bondiblue wrote:
Denim wrote:
redback wrote:
BigKev wrote:
The Vet wrote:
I don't think so Vet. I made this point earlier and now someone who actually knows something about the game has said the same thing.
And former Adelaide strongman Mark Ricciuto concurred, even questioning Murphy's "bad technique" in physical clashes.
"He had his head hanging out (when) you need to get more side-on, exactly what Hodge did," Ricciuto said.My point is that the next time it happens I want Murphy to be the one
causing the damage.
Hodges intent was to injure pure and simple.
Former Adelaide strongman Mark Ricciuto concurred, even questioning Murphy's "bad technique" in physical clashes
and Hird can’t wait for the truth to come out.
FMD you guys freak me out some times.
Hodges intent was to injure pure and simple.
He knew the ascendency needed to be addressed and as a good leader took the initiative.
He didn’t even try and pick up the ball, quite evident in his body position.
A good player knows when what to do and when to do it, that’s why he is a captain and a leader of a top four side.
Hodge was in fact the first to make contact with the ball. On the basis of the ball being your primary objective, technically it was Murphy who made contact with Hodge, your argument implies that Murphy somehow had a right of way in the contest compelling Hodge to alter his effort to reach the ball first, or that Hodge was compelled to expose his own face to same level of risk as Murphy so as to remove any doubt regarding his intent. Perhaps the reality is that Hodge and Murphy had the same level of courage, but that Murphy either through bad luck or technique just wasn't as well prepared for the contact.
If you go into a contest and you choose to bump you have to accept the consequences if injury to the head is the result. The AFL is determined to eradicate head injuries.
Murphy was leading with his hands for the ball whereas Hodge was leading with the bump his hands were no on the ball. The ball bubbled out after the collision to Marc's head
These laws were not around when Riccuito played so his claim about Murphys technique is irrelevant with regards to the consequences at the tribunal but relevant to protecting yourself against a negligent act.
Hodge is and has always been an enforcer and knows what state of the game is in and who needs attention. His intent was solely to cause forceful body contact and not to take possession of the ball as his body weight is going past the line of the ball and tightly compacted for impact.
His shoulder has made contact with the head and if the rules of the game are to be adhered too then he will be suspended regardless of who in the media supports him. What Ricciuto or Matthews thinks about the consequences matters not. It wasn’t a head clash or an act of bravery. If you want to impact in a clash you use your shoulder.
Did he mean to break his cheek bone? Probably not.
Did he want to injury one of our main distributers and captain? Definitely.
What annoys me again is that everybody who has played the game knows this yet they feel the need to preserve a bygone era that the rules committee are trying to extinguish for the future participation of the game.
I love a courageous act and a tough game as much as the next guy but don’t we have a responsibility to the future of the game and also society to rid the game of these ludicrous crude acts in the name of personal indulgence?
Are we being tough by sniping players that are defenceless?
Do we need players careers cut short from devastating leg injuries?
Do legends of the game need to live their post career with brain damage and a loss of value of life?
Don’t forget the lower leagues are a carbon copy of their heroes with less scrutiny.
I feel strongly about this subject as an ex team mate has for close to two decades been confined to a wheelchair because of a courageous act of an opponent.
If you don’t see the final consequences it’s hard to fathom the importance of protecting above the shoulders.
Login
Register
FAQ
