Does anyone else believe that the hit on Clarry was a dog act?

Approached from behind and completely unaware. It's not a case of two players facing each other but a coward punch from behind.

Should get at least 2 weeks for the offence.

 

Just now, tiers said:

Does anyone else believe that the hit on Clarry was a dog act?

Approached from behind and completely unaware. It's not a case of two players facing each other but a coward punch from behind.

Should get at least 2 weeks for the offence.

 

If it was one of ours there is no doubt weeks would be given. 

16 minutes ago, tiers said:

Does anyone else believe that the hit on Clarry was a dog act?

Approached from behind and completely unaware. It's not a case of two players facing each other but a coward punch from behind.

Should get at least 2 weeks for the offence.

 

The AFL and the sycophantic media will say nothing in it, just a love tap, victim over-reacted etc etc.  One day they might realise it is not the best look for the sport or a good role model for young kids.  But I wouldn't hold your breath.

Think about happened to Harry Houdini....

Surprised M Pickett escaped suspension. They usually suspend the nobodies and blokes with questionable characters.

On the other hand, the golden boys like Pendlebury, Hawkins, Danger, Selwood, Cotchin etc... 

Clarrie disclosed after the game that he had sore ribs, and the punch got him right in the sore spot.  I hope this was noted by the umpiring fraternity, because otherwise it could be interpreted as an exaggerated response to the hit.

Edited April 26, 20242 yr by Jumping Jack Clennett
typo

Of course it is a dog act - but tolerated by the hypocritical afl and the incompetent MRO.

Clarrie cops these most weeks.

ANY strike should start at one week( if they are in any way serious about stamping out unnecessary and unsightly violence which clearly they re not) - yes, even for Collingwood and Carlton players in finals.

But of course even if Christian did look at it (though wasn't instructed to do so by Ch 7) he would grade low impact, in play (because it was at the ground) and maybe even accidental.

3 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

Think about happened to Harry Houdini....

Houdini escaped more times than Charlie Cameron and Patrick Cripps have at the tribunal.  And he died of a ruptured appendix which was not all that uncommon in the 1920s.

7 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Surprised M Pickett escaped suspension. They usually suspend the nobodies and blokes with questionable characters.

On the other hand, the golden boys like Pendlebury, Hawkins, Danger, Selwood, Cotchin etc... 

Are you really surprised??  I am not.  This goes on all the time and is just ignored.

AFL hasn't crossed this bridge yet, but I can see this as suspendable offence in the future. Really puts the game in disrepute and isn't part of the amicable contest. If we are suspending players for bumps that don't injure players but have the potential to injure a player then striking players in this circumstance should be treated the same way. Oliver has been targeted this way several times this season similar to this and IMO a fine isn't a sufficient deterrent to stop this thuggery. 

6 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Of course it is a dog act - but tolerated by the hypocritical afl and the incompetent MRO.

Clarrie cops these most weeks.

ANY strike should start at one week( if they are in any way serious about stamping out unnecessary and unsightly violence which clearly they re not) - yes, even for Collingwood and Carlton players in finals.

But of course even if Christian did look at it (though wasn't instructed to do so by Ch 7) he would grade low impact, in play (because it was at the ground) and maybe even accidental.

When it happened, BT called it “a little tickle.” I’m sure Clarrie didn’t feel it that way, especially since he had sore ribs at the time. 🤬

6 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

When it happened, BT called it “a little tickle.” I’m sure Clarrie didn’t feel it that way, especially since he had sore ribs at the time. 🤬

I was so angry and shouting that my housemate took the TV remote from me to avoid accidental destruction of property!!

Although admittedly my temper cooled when I realised it was Marlion Pickett.  I feel Marlion probably has a lot of things in his life that would cause him to lash out.  Not that this justifies assaulting someone... but it feels like he's got enough punishment heading his way.

19 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Clarrie disclosed after the game that he had sore ribs, and the punch got him right in the sore spot.  I hope this was noted by the umpiring fraternity, because otherwise it could be interpreted as an exaggerated response to the hit.

I know at times there is play acting and what not but an unexpected hit to that region can make someone fold in half sometimes 

But we've seen with Pendles etc they dont really care, an off the ball strike is at times less punishable than a clumsy football action 

It was the open hand part that got me. 

HOW WAS THAT ASSESSMENT MADE??

How/why did Marlion get the benefit?

A bit of push and shove is fine, but this was not that - and it certainly takes it out of the 'workplace' and 'inherently accepted conduct' as part of the game argument.

A wack in the guts whether open hand or fist sure does hurt either way the AFL are a joke behind play, crude, uncalled for if serious should have got at least a week

what makes it worse is that it was off the ball, there was no scrapping, just clarry standing there relaxed and he comes in from behind and hits him with clarry never seeing a thing .   no heat of the moment thing.

 

55 minutes ago, DeelightfulPlay said:

Although admittedly my temper cooled when I realised it was Marlion Pickett.  I feel Marlion probably has a lot of things in his life that would cause him to lash out.  Not that this justifies assaulting someone... but it feels like he's got enough punishment heading his way.

No mitigation for me - if he's not in a head space to take the field without assaulting people off the ball, he shouldn't be playing. 

1 hour ago, tiers said:

Does anyone else believe that the hit on Clarry was a dog act?

Approached from behind and completely unaware. It's not a case of two players facing each other but a coward punch from behind.

Should get at least 2 weeks for the offence.

 

 

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what makes it worse is that it was off the ball, there was no scrapping, just clarry standing there relaxed and he comes in from behind and hits him with clarry never seeing a thing .   no heat of the moment thing.

 

Agree with this @daisycutter.

As far as I'm concerned, off the ball, out of play hits like this are assault.

They can't be excused as two players being aggressive towards each other and one getting a bit harder than intended, or even the "trying to push off to get separation" argument.

It's just hitting a bloke who isn't looking. As cheap as any act in the AFL and should be stamped out as unacceptable.

The face that this thuggery is a fine only is an indictment on the AFL and the game 

The liver is on the right side of the body and only partially protected by the rib cage.

A blow to the liver will drop a man. It’s a serious matter.

Are you guys serious? A fine is what it deserves

Hogan smacked a bloke in the face and didn’t get a week

Neale copped a harder hit and just a fine. 

No way the Oliver one gets weeks

*having said that i hate this part of the game 

It seems to be a fashion this season to hammer people in the solar plexus for no reason.

Kind of like how in advertising it is currently fashionable to try to be funny with 'Imagine if the other thing you did was as simple as spending money with us'.

My point being, they both are tedious [censored] done by people who know they aren't ever going to be held to account for their shabbiness, and everything possible should be done to stamp both things out.

The game is supposed to be cleaner nowadays. Suspensions for 'unduly rough play' and 'attempting to strike' no longer happen. Even actual deliberate strikes are rarely penalised. The common sense (pub test) has been superseded by over complicated,  ridiculously jargoned, legal gobbledygook that charges need to match. 

Perhaps the AFL has simply had to go down that path to avoid legal challenges in this ever increasing litigious world.

The result is justice is not served, it seems, on a weekly basis. This will continue to be the case with the current set-up. Even when the AFL believe the decision to be wrong, they fail to appeal as they should.  

2 hours ago, Lexinator said:

AFL hasn't crossed this bridge yet, but I can see this as suspendable offence in the future

Whatever is old is new again.

In the old VFL days what Pickett did was called striking & he could have expected 2 to 4 weeks.

It’s called a ‘love tap’, and because they let Pendlebury do it every player in the comp can now do it every week.

Good job AFL. Nailed it.