Kerr's charge withdrawn!!!!!

[Barry Schneider]

Obviously it was legal.The umpire reviewed the incident and withdrew the report.
It wasn't a Milburn? on Silvagni clean up it was a good hit.
We should try it.

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by Barry Schneider
Obviously it was legal.The umpire reviewed the incident and withdrew the report.
It wasn't a Milburn? on Silvagni clean up it was a good hit.
We should try it.

Don't think I agree. I think the more correct intepretation is that a) they got the charge wrong (striking and not charging) and b) the video evidence wasn't conclusive enough to support the erroneous charge .. but on the charging front the rule is:

"Charge or Charging

A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.
Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4(a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player:
who is not within 5 metres of the football;
who, although within five metres of the football, is not in the immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact;
who is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick;
after that Player has disposed of the football;
who is Shepherding another Player on his or her Team; or
before the football is brought into play. "

I would have thought the contact was unreasonable and unnecessary, at least and therefore the case should have got up to the tribunal at least.

@@@@, this kind of charge isn't even allowed in ice hockey, and everthing goes in that sport. Might as well let them bring sticks onto the ground as well.

[Barry Schneider]

He had the ball therefore contact cannot be unnecessary and as for unreasonable how hard are you allowed to bump someone?What is the test?
Just reading the charging law it is obvious to me why he wasn't charged with charging.So to speak.He had the ball,it wasn't a mark, he hadn't disposed of the ball, the act did not fit the criteria outlined.
Anyway I've had enough of defending opposition players and umpires.

[jixygirl]

Originally posted by Barry Schneider
Just reading the charging law it is obvious to me why he wasn't charged with charging.So to speak.He had the ball,it wasn't a mark, he hadn't disposed of the ball, the act did not fit the criteria outlined.

I can see why he got off because Kirk had the ball, but the contact was unreasonable and dangerous, especially because it was to the head and should not be allowed.

[dread and might]

It is not legal to hip and shoulder a man in the head!!!!!!!!

The Picket bump was IN THE CHEST!!!!! (a great part of our game I agree) [/B][/QUOTE]

yep. what he said, there is obviously a grey area regarding posession of the ball and intention but when you make contact to the head, surely you have to get rubbed out.

[liz]

When was the last time the tribunal sustained a charge of charging? I think the definition has become so difficult that umpires are very reluctant to bring such a charge. And reading the definition as quoted above, particularly in respect to where the ball is at the time, I can see that it would be easy to wriggle out of a "charge" charge in these cases.

The catch all that the umpires have been using instead is "engaging in unduly rough play". I don't know where to go to look for a definition of this but it may have been a more plausible charge against Kerr.

While Kirky was in possession and therefore should have reasonably expected contact, there is no way he should have expected it to his head - which I think we all agree is the issue here.