57 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Absolute joke

Brown had a free arm to brace himself. He should have used it better. 

Not a driving tackle, a falling tackle! Most impact on opponents shoulder which hit the ground, then Brown milked the free by kissing the turf and holding his head like he was in Dealey Plaza in 1963!

Pretty sure we will accept the one week.

Turner back and unfortunately Roo gives the ruck chop out.

Improve you takleing technique maybe AJ, but don't change.

More of that bustling aggression and attack on the ball every week is exactly what out forwardline needs.  Make sure you bring it double against Collingwood.

Edited March 17Mar 17 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

12 hours ago, dees189227 said:

I thought he'd be ok seeing as the giants player was OK.

I mean Greene knees someone & gets a fine.

Poor guy, his 1st game and he gets suspended 

At this stage of the season, they (the AFL) had to penalise us in some way - didn't take much argy-bargy consideration, just a rather rapid and snatched out-of-the-blue decision that may or may not be considered 'dangerous' - that's good enough. After all, it is Melbourne.

12 hours ago, DubDee said:

Suspension for that?!? cmon let’s get real  

we must challenge 

https://www.instagram.com/afl/reel/DHSuHLaSvi4/

He turned him and his shoulder hit the turf.

 

BS decision

Strawbs was a good bloke, handy big man onfield, thinker when it came to form and style of delivery, absolutely top value. He was aggressive (mongrel) at times but disrespected by umpires (possibly because he had freckles) and thus, a target for their form of derision. One hopes that AJ is not so characterised by the less than honest or competent holding a whistle these days.

12 hours ago, dees189227 said:

Greene knees someone & gets a fine.

Knees someone - for the hundredth time.  I do actually like Toby, but he's more than just a serial offender on this.  Should be an automatic suspension every time he does it.

13 hours ago, Herewecome2017 said:

What about the giants player that elected to bump and got Tom McDonald high with his hip. The impact was high enough to rule the giants player out of the game. So if they are adjudicating it on action that technically should also have been a suspension.

GWS are a protected species since it is the official club of the AFL. 

12 hours ago, waynewussell said:

Not a driving tackle, a falling tackle! Most impact on opponents shoulder which hit the ground, then Brown milked the free by kissing the turf and holding his head like he was in Dealey Plaza in 1963!

Dealey Plaza was graded high impact and intentional.

2 hours ago, jnrmac said:

He turned him and his shoulder hit the turf.

 

BS decision

No look again, his head hits the ground and we will not challenge.

His shoulder hits first and then his head, in the whiplash motion.

Bit unlucky, but they are trying to stamp that sort of thing out.

3 minutes ago, Redleg said:

No look again, his head hits the ground and we will not challenge.

His shoulder hits first and then his head, in the whiplash motion.

Bit unlucky, but they are trying to stamp that sort of thing out.

true, but the fact his shoulder hit first and dissipated most of the force meant his head didn't hit the turf forcibly.

less than 50% chance of getting off but, coz of optics and coz if we appeal, we'd get that useless anderson as advocate

 

2 hours ago, Deemania since 56 said:

At this stage of the season, they (the AFL) had to penalise us in some way - didn't take much argy-bargy consideration, just a rather rapid and snatched out-of-the-blue decision that may or may not be considered 'dangerous' - that's good enough. After all, it is Melbourne.

And of course, at that point it looked very much like we had that game nearly wrapped up.

16 hours ago, darkhorse72 said:

For what?

Multiple choice time:

a. he was wearing navy blue and red

b. he has a shaved head, looks mean, plays for keeps

c. him name is not Cripps, Green or Maynard/Moore

d. all of the above

Edited March 18Mar 18 by Queanbeyan Demon

3 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Knees someone - for the hundredth time.  I do actually like Toby, but he's more than just a serial offender on this.  Should be an automatic suspension every time he does it.

Don't get me started..... ok you got me started.  Why a knee into the back/ribs/stomach of another player including going for a mark (who often doesn't know its coming) is acceptable when it clearly has the potential for serious damage leaves me bewildered. That action should become a free kick in the way the head is protected. 

1 hour ago, Willmoy1947 said:

And of course, at that point it looked very much like we had that game nearly wrapped up.

Too right!

10 minutes ago, Robbie57 said:

Don't get me started..... ok you got me started.  Why a knee into the back/ribs/stomach of another player including going for a mark (who often doesn't know its coming) is acceptable when it clearly has the potential for serious damage leaves meosrry bewildered. That action should become a free kick in the way the head is protected. 

Sorry, Robbie57, only some heads are protected, some rib cages, some legs ... the conundrum continues ... just ask Max!

39 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

Multiple choice time:

a. he was wearing navy blue and red

b. he has a shaved head, looks mean, plays for keeps

c. him name is not Cripps, Green or Maynard/Moore

d. all of the above

I like a good, accurate summary, and this one, QD, seems to hit the spot from so many directions. Thank you.

16 hours ago, DubDee said:

Suspension for that?!? cmon let’s get real  

we must challenge 

https://www.instagram.com/afl/reel/DHSuHLaSvi4/

Looks like Callum Brown's head is leant forward the whole time. Surely a player trying to protect his own head tries to lift it up or move it to the side

If we take it to tribunal we have to prove that there was no potential to cause injury.

You would've thought the impact would have been considered low impact given Brown didn't appear to be hurt too much by the incident and played out the game more than fine. However it was graded medium because of the potential to cause injury. We would have to argue that view that there was no potential to cause injury I'd imagine.

We'll probably accept. Our record in getting our players off at the tribunal isn't great.

 

I called it a one week suspension the moment it happened.  That's the way it is with the current AFL rules.  Cut and dried for mine.

The victim mentality / persecution complex / why-is-everybody-picking-on-us attitude has raised its sooky head early this year for some posters though.

58 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

I called it a one week suspension the moment it happened.  That's the way it is with the current AFL rules.  Cut and dried for mine.

The victim mentality / persecution complex / why-is-everybody-picking-on-us attitude has raised its sooky head early this year for some posters though.

I think the main reason the attitude has raised its head early this year, is because we are often the victim, also often persecuted and with everyone picking on us.

3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles)
The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which
is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the
application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether
the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be
had to the following factors, whether:

» The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether
the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;

» The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle
or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;

» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned)
with little opportunity to protect himself;

» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force
(for example, a run down tackle where the tackled player is driven into the
ground with excessive force).

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

The way this is written, AJ is automatically in trouble with the 'arm(s) pinned'.  He had his left arm pinned the whole tackle and also had a hold of his right wrist for maybe 1/3rd of the tackle until Brown got it loose. It was pretty quick too in real time so not a lot of time for Brown to brace properly.

And you could pretty easily argue Brown was 'driven' into the ground when you take into consideration that AJ tackled him either just before or right as Brown was hitting the ground after jumping, which means he's already off balance and will easily go in the direction of the momentum of the tackle, which was down into the ground. If he had tackled him a second later, he might not have gone head first so easily.    

But dunno, I ask the question: If say, Lauchie Neale or Errol Gulden had done this exact tackle in the Prelims last year... ya reckon either wouldn't have played in the Granny?

 

Gees if that is a suspension you might as well ban tackling. Maybe the GWS player milked it a bit but its only a free at best.

15 minutes ago, BoBo said:

But dunno, I ask the question: If say, Lauchie Neale or Errol Gulden had done this exact tackle in the Prelims last year... ya reckon either wouldn't have played in the Granny?

That's a very good question and I think I know how most of us would answer.

Here's another good question.  If the roles were reversed and it was Toby Greene tackling Xavier Lindsay, would people still think a suspension was not warranted?