Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Thu Jun 26, 2025 7:06 pm

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:59 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 21075
Location: Missing Kouta
verbs wrote:
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
I thought at the time it looked pretty bad. On a different angle I decided it wasn't as bad as I'd first thought, but it still looked like Browne's force was intentional. Added to that it wasn't part of the play and was a long way off the ball, so I knew it would be considered quite poorly by the match review panel. Head high contact in the play is hit hard as it is. Head high contact way off the ball is always going to cop a lot worse.

I was expecting 2 weeks, reduced to 1, mainly because he is a first year player.

Buggered if I can tell why the Crows wanted to beat up Walker over the incident though.


It was probably about 2-3 metres off the ball, so that constitutes within play.

The goal was clearly playing with a bad shoulder, so any injury sustained should fall on the Crows head and not Browne.


It was much further off the ball than that and wasn't even close to being part of play.

Head high contact has been continually penalised this season and this is no surprise, especially given it was behind the play.

Did you even watch the game?

This is your worst effort yet when Browne wasn't responsible for Porplyzia's injury and the contact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:02 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
BlueIce wrote:
verbs wrote:
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
I thought at the time it looked pretty bad. On a different angle I decided it wasn't as bad as I'd first thought, but it still looked like Browne's force was intentional. Added to that it wasn't part of the play and was a long way off the ball, so I knew it would be considered quite poorly by the match review panel. Head high contact in the play is hit hard as it is. Head high contact way off the ball is always going to cop a lot worse.

I was expecting 2 weeks, reduced to 1, mainly because he is a first year player.

Buggered if I can tell why the Crows wanted to beat up Walker over the incident though.




It was probably about 2-3 metres off the ball, so that constitutes within play.

The goal was clearly playing with a bad shoulder, so any injury sustained should fall on the Crows head and not Browne.


It was much further off the ball than that and wasn't even close to being part of play.

Head high contact has been continually penalised this season and this is no surprise, especially given it was behind the play.

Did you even watch the game?

This is your worst effort yet when Browne wasn't responsible for Porplyzia's injury and the contact.


Just looking at it right now. In extra slow motion too.

You do the crime you pay the time.

It is quite clear that Browne meets the Adelaide with plenty of force a long way off the ball.


Last edited by verbs on Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:03 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:49 pm
Posts: 27793
Location: Southbank.
This is a classic knee jerk reaction to appease the South Australians who are screaming for blood.......and they won the game!............. :roll:

_________________
No ones listening till you make a mistake.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:11 pm 
Offline
Herald Sun columnist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:26 pm
Posts: 10018
Location: Visy Park
verbs wrote:
BlueIce wrote:
verbs wrote:
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
I thought at the time it looked pretty bad. On a different angle I decided it wasn't as bad as I'd first thought, but it still looked like Browne's force was intentional. Added to that it wasn't part of the play and was a long way off the ball, so I knew it would be considered quite poorly by the match review panel. Head high contact in the play is hit hard as it is. Head high contact way off the ball is always going to cop a lot worse.

I was expecting 2 weeks, reduced to 1, mainly because he is a first year player.

Buggered if I can tell why the Crows wanted to beat up Walker over the incident though.




It was probably about 2-3 metres off the ball, so that constitutes within play.

The guy was clearly playing with a bad shoulder, so any injury sustained should fall on the Crows head and not Browne.


It was much further off the ball than that and wasn't even close to being part of play.

Head high contact has been continually penalised this season and this is no surprise, especially given it was behind the play.

Did you even watch the game?

This is your worst effort yet when Browne wasn't responsible for Porplyzia's injury and the contact.


Just looking at it right now. In extra slow motion too.

You do the crime you pay the time.

It is quite clear that Browne meets the Adelaide with plenty of force a long way off the ball.


Porps was running off to get into position after the Crow player had taken the mark in front of Jamo. That was a few metres away from the incident. Go watch the footage because the player going back for the mark and the incident are all in the same frame.

_________________
“It is a state of mind, a system of belief, a way of seeing the world, a deep faith that, because you are Carlton, you belong to something great.” - Mike Fitzpatrick articulating what Out of the Blue means.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:13 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:13 pm
Posts: 21075
Location: Missing Kouta
*snip*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:16 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
BlueIce wrote:
verbs wrote:
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
I thought at the time it looked pretty bad. On a different angle I decided it wasn't as bad as I'd first thought, but it still looked like Browne's force was intentional. Added to that it wasn't part of the play and was a long way off the ball, so I knew it would be considered quite poorly by the match review panel. Head high contact in the play is hit hard as it is. Head high contact way off the ball is always going to cop a lot worse.

I was expecting 2 weeks, reduced to 1, mainly because he is a first year player.

Buggered if I can tell why the Crows wanted to beat up Walker over the incident though.




It was probably about 2-3 metres off the ball, so that constitutes within play.

The guy was clearly playing with a bad shoulder, so any injury sustained should fall on the Crows head and not Browne.


It was much further off the ball than that and wasn't even close to being part of play.

Head high contact has been continually penalised this season and this is no surprise, especially given it was behind the play.

Did you even watch the game?

