Jump to content

Lachie Hunter Loses Bid To Overturn 1 Week Suspension

Monbon
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

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.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
     

    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'."

  • Quote
    • Like 4
    • Haha 6
    • Clap 1
    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.

    IMG_3446.thumb.jpeg.7b60fd983a36ca8ea6bd02a2a9309c69.jpeg

     

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
    • Clap 1
     

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    • Love 2
    • Clap 3

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Clap 1
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 9
    • Clap 1
    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

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 6
    • Clap 1
     

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    • Shocked 1

    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

  • Quote
    • Haha 1
    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!?

  • Quote
    • Shocked 1
    • Angry 1

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Angry 1

    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 by Gawndy the Great

  • Quote

    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?

     

  • Quote

    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 by YearOfTheDees
    tidy

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Thanks 4
    • Clap 2
    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.

  • Quote
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    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.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Clap 1

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

  • Quote
    • Like 5
    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.

    giphy.gif.603e07be0ac837c10f2227c04e6b34e9.gif

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

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

     

  • Quote
    • Haha 3
    • Vomit 1
     

    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. 

  • Quote
    • Like 2

    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 by Diamond_Jim

  • Quote
    • Haha 2

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • CASEY: Sydney

      The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 1 reply
      Demonland

    • REPORT: St. Kilda

      Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
      This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Collingwood

      After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 154 replies
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: St. Kilda

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
      Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
      Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

        • Thanks
      • 42 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: St. Kilda

      After kicking the first goal of the match the Demons were always playing catch up against the Saints in Alice Spring and could never make the most of their inside 50 entries to wrestle back the lead.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 327 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: St. Kilda

      Max Gawn still has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award as Christian Petracca, Jake Bowey, Clayton Oliver & Kozzy Pickett round out the Top 5. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 31 replies
      Demonland
    View All