James McDonalds Hit

[Primmy]

Weak statement from a weak player. Bailey has been criticised for dumping him. I think he got that one right.

Ouch!!!!

Glad to see Longmire giving the kid kudos and reminding the footy world that he is a first rate 19 year old who is a Swan. I am very proud of Luke, I am almost relieved that we have a coach who is not going to let a dismissive attitude by people who should know better than that slide

[Margie]

Now I'll have my say.

McDonald comes out in the paper and says; "the bump was not intended to hurt, but rather to stop the Swans easy takeaways from the centre contests". " I think Sydney was starting to get on top of us a little bit. We had to lift the intensity" He knew the severity of the bump would be taken into account.

Wait a minute here. This a bloke who was on the review panel last year who would have known before he took aim at Luke that he was going to hit him off the ball, and he was going to cop it regardless of the severity or if it was head high. It is a no no to do what he did. The AFL brought in the penalty to stop players getting snipped and mugged off the ball.

To me any player who does this and doesn't have the courage to win his own ball should have the penalty doubled. Didn't this bloke play for the same team as player Bell who got one too many concussions and now has long term memory loss and perhaps early onset dementia like some gridiron players in the USA. Just for what he is quoted on the paper today the Tribunal should have it in it's powers to review the charges and double the penalty.

A mongrel act by someone who chose not to win his own footy. If you look at the footage he had every opportunity to do that.

A 252 game veteran who I noticed on a more than a few occasions steer away from a contest he should have made. Maybe he played those 252 games because he was an avearge player in a poor side. Filthy, you bet I am. If one of our guys does this sort of stuff they should cop the full force of the rules also.

The silver lining out of this is we have found someone who has the eye, anticipation, leg speed and skill to dominate centre clearances, something we haven't had for a very long time. Lets hope Tom Mitchell comes to hand quickly because he has exactly the same talents. Luke was absolutely dominating the game up to the point he got ploeaxed. Yes he stayed on but was not as effective. He had been able to continue the way he was we would have won by a lot more of which I have no doubt.

Well said!

I also agree with Liz and was surprised at Gerard Healy's comments. Mike Sheehan tried to put him in his place and asked if it had been the other way around - i.e. a Swan was the offender - would he have admired the act as much.

It was deliberate and I believe McDonald got off lightly.

[liz]

Well said!

I also agree with Liz and was surprised at Gerard Healy's comments. Mike Sheehan tried to put him in his place and asked if it had been the other way around - i.e. a Swan was the offender - would he have admired the act as much.

It was deliberate and I believe McDonald got off lightly.

In Healy's "defence" (after slamming him earlier) I do wonder if the conversation was staged a little. OTC has been accused - not unfairly - of being a little safe and staid at times. I think it might have been a deliberate attempt to bring a bit of vigour into the discussion. Healy may well not hold the view he expressed, at least not as strongly as he expressed it.

I don't think McDonald's actions were deliberate but I was surprised he got away with a negligent assessment. As soon as he jumped off the ground, the chances of making high contact were significantly increased. I struggle to see what would get assessed as "reckless" if that doesn't.

[wolftone57]

In Healy's "defence" (after slamming him earlier) I do wonder if the conversation was staged a little. OTC has been accused - not unfairly - of being a little safe and staid at times. I think it might have been a deliberate attempt to bring a bit of vigour into the discussion. Healy may well not hold the view he expressed, at least not as strongly as he expressed it.

I don't think McDonald's actions were deliberate but I was surprised he got away with a negligent assessment. As soon as he jumped off the ground, the chances of making high contact were significantly increased. I struggle to see what would get assessed as "reckless" if that doesn't.

Liz he ran in the opposite direction to the ball. If you watch the replay of the incident he veers straight at Luke as the ball goes to his right. At that point the ball is closer to him than Luke. He lined him up, I've done the same I am sad to say many years ago for much the same result. It was a HIT, his only intention was to take Luke out. He basically admits that in his interview. Let's face it he has nothing to lose as he is only there as a player for a year and will act as hitman all year.

[liz]

There is no question the hip and shoulder was deliberate, but as the rules currently stand, this is legal so long as there is no contact above the shoulders. The assessment of negligent, reckless or deliberate action needs to be made against the high contact, not the hip and shoulder itself.

[Margie]

In Healy's "defence" (after slamming him earlier) I do wonder if the conversation was staged a little. OTC has been accused - not unfairly - of being a little safe and staid at times. I think it might have been a deliberate attempt to bring a bit of vigour into the discussion. Healy may well not hold the view he expressed, at least not as strongly as he expressed it.

