51 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I love the detail that the ball actually bounces off Greene's shoulder. He has literally stopped going for the ball out of fear of impact, and then barrelled into the much more vulnerable opponent's head.

He chose to bump instead of contest the ball.

If that isn't a simple one for the MRO then they are in serious trouble.

not quite accurate. the ball that bounced off his shoulder was in fact deflected by boyd so wasn't on its original trajectory.

greene was entitled to contest the mark and leave the ground.

at the last split second it became obvious a collision was inevitable

so the question is was greene allowed to protect himself? he couldn't avoid the collision.

additionally was this accidental or careless in grading?

Edited April 22, 20241 yr by daisycutter

13 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

not quite accurate. the ball that bounced off his shoulder was in fact deflected by boyd so wasn't on its original trajectory.

greene was entitled to contest the mark and leave the ground.

at the last split second it became obvious a collision was inevitable

so the question is was greene allowed to protect himself? he couldn't avoid the collision.

additionally was this accidental or careless in grading?

I can't believe he got a week. Was going to mark then the ball changed trajectory, so he braced for contact. If he marked it the conversation would not be being had.

2 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

I can't believe he got a week. Was going to mark then the ball changed trajectory, so he braced for contact. If he marked it the conversation would not be being had.

Kozzie got two (or was it three) round 1 2023 for a zero impact impact.

 

30 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

I can't believe he got a week. Was going to mark then the ball changed trajectory, so he braced for contact. If he marked it the conversation would not be being had.

if he didn't turn and brace but continued the marking attempt the end result could well have been a knee into boyd's face and both players more seriously injured.

if they insist he shouldn't have turned at last split second they would have to explain what he should have done and what that likely outcome would have been.

it was a catch-20 of choices

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

not quite accurate. the ball that bounced off his shoulder was in fact deflected by boyd so wasn't on its original trajectory.

greene was entitled to contest the mark and leave the ground.

at the last split second it became obvious a collision was inevitable

so the question is was greene allowed to protect himself? he couldn't avoid the collision.

 

Yes, of course he is allowed to protect himself.

But I'd argue the real question is, is bracing for contact the only way he could protect himself?

And the answer to that question, is no, of course not. It's just the accepted way. 

That has to change because in choosing to brace and bump the person being hit is not protected. 

Again, i'd argue if that scenario happened in say a match sim at a GWS training, Greene would choose another action (for example putting his hands out to brace as is instinctive when say falling forward) because he would try and protect a teammate - which completely takes away the instinct, football act argument that is always trotted out in such incidents (that's to say if it so instinctive he would barrel his teammate and players would be getting knocked out cold at every training session). 

The reality is that in a game it is only an instinctive 'football act' to protect yourself at the total expense of an opponent because rattling the cage of an opponent (read knocking them into next week) is baked into footy culture. 

That culture can change without changing the nature of the sport. I have watched footy all my life and with the velocity players are hitting each other now it has never been more brutal. 

Edited April 22, 20241 yr by binman

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

if he didn't turn and brace but continued the marking attempt the end result could well have been a knee into boyd's face and both players more seriously injured.

if they insist he shouldn't have turned at last split second they would have to explain what he should have done and what that likely outcome would have been.

it was a catch-20 of choices

And yet taking the least dangerous option (bracing) results in a suspension when continuing with the marking attempt likely results in no case to answer and a possible fractured skull for Boyd.

45 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

I can't believe he got a week. Was going to mark then the ball changed trajectory, so he braced for contact. If he marked it the conversation would not be being had.

If he marked it then he would have been contesting the ball, which is legal. Bumping the face whilst not contesting the ball is reportable.

5 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

If he marked it then he would have been contesting the ball, which is legal. Bumping the face whilst not contesting the ball is reportable.

Surely GWS argue he was contesting the ball. It did hit his arm but I think he lost sight of it, which would explain why it hit his arm and wasn't marked or dropped. He is paying the tax for sure as their are other players who most of us could name fairly quickly that would not be having to worry about an appearance this week.

2 minutes ago, binman said:

Yes, of course he is allowed to protect himself.

But I'd argue the real question is is bracing for contact the only way he could protect himself?

And the answer to that question, is no, of course not. It's just the accepted way. 

That has to change because in choosing to brace and bump the person being hit is not protected. 

Again, i'd argue if that scenario happened in say a match sim at a GWS training, Greene would choose another action (for example putting his hands out to brace as is instinctive when say falling forward) because he would least try to protect a teammate - which completely takes away the instinct, football act argument that is always trotted out in such incidents. 

The reality is in a game the instinctive 'football act' is to protect yourself at the total expense of an opponent because rattling the cage of an opponent (read knocking them into next week) is baked into footy culture. 