This is your worst effort yet when Browne wasn't responsible for Porplyzia's injury and the contact.


Just looking at it right now. In extra slow motion too.

You do the crime you pay the time.

It is quite clear that Browne meets the Adelaide with plenty of force a long way off the ball.


Porps was running off to get into position after the Crow player had taken the mark in front of Jamo. That was a few metres away from the incident. Go watch the footage because the player going back for the mark and the incident are all in the same frame.


It is all in the same frame but the ball is trapped under the Adelaide player with Jamison over the top of him. The ball has stopped moving.

The incident happened about three body lengths behind the ball, which is about ten metres.

It's nothing to do with the play. It all happended behind play.

Head high contact, even if it is ACCIDENTAL, that occurs IN PLAY will cop a suspension. Head high conatct, even if it is ACCIDENTAL, that occurs BEHIND PLAY will cop a suspension too, and no doubt a higher penalty because it hasn't occured in the contest for the ball.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:18 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29 am
Posts: 13689
verbs wrote:
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
BlueIce wrote:
verbs wrote:
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
I thought at the time it looked pretty bad. On a different angle I decided it wasn't as bad as I'd first thought, but it still looked like Browne's force was intentional. Added to that it wasn't part of the play and was a long way off the ball, so I knew it would be considered quite poorly by the match review panel. Head high contact in the play is hit hard as it is. Head high contact way off the ball is always going to cop a lot worse.

I was expecting 2 weeks, reduced to 1, mainly because he is a first year player.

Buggered if I can tell why the Crows wanted to beat up Walker over the incident though.




It was probably about 2-3 metres off the ball, so that constitutes within play.

The guy was clearly playing with a bad shoulder, so any injury sustained should fall on the Crows head and not Browne.


It was much further off the ball than that and wasn't even close to being part of play.

Head high contact has been continually penalised this season and this is no surprise, especially given it was behind the play.

Did you even watch the game?

This is your worst effort yet when Browne wasn't responsible for Porplyzia's injury and the contact.


Just looking at it right now. In extra slow motion too.

You do the crime you pay the time.

It is quite clear that Browne meets the Adelaide with plenty of force a long way off the ball.


Porps was running off to get into position after the Crow player had taken the mark in front of Jamo. That was a few metres away from the incident. Go watch the footage because the player going back for the mark and the incident are all in the same frame.


It is all in the same frame but the ball is trapped under the Adelaide player with Jamison over the top of him. The ball has stopped moving.

The incident happened about three body lengths behind the ball, which is about ten metres.

It's nothing to do with the play. It all happended behind play.

Head high contact, even if it is ACCIDENTAL, that occurs IN PLAY will cop a suspension. Head high conatct, even if it is ACCIDENTAL, that occurs BEHIND PLAY will cop a suspension too, and no doubt a higher penalty because it hasn't occured in the contest for the ball.


3 body lengths is 10 metres?

We have 3.3 metre footballers in our team and yet we still cannot win a ruck contest.

_________________
The measure of a life is a measure of love and respect
So hard to earn, so easily burned
In the fullness of time
A garden to nurture and protect

#DopeThenStash


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:22 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
It looks closer to 10m than three body lengths, but it was quite clearly behind the play given where the ball was and what it was doing at the time.

You can split hairs but it was behind play and looked nasty. If Browne hadn't swung his shoulder around like he did he'd be off scott free right now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:27 pm 
Offline
Herald Sun columnist
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 12:26 pm
Posts: 10018
Location: Visy Park
verbs wrote:
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
BlueIce wrote:
verbs wrote:
DownUnderChick wrote:
verbs wrote:
I thought at the time it looked pretty bad. On a different angle I decided it wasn't as bad as I'd first thought, but it still looked like Browne's force was intentional. Added to that it wasn't part of the play and was a long way off the ball, so I knew it would be considered quite poorly by the match review panel. Head high contact in the play is hit hard as it is. Head high contact way off the ball is always going to cop a lot worse.

I was expecting 2 weeks, reduced to 1, mainly because he is a first year player.

Buggered if I can tell why the Crows wanted to beat up Walker over the incident though.




It was probably about 2-3 metres off the ball, so that constitutes within play.

The guy was clearly playing with a bad shoulder, so any injury sustained should fall on the Crows head and not Browne.


It was much further off the ball than that and wasn't even close to being part of play.

Head high contact has been continually penalised this season and this is no surprise, especially given it was behind the play.

Did you even watch the game?

This is your worst effort yet when Browne wasn't responsible for Porplyzia's injury and the contact.


Just looking at it right now. In extra slow motion too.

You do the crime you pay the time.

It is quite clear that Browne meets the Adelaide with plenty of force a long way off the ball.


Porps was running off to get into position after the Crow player had taken the mark in front of Jamo. That was a few metres away from the incident. Go watch the footage because the player going back for the mark and the incident are all in the same frame.


It is all in the same frame but the ball is trapped under the Adelaide player with Jamison over the top of him. The ball has stopped moving.

The incident happened about three body lengths behind the ball, which is about ten metres.

It's nothing to do with the play. It all happended behind play.