Gerard did look a little "chastened " as the conversation wore on. And I don't disagree that there are doubtless discussions beforehand about what angle each person will take to make the show more interesting. Still a silly comment from someone who has a smattering of medical knowledge. Wouldn't mind betting he regretted being the one who came to McDonald's defence.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Just on your "hitman" comment Wolfy, do you suppose thats why Sheeds has gone for players like Brogan, Mcdonald, and to an extent Cornes and O'Hailpin ? So they can line a bloke up every now and then to give the Giants a reputation for not taking any crap from opposition and to make "statements" like the one against Parker ? Its not as though any of them will be too sorely missed if they have a 2-3 week break every now and then this year ( Possibly Cornes the exception, he showed he can still play) , and there all seasoned big bodies who would know how to put a hit on someone. Unlikely, but wouldnt put it past Sheeds...

[Cpt. Kirk]

You see parker eyes directly on the ball and then mcdonald runs through and puts his shoulder to parkers face not a good look.

[wolftone57]

Just on your "hitman" comment Wolfy, do you suppose thats why Sheeds has gone for players like Brogan, Mcdonald, and to an extent Cornes and O'Hailpin ? So they can line a bloke up every now and then to give the Giants a reputation for not taking any crap from opposition and to make "statements" like the one against Parker ? Its not as though any of them will be too sorely missed if they have a 2-3 week break every now and then this year ( Possibly Cornes the exception, he showed he can still play) , and there all seasoned big bodies who would know how to put a hit on someone. Unlikely, but wouldnt put it past Sheeds...

Players who have nothing to lose like retired players coming back for a season will play the Sheedy way to the max. Cornes is a good clean player, tough but clean and I don't expect to see anything from him. Brogan on the other hand is quite the mongrel on his day and gets white line fever, if Sheeds gives him a rev like his offsider used to at Port anything could happen. I don't see O'Hailpin as that sort either even though he is tough. He is more famous for knocking one of his own team-mates out at Carlton if I am not mistaken. Probably the reason he didn't play a lot for them in the last few years. I think there are two players who are quite expendable, Brogan and McDonald, both had retired and are just there as experience and muscle for the young blokes.

[liz]

Just on your "hitman" comment Wolfy, do you suppose thats why Sheeds has gone for players like Brogan, Mcdonald, and to an extent Cornes and O'Hailpin ? So they can line a bloke up every now and then to give the Giants a reputation for not taking any crap from opposition and to make "statements" like the one against Parker ? Its not as though any of them will be too sorely missed if they have a 2-3 week break every now and then this year ( Possibly Cornes the exception, he showed he can still play) , and there all seasoned big bodies who would know how to put a hit on someone. Unlikely, but wouldnt put it past Sheeds...

In my time following footy (since the mid 1990s) the two clubs who have consistently wanted to show off their mongrel have been Essendon and Hawthorn - and especially Essendon in the Sheedy period. Watching those two teams play against each other became tedious because you could almost guarantee they'd find something to have a melee over during the game, and if there wasn't anything, they'd just have a melee anyway. Essendon haven't been quite as bad since Sheedy left, but the Hawks still carry on with it. They've even found a name for it now - "unsociable football".

[Nico]

There is no question the hip and shoulder was deliberate, but as the rules currently stand, this is legal so long as there is no contact above the shoulders. The assessment of negligent, reckless or deliberate action needs to be made against the high contact, not the hip and shoulder itself.

That is not how I understand the rule. You cant hit someone off the ball regardless of where you hit them. If he didn't hit him high he would still have been charged with a lesser offence. As far as I can recall having your feet off the ground these days has nothing to do with it. That was an old rule that I believe has been changed some time ago.

[ShockOfHair]

And who could forget Sheedy's contribution to Australian-Ireland relations in the international series?

As said above, classy comments by Longmire.

[Big Al]

That is not how I understand the rule. You cant hit someone off the ball regardless of where you hit them. If he didn't hit him high he would still have been charged with a lesser offence. As far as I can recall having your feet off the ground these days has nothing to do with it. That was an old rule that I believe has been changed some time ago.

My understanding is that you're allowed to bump a player as long the balls within 5 metres.

This incident wasn't a free kick because the Umpire didn't see the high contact.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

And who could forget Sheedy's contribution to Australian-Ireland relations in the international series?

As said above, classy comments by Longmire.

Longmire said it perfectly.

In almost every other situation where a young player is flattened but gets up to keep toughing it out you'll hear the commentators applaud their courage and say it's great to see. Not last Saturday night, though. It was all pats on the back for a cheap shot to the jaw and barely a mention of Parker's hardness and ability to continue playing.

It's a @@@@ing joke, but not a surprise.

[R-1]

It's because we were entirely cast in the supporting character role in the story of the weekend. So nothing we did was ever really going to get much discussion