Jeez Mason, did you forget what happened last September?

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

It’s actually a replica of the Cripps hit which concussed his victim and put him out of the finals.

Cripps’ penalty, a Brownlow.

Well, the tribunal chairman did bang the gavel with his left hand, when protocol demands the right, so it's correct that as a matter of law, Cripps got off. Takes a QC to spot these little things.

Looked pretty similar to De Goey on Hewett from last year who got 3 weeks. 

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by DaveyJones'sLocker

Ball was in the vicinity… 

Attempted to smother missed the ball, left the ground braced for impact and hit Simpkin… 

Really Simpkin should have invented teleportation to avoid the hit so really it’s his fault… 

Should get off… 

Am I doing it right? 
 

Seriously a dog act, deserves 6+ like what Maynard deserved. 
 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Ban the bump.

That was a text book example of why.

And of my point about the game not losing anything by doing so.

Even if he hadn't flushed his head, and just say hit him shoulder to shoulder, what would have that action achieved for Webster's team, other than hurting an opponent?

Nothing.

He had already disposed of the ball. 

Even a non reportable 'hit' would likely have been a free.

If the bump was not legal he likely doesn't do it - or goes at him hands out, which still might hurt him but not as bad.

Simpkin apparently had two concussions last year, one of which was apparently a bad one he struggled to recover from.

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by binman

IMO it’s worse than SPP who got 4, but King suggesting 10 is over the top and I think it will land at 6.

Late, left the ground, hip and arm into the head, totally unnecessary and if he wanted to bump, could have done so into his side and shoulder, still possibly illegal, but far less so.

Hope none of our players do anything similar.

PS: Given the current climate he could get a bit more. This could be the message penalty.

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by Redleg

6 minutes ago, DaveyJones'sLocker said:

Looked pretty similar to De Goey on Hewett from last year who got 3 weeks. 

Which was ridiculous. Broke his jaw. Should have got 6 minimum.

1 hour ago, Monbon said:

I thought P-P was stiff. A Port player turned the poor Crow dude directly into P-P's path...P-P never left the ground with the intention to thump....

P-P's appeared to be a genuine "football incident" and in a contact sport, merde happens. Unfortunate.

 

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

If the AFL want to make a statement on a head high bump then this is the perfect case study right here with this incident.

You'd think 6 weeks at least is a starting point.

Saints currently sitting in top 4? NO
Saints with crack at a flag? NO
Webster star player? NO
Webster "good bloke"? Opinions vary.
St Kilda fanboys in media cracking the [censored]? NO

So that's one point at best. Webster to be hung drawn and quartered.

10 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Jeez Mason, did you forget what happened last September?

Anyone who has anything to do with Collingwood should be shutting their mouths. After the incident in last years final and the way Collingwood and their supporters conducted them selves the moment of and after the incident they should be ashamed of themselves. 

 

5 minutes ago, binman said:

Ban the bump.

That was a text book example of why.

And of my point about the game not losing anything by doing so.

Even if he hadn't flushed his head, and just say hit him shoulder to shoulder, what would have that action achieved for Webster's team, other than hurting an opponent?

Nothing.

He had already disposed of the ball. 

Even a non reportable 'hit' would likely have been a free.

If the bump was not legal he likely doesn't do it - or goes at him hands out, which still might hurt him but not as bad.

Simpkin apparently had two concussions last year, one of which was apparently a bad one he struggled to recover from.

This is absolutely exhibit A for the ban the bump movement.

Only intention was to ‘make him earn it’ in the old fashioned sense. It’s such an antiquated and dangerous attitude.

It will never happen but this is as good an example of a 10 week ban as you will see.

I think you’ll have many friends on board the bump ban train over the course of this week @binman

Ban the bump? why?

head high bumps are already banned

whats wrong with shoulder to shoulder?

*ducks head for cover

It’s about time the AFL made a statement here, if they are serious about banning head high hits. FFS, it has already ended the career of Gus in the most recent history. Webster should be banned for the year. Draw a line in the sand AFL.

1 minute ago, DubDee said:

Ban the bump? why?

head high bumps are already banned

whats wrong with shoulder to shoulder?