That culture can change without changing the nature of the sport. I have watched footy all my life and with the velocity players are hitting each other now it has never been more brutal. 

like i said later. a catch-20 of choices.  i'm not convinced in this case that a simple putting out his arms whilst airborne with forward motion and with knees up solves the dilemma. could well be more dangerous for both players. ymmv.

 

3 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

If he marked it then he would have been contesting the ball, which is legal. Bumping the face whilst not contesting the ball is reportable.

but the ball was deflected by boyd at the last split second whilst greene was in a marking action. at this point it couldn't be marked and a collision was inevitable. even if he continued in his marking attempt there would have been a serious collision.

look, i'm no fan of greene and his record of rough play, and i'm certainly no fan of tough thuggish play, but in this situation i'm happy to view it as an (unfortunate) football act and therefore not "careless".

 

I agree that it was a split second decision and he was bracing for contact, but the precedent has been set with Wright which was almost identical.

Has to be a 1 week suspension.

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'm not convinced in this case that a simple putting out his arms whilst airborne with forward motion and with knees up solves the dilemma. could well be more dangerous for both players. ymmv.

Maybe yes, maybe no. We'll never know.

But what we do know is bracing for contact in the way Greene does ONLY protects one person - him. 

What would people's response to the incident be if instead of not being hurt Boyd was knocked out cold? It was just luck he wasn't. 

If the underpinning philosophy was to try and protect the player being hit as well as the hitter they would soon land on a technique that maximized protection for both parties - just as they have when opponents are running head first at the same contest.

For ever and a day the standard approach to that scenario was the old 'head over the ball', head first approach. Now players are getting much better at both turning their bodies juts before contact and hitting each other side to side. 

Over time, players would master the technique to protect both the hitter and the player being hit.  

Goody has said they train players not to bump. It takes time, but ultimately dees players instinct will not be to bump when another, safer alternative exists. 

At some point the AFL will be forced to ban the bump (with exceptions for say scenarios like the one i note above with opponents running head first at the same contest).

So in the Green scenario, it would be black and white - he bumped so he cops an automatic minimum suspension, say one week. The number of weeks might then depend on factors like injury to the opponent, the players record or mitigating circumstances.   

And then players will be forced to find another technique. And would because the clubs would train it to avoid their players being suspended (which is exactly why Goody is training his players not to bump).

#ban the bump

16 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Brisbane player last night jumped in the air and collected someone in the head - can't remember who, did anyone see it? Must get a week going by Kozzies suspension.

Yep it was no.4 Achee I think. 3rd qtr?.

Very similar collision to Kozzies but nothing really replayed or mentioned by the media, so all good happy days.

Go Lions. Got to get em up or the crowds don't show in Brisvegas. 

He'll be free to play as compared to the so called "sniper" we have playing for us.

It's just ludicrously inconsistent week to week, game to game.

Bluuurgh

Adam Simpson on Barrass after the game "I hope he gets off. He's a good guy". hahaha hilarious.

The tribunal have made a rod for their own back. If they don't let players off on the good guy rule they are essentially saying one person isn't as good as the other.

Personally I think some of the narrative has to change in that why did the Carlton player “have to go for that ball” and put themselves in a position to be taken out. He was never going to mark the ball and his action was conducive to negative impact. I do agree Greene could have made impact with arms out wide, but the narrative is he “had to go” as well. 
this was similar situation to Oliver a couple of weeks ago. He chose to not go, thus preventing injury to himself or the opposition player. 

52 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Surely GWS argue he was contesting the ball.

If he was contesting the ball then he wouldn't be in the brace position, he would be reaching for the ball. GWS can try to argue that he's contesting the ball but it'll only need that one photo of him bumping the head with his arms tucked in to show that he wasn't. Just because he jumped with the intention of contesting the ball doesn't mean he was contesting the ball when he bumped into the face of his opponent.

 

52 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

but the ball was deflected by boyd at the last split second whilst greene was in a marking action. at this point it couldn't be marked and a collision was inevitable. even if he continued in his marking attempt there would have been a serious collision.

If the player he was jumping to was Jesse Hogan or a small child then he wouldn't have braced himself to bump, he would have shown some form of protection. A collision of some kind may have been inevitable but bracing yourself to bump your opponent with your shoulder was not inevitable. If one person is contesting the ball and the other isn't, then the responsibility for the collision lies with the non-contesting player. Greene messed up by not trying to protect the player contesting the ball and, at best, treated the player contesting the ball with negligent indifference. 

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

If he marked it then he would have been contesting the ball, which is legal. Bumping the face whilst not contesting the ball is reportable.