Head high contact, even if it is ACCIDENTAL, that occurs IN PLAY will cop a suspension. Head high conatct, even if it is ACCIDENTAL, that occurs BEHIND PLAY will cop a suspension too, and no doubt a higher penalty because it hasn't occured in the contest for the ball.


I'm not sure if you are playing with words, verbs, but Porps was leading into space and the Crow player was looking at him to kick it then the incident happen.

Behind play is Hall whacking Staker and Wakelin. Behind the play isn't where you can actually see what the flower is going on.

Now the whole brain bruising thing is interesting.

For someone who was concussed, Porps ability to lift and hold his head up while being stretchered off was remarkable as I am shocked that he wasn't placed in a neck brace following the incident.

His bung shoulder was an accident waiting to happen as he could barely lift that arm up.

We could argue that his shoulder injury caused the severity of his brain bruising.

_________________
“It is a state of mind, a system of belief, a way of seeing the world, a deep faith that, because you are Carlton, you belong to something great.” - Mike Fitzpatrick articulating what Out of the Blue means.


Last edited by DownUnderChick on Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:29 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
OTC should clear it up for all of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:30 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 pm
Posts: 1566
Location: Melbourne
3 weeks...i am gobsmacked...i had a look when it happened.

It looked as though Browne lifted his shoulder a fraction which can be construed as him trying to protect himself or that he was attempting to cause damage.

But given the circumstances (Brown looked like he was trying to make position rather than going directly for Porps) and it was inconclusive, I would have thought Browne should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Pretty harsh...I certainly didn't think he would have been suspended for that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:38 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 pm
Posts: 1566
Location: Melbourne
OTC (all three) said Brown should get off and Blues will appeal. I agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:42 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
Close. They did say we should appeal and indicated the penalty would be reduced.

Would be surprised if he is cleared. I thought from the start it would be one week. If he hadn't turned his shoulder into him like he did I'd be more confident of him getting off, but given it was behind play they may only drop a match off it.

They would have to be convinced Browne could not possibly have avoided causing the damage he did.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:06 pm 
Offline
Horrie Clover

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:17 pm
Posts: 337
Location: Melbourne
Just for those trying to decide whether this was behind the play or in play I am fairly sure that this no longer has in influence on the outcome. After a Barry Hall(?) incident one or two years ago this category was removed from the points system. This is the official verdict from the MRP and there is no mention of behind the play or in play so this particular argument is irrelevant
Quote:
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), severe impact (four points) and high contact (two points).


Just found this...it is outlining one of the changes made for the 2007 season.
Quote:
2.1 Removal of ‘location’ category from the Table of OffencesWhether an incident is deemed to be ‘in play’ or ‘behind play’ has been the least relevant of the factors considered by the Match Review Panel and Tribunal as most ‘behind play’ incidents in recent years have been relatively minor.Most incidents (13 of 17 in 2006) which were assessed ‘behind play’ already received an additional loading because they were also assessed as ‘intentional’.The three relevant factors – conduct,impact and contact – adequately reflect the severity of offences and sanctioning the offender appropriately,regardless of whether the incident occurs ‘in play’ or ‘behind play.’

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:5ZRErpl742cJ:mm.afl.com.au/afl/docs/Tribunal-Booklet-07.pdf+afl+match+review+tribunal+behind+play+change&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8


Last edited by nikki on Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:07 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am
Posts: 2141
Sideshow Mark wrote:
This must be the worst decision handed down since Diesel getting 9. Truly outrageous.


Believe it or not - I thought the umpiring IN THE MATCH against Adelaide was even far worse than this tribunal decision.

If Browne gets suspended, someone out there should insist Moran gets suspended for four weeks too for being a girly man and pretending he got pushed in the back (which resulted in a goal by the way).


Someone should also suspend the umpires for four weeks - cause they were shite.


Accidental and unavoidable collisions are now reportable - the precedent has been set.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:08 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 2277
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Footage anyone?

_________________
Lawrence Lawrence, The man who knows all the rackets and all the racketeers!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:08 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:04 pm
Posts: 48548
Location: Prison Island
anyone with half a brain can see that it was accidental with zero intent and browne flinched / lifted his shoulder / flexed his muscles etc whatever you want to call it to protect himself in an unfortunate collision that couldnt be avoided as two players ran to position for the next part of the play

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah) :fight:

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:08 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am
Posts: 23123
Accidental, if Browne gets off verbs should get a three week suspension for being devil's advocate. :P

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:13 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:34 am
Posts: 8888
Location: 8888
Maybe he should just say that he was drunk and wasn't thinking clearly enough to make the right decision, and that T-Bird arrived later to tap him on the back and see if he was ok?

Oh I forgot about the witness, damn there goes that defense.

_________________
Mjonc signing off at 8888


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:17 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:56 pm
Posts: 2277
Location: Melbourne, VIC
mjonc wrote:
Maybe he should just say that he was drunk and wasn't thinking clearly enough to make the right decision, and that T-Bird arrived later to tap him on the back and see if he was ok?

Oh I forgot about the witness, damn there goes that defense.


:lol:

_________________
Lawrence Lawrence, The man who knows all the rackets and all the racketeers!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dadadadada and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group