The only way the AFL can fulfill its duty of care, without entirely removing the very rules that are the central to it's game, is by focussing on effect rather than process (that should fuel some of anti process arguments in here ), so where as in the past the good old fashioned (unprotected much loved bone crunching) shirt front was applauded regardless of its effect, today it's accepted depending on its effect. Where previously a tackle recipient ending up in hospital with a broken jaw was regarded a trophy like outcome, today if the head is touched your rubbed out. Selwood is right the shirt front is dead, and I guess rightly so. But I still applaud Eddy for his show of strength.

Similarly, I can't quite understand the cries of injustice for James Kelly either.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

The rules were changed as a result of Nick Maxwell on McGinnity which has resulted in what has now happened with Betts.

You may not like it, but thems the rules.

This is nothing like the Lindsay Thomas situation. A lot of people need to remove their Carlton glasses and realise what actually took place.

- The ball had been disposed of. It was not in a position to be contested (which in Thomas case was arguable).
- Betts jumped into his opponent (Thomas didn't).
- Betts shoulder connected with his opponent's head (Thomas hit his shoulder, then there was a head clash).

Regardless of whether you think Thomas should have served time, that and the Betts incident are not comparable. They differentiate on ALL key considerations.

Their cries of injustice stem from the fact that they don't have access to the real selection and rules committee, one that's stronger than even the AFL itself, what they don't have is access to their equivalent of TalkingCarlton.

I find it odd that the outcome has more weight than the intent when it comes to the MRP.
Sylvia tried to knock a bloke's head off his shoulders and got less penalty than a poorly executed bump.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

If you have a look at this weeks segment of "whats your decision" you'll see that the hit on Murphy was similar to Eddies hit but because of minimal effect (given he got straight back up) it wasn't deemed worthy of suspension by MRP. its the only way of preserving the concepts on which the game is based. If you played the game in Protective gear like helmets and padding then you could do away with whats taking place now

Do the crime, do the time. Eddie jumped and cleaned him up when he was wide open, after he'd disposed of the ball. That's not tough, that's a cheap shot. Sticking your head over the ball, backing into a pack under a high ball, running your guts out both ways, that's the kind of "flying the flag" I want to see.

_________________
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!!!

After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F .........
Visit http://fromthemoshpit.com/

oh palease lets not get overly moralistic.... it wasn't a cheap shot
Eddie jumped , so did Geary on Murphy, Eddie cleaned him up, Geary also cleaned up Murphy, the only difference is that eddie broke the guys Jaw and at the end of it all perhaps the time is worth doing the crime

Our on ballers have been "cheap shotted" with impunity for the past 5 years - it's about time we let the competition know we won't tolerate it anymore.

Live by the sword - Die by the sword.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

advocates of the current Blues should always remain good citizens ethos, that's fair enough, but to call eddies bump a cheap shot is a extreme.

..i'd be unhappy with 5 years, but its been a bloody decade now..!!..

..nothing wrong with eddie's hit, it was a tad late but from memory 'play-on', not even a free kick.. .the broken jaw equals weeks, that's it basically..

_________________
..if you can't be good, be good at it..

What was the effect of waites "nod" ?

He made purposeful contact with the head, although under the rule even incidental contact would be deemed to be an offence, its all about protecting the head, given players don't wear helmets the rule has to be interpreted in a way that the thing on top of shoulders is protected. problem is that the game is traditionally based on a style of play that rewards contact. whats freaking everyone out is that you cant make contact with the body above the shoulders nor below the knees. sides will look to change their tackling techniques not sure how, perhaps lowering body into a crouch at impact ? boh.. one solution might be to make helmets and mouth guard mandatory, depends on the medical studies regarding dynamics of head injuries i guess.

Glen Archer would have been made 50% ineffectual under the current rule interpretations

perhaps in future we might be seeing all 36 players on the field wearing something like this?

Had a quick chat with Eddie at the airport yesterday. Nice guy. His partner and baby are lovely too. He was off home to visit family....but disappointed that he had the opportunity to do so!

_________________
"I had to eat"

The injury has little to do with it considering Nathan Wright will only miss 1-2 weeks with what is a minor fracture. Ed's bump is just a big no-no as soon as the head was hit. End of story.