee isn't trying to contest the ball either, because he is trying to knock it away, not take possession.

Why was the contact deemed as medium when Rozee got straight up, got 8 coaches votes, and ended up kicking the winning goal?

He didn’t seem too inconvenienced by the incident.

I think we need to stop the theatre of the appeal process. There has to be a more transparent, productive and not litigating way to deal with this nonsense.

I say we put it to an online vote - that’ll make things interesting .. it’ll at least be more consistent.

Edited May 23, 20232 yr by Gawndy the Great

1 minute ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Why was the contact deemed as medium when Rozee got straight up, got 8 coaches votes, and ended up kicking the winning goal?

He didn’t seem too inconvenienced by the incident.

What’s the definition of light or low contact?

 

Dees' eight points:

1. No reasonable, realistic alternative

2. Hands down in motion to gather ball until very last split second

3. Still in goalkeeping pose (left foot, left hand out) to trap the ball. Only at last split second that he begins to move

4. Doesn't go past ball

5. Rozee's actions were unusual

6. Hunter didn't have option to tackle

7. He couldn't go low and risk contact below knees

8. It would've been reckless and dangerous to stay front on and go head-first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 20232 yr by YearOfTheDees
tidy

6 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Why was the contact deemed as medium when Rozee got straight up, got 8 coaches votes, and ended up kicking the winning goal?

He didn’t seem too inconvenienced by the incident.

Because they place too much emphasis on potential to cause injury. Which seems overly conservative/misleading. I agree he recovered fine.

20 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Interesting comment by Gleeson....

Gleeson: It's an interesting question. Contesting the ball, if it becomes too remote from the act of trying to gather the ball, then almost everything is contesting the ball, including just bumping your opponent out of the way so you can pick the ball up.

It's ridiculous because there is always the question of whether it is reasonable. Hunter could have karate kicked Rozee into next week, then won the ball. But that's not a reasonable way of contesting the ball.

5 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Dees' eight points:

1. No reasonable, realistic alternative

2. Hands down in motion to gather ball until very last split second

3. Still in goalkeeping pose (left foot, left hand out) to trap the ball. Only at last split second that he begins to move

4. Doesn't go past ball

5. Rozee's actions were unusual

6. Hunter didn't have option to tackle

7. He couldn't go low and risk contact below knees

8. It would've been reckless and dangerous to stay front on and go head-first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the crazy thing for me, he was stationary - point 3. 
How can his action be reckless or careless when he's stopped and the AFL are arguing he should have jumped out of the way?
That's like being charged for being on a pedestrian crossing and doing damage to someone's car who is recklessley speeding into you.

I really like Hunter. Seems like a character. And knows his way around the AFL spin. 

1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:

it's all in those "eyes"

Hunter initially says he's "fairly sure" his eyes are on the ball for the whole duration of the contest, but on re-examination admits it is "slightly harder to tell" near the point of contact.

I assume everyone is free Thursday night for another 4 hour appeals process? 
 

 

Based on what I've been reading here anyone unable to preempt an opponents action by turning on the head of a pin in a split second to avoid contact will be in trouble. 

It's the Matador movement

Stand still.. swing your hips .. wave your red cape and allow the bull to charge past you..

Except that this Bull goes onto score

Seriously though ... a two hour hearing on a relatively simple point.. This is beyond the Pale

Edited May 23, 20232 yr by Diamond_Jim