*ducks head for cover

At very least there have to be hip to hip when contesting a ground ball. 
Agree 100% re head high and maybe even shoulder 

4 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Ban the bump? why?

head high bumps are already banned

whats wrong with shoulder to shoulder?

*ducks head for cover

Perhaps a better question is why not ban the bump?

10 weeks is a good idea

2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

If the AFL want to make a statement on a head high bump then this is the perfect case study right here with this incident.

You'd think 6 weeks at least is a starting point.

The AFL will act only when the $100,000,000 (minimum) law suit lands.

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by Queanbeyan Demon
Typo

Saints win the preseason Cup. 

26 minutes ago, binman said:

Perhaps a better question is why not ban the bump?

I don’t think that’s the question but i’ll answer anyway -

it’s been a part of the game for 150 years. It is an exciting, brutal, unique part of our sport. Think back your favourite Matty Whelan bump. If you ban it completely how to players brace if high speed contact is inevitable? head to head front on contact? last comment tongue in cheek somewhat

54 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

P-P's appeared to be a genuine "football incident" and in a contact sport, merde happens. Unfortunate.

 

Saints currently sitting in top 4? NO
Saints with crack at a flag? NO
Webster star player? NO
Webster "good bloke"? Opinions vary.
St Kilda fanboys in media cracking the [censored]? NO

So that's one point at best. Webster to be hung drawn and quartered.

But the AFL is not corrupt! Ha effing Ha

21 hours ago, Demonland said:

Saints win the preseason Cup. 

Webster out for 6 week

Howard out for 3+

Saints definitely the winners

3 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

i don't think it's going to be 10, but it should start at 6

in other concussion news, will pucovski was sconned second ball of his innings down in tasmania

he needs to be brayshaw'd and medically retired from sport where there's a chance of his head being hit

Such a shame for young Will. A dozen hits to the head in a relatively short career. And that’s in a non-contact sport. 😢

1 hour ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Jeez Mason, did you forget what happened last September?

I agree with the sentiment. The only problem is who’s saying it. Anyone connected with that filthy team of thugs should know better than to comment on this matter. 

54 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Saints win the preseason Cup. 

Love the old school early-mid 2000s club logos used in the ladder.

26 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I don’t think that’s the question but i’ll answer anyway -

it’s been a part of the game for 150 years. It is an exciting, brutal, unique part of our sport. Think back your favourite Matty Whelan bump. If you ban it completely how to players brace if high speed contact is inevitable? head to head front on contact? last comment tongue in cheek somewhat

I think it is an important question.

Because really the only rebuttal I've heard against banning is a variation of it's an exciting element of a brutal game.

Part or the game.

But so was hitting and sniping players behind play in the 70s and 80s. And getting off because there was no video review to catch hits thst were missed or a blind eye was turned.

But the VFL was increasingly out of step with community values. The level of violence in games was no longer accepted by the community.

It took matthews sickening hit on Bruns to trigger a video review and start reducing the number of striking reports.

Few would argue the game is not better for it. 

I'd argue the bump is similar in some ways. The difference is it is legal violence  - a football act. One that until relatively recently was legal even if a head was struck. 

The similarity to striking behind play twofold.

One is a bump, even if a head is not hit, is also brutal. 

Two it achieves nothing positive for your team - unless you consider taking out and/or hurting an opponent as being a positive (and in any cade you can hurt with a tackle).

Unlike kicking, marking, tackling and handballing the game would lose nothing the bump, currently a football act, was outlawed. 

The sport is plenty brutal without taking players out with a bump.

As for two players running at each other, personally  in such scenarios ie to protect yourself from inevitable contact I'd allow bracing for contact which is a natural, instinctive action.

Some head injuries are inevitable in such a chaotic 360 degree sport.

For example in marking contests, which I wouldn't ban by the way as unlike bumping high marling is a fundamental of the game.

Honestly bumps like this and Maynard's are why there should be a send off rule. 

Because if you were an immoral piece of feces you could do this a few times in a GF or to the opposition's best player, win a flag and who cares about the suspension. Even in a home and away game it gives you an advantage as the opposition have to use their sub to replace someone they might not have wanted to replace at a time they don't get to choose.

I'm not saying use a red card willy nilly but in cases like today's...