My problem is with players running recklessly back with the flight of the ball.

It used to be a mark of courage but honestly it's just plain stupid.

I can remember doing it twice when I was playing.

One I got away with, a spectator who used to be a VFL captain was on the boundary side it happened and said basically what were you thinking.

The 2nd time I wasn't as lucky and got a chest full of busted ribs.

Yes, what Greene did was illegal in football terms but if he had of followed through with the marking attempt we might had had a terrible situation.

Players need to be protected from themselves.

8 minutes ago, rjay said:

My problem is with players running recklessly back with the flight of the ball.

It used to be a mark of courage but honestly it's just plain stupid.

I can remember doing it twice when I was playing.

One I got away with, a spectator who used to be a VFL captain was on the boundary side it happened and said basically what were you thinking.

The 2nd time I wasn't as lucky and got a chest full of busted ribs.

Yes, what Greene did was illegal in football terms but if he had of followed through with the marking attempt we might had had a terrible situation.

Players need to be protected from themselves.

This is where my line of thinking is tracking too as well. The person running back with the flight is not only disregarding their own safety but they have no regard for anyone else who might be in their path. Nor can they do anything to protect themselves or alter their course unless they take their eyes off the ball. It's full of risk and shouldn't be encouraged.

3 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

GWS are quite clever in challenging. 

Given recent miraculous outcomes, you might as well challenge anything/everything.

I’ll say they are. It’s not even their [censored]  money to pay for the appeal. They are bankrolled by the AFL. It’s a free hit for them.

24 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

If he was contesting the ball then he wouldn't be in the brace position, he would be reaching for the ball. GWS can try to argue that he's contesting the ball but it'll only need that one photo of him bumping the head with his arms tucked in to show that he wasn't. Just because he jumped with the intention of contesting the ball doesn't mean he was contesting the ball when he bumped into the face of his opponent.

 

If the player he was jumping to was Jesse Hogan or a small child then he wouldn't have braced himself to bump, he would have shown some form of protection. A collision of some kind may have been inevitable but bracing yourself to bump your opponent with your shoulder was not inevitable. If one person is contesting the ball and the other isn't, then the responsibility for the collision lies with the non-contesting player. Greene messed up by not trying to protect the player contesting the ball and, at best, treated the player contesting the ball with negligent indifference. 

you keep saying greene wasn't contesting the ball. he certainly was, up and until it was deflected and a collision was immininent. this was in a SPLIT SECOND before contact.

it is disingenuous for you to insist he was a non-contestant

be handy to run a poll and see if demonlanders think greene (and / or hogan) will get off

i suspect greene will and hogan won't

Okay... so piecing it together...

Greene clearly initiated his jump with intent to compete for the ball.

He then stopped competing for the ball out of fear of collision.

He chose to protect himself from that collision by ensuring that the initial contact was the least vulnerable part of his body impacting upon the most vulnerable part of his opponent.

This action transferred the risk to his off-balance opponent and also greatly increased the risk to this opponent.

It has been widely alleged that if he had not done this and instead chosen to make a soft contact without focusing his weight and momentum into a single point, both players would have been severely injured by fragments from a falling satellite, or something, I don't quite understand that part.

17 hours ago, monoccular said:

Kozzie got two (or was it three) round 1 2023 for a zero impact impact.

 

And Kozzie also got a week for the Adelaide thing for less than Greens act.

Green jumped, his shoulder made high contact with medium impact - that's about the logic that got applied to Kozzie.

Additionally, Green can hardly use the Charlie Cameron (I'm an angle that's never offended before) [censored].

See ya later Toby. 

BTW, I like Green, but after seeing Kozzie go for what he did, I've got zero sympathy for other clubs loosing players to the tribunal for high contact... I just wish they'd hit that scum Maynard with an 8 week retrospective ban a few games out from finals.

Edited April 22, 20241 yr by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

So at what point do we outlaw players running back with the flight of the ball?

Our is that 'brave'?

The problem is the rule:  ' head high contact is automatically 'medium impact' thus one week.

Then last week the Tribunal 'used its discretion' that the Cameron case was on the 'lower end of medium'.  A correct decision.   But it then added the 'good guy' BS.

Without the 'good guy' BS the MRO could have used 'lower end of medium' precedent to assess Toby.  

A can of worms has been created.

Edited April 22, 20241 yr by Lucifers Hero

21 hours ago, daisycutter said:

additionally was this accidental or careless in grading?

It was graded as careless.  Accidental no longer exists.  If it did then Toby and many others would get off/fine

Edited April 22, 20241 yr by Lucifers Hero