DenimUndies wrote:
The Rhino wrote:
Interesting concept of "soft".
I reckon trying to injure another player whilst giving him little recourse to defend himself is pretty pissweak/soft myself. What did you think of the Carrazzo/Lonergan tackle?
Surely your not suggesting that in the split second chase that you expected the Essendon* player to adjust his speed downwards and risk allowing carrots to dispose of the ball or to some how have the capacity to physically prevent the forward momentum from happening?
ohh paleeeeaaase ... that would be overly simplistic, unrealistic and based on a personal persecution complex.. TAKE NOTE all Carlton players that's the way to tackle...
Don’t be fooled DU every players course of action has intent.
What the intent is seems clearer in some instances than others. The force of the execution of each act defines the deliberation and its objective.
Whether it’s to negate, impede or hurt only the force defines its purpose for each act. From a late tackle to a stoppage block each has its own specific purpose and some are executed to a better degree than others.
Yes your right RB-as usual..., I'm sure the peptide didn't feel an ounce of remorse for carrots, but I don't think a change of intent would have resulted in a different outcome, the only way that outcome would have been different is if his attack on carrots was less purposeful, I certainly wouldn't be happy knowing any of our players held back on their intensity in a similar tackle because they felt they owed a nicety to an opposition player. In that instance you had both players loosing their feet, the weight of both coming down at the same time. Had it been reversed we d be praising carrots for his attack on the peptide. Unfortunately them's the breaks (literally).
Login
Register
FAQ
