Round 9 vs Bombers @ SCG - match thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • stevoswan
    Veterans List
    • Sep 2014
    • 8548

    Originally posted by i'm-uninformed2
    One week for Rowbottom. Careless, medium impact and high. As I suspected, fact he ran past the ball appears to have cost him. Hard to argue with.
    Seriously, I reckon they should fight it. They may not if they think he could have a rest anyway but I thought they might argue that Mills push made contact inevitable (and also pushed him further passed the ball) and he just braced for contact.

    Incidental, not careless and low impact.....Merrett played out the game. This is typical 'interstate' treatment by the MRP.

    Comment

    • Bangalore Swans
      Suspended by the MRP
      • Mar 2021
      • 1049

      Originally posted by longmile
      You always let me down with your @@@@ posting
      I don’t use emojis. What emoji should I use for this?

      Is there an emoji for an online hero who wouldn’t dare to say that to someone in person?

      Comment

      • Bangalore Swans
        Suspended by the MRP
        • Mar 2021
        • 1049

        Originally posted by 09183305
        You really need an emoji at the start of posts like this to confirm that you’re kidding. You are kidding. Right?
        Part of me is kidding. The other part of me knows that I should give people more time before forming a conclusion.

        They will probably bring Campbell back for Rowbottom. I would prefe J-Mac rested and Stephen back in.

        Comment

        • i'm-uninformed2
          Reefer Madness
          • Oct 2003
          • 4653

          Originally posted by stevoswan
          Seriously, I reckon they should fight it. They may not if they think he could have a rest anyway but I thought they might argue that Mills push made contact inevitable (and also pushed him further passed the ball) and he just braced for contact.

          Incidental, not careless and low impact.....Merrett played out the game. This is typical 'interstate' treatment by the MRP.
          Where I’d agree is the comparison with Lynch, who clearly raised his elbow and clocked a bloke in the head. That’s easily a week.
          'Delicious' is a fun word to say

          Comment

          • Jimitron5000
            Warming the Bench
            • Oct 2006
            • 455

            On McInerney, I was at the Hawthorn game a few weeks ago and he looked very ginger picking ground balls up. His knee was strapped but I thought (with absolutely no medical experience to base my opinion on) he had a lower back injury.
            He's a gun, but doesn't seem to playing with the same zest he was earlier in the year.

            Comment

            • Ludwig
              Veterans List
              • Apr 2007
              • 9359

              Originally posted by stevoswan
              Seriously, I reckon they should fight it. They may not if they think he could have a rest anyway but I thought they might argue that Mills push made contact inevitable (and also pushed him further passed the ball) and he just braced for contact.

              Incidental, not careless and low impact.....Merrett played out the game. This is typical 'interstate' treatment by the MRP.
              Rowbottom would know if he was pushed with enough force to cause the high impact. If he says it should be challenged, then we should do it. I would leave it to him to decide.

              Comment

              • i'm-uninformed2
                Reefer Madness
                • Oct 2003
                • 4653

                Got no problem challenging it if we think there's a precedent to lower the charge, but reckon the issue will still be he was at or almost past the ball at the point he got the nudge, and was not going for the ball at any point.
                'Delicious' is a fun word to say

                Comment

                • Nico
                  Veterans List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 11336

                  Originally posted by i'm-uninformed2
                  Got no problem challenging it if we think there's a precedent to lower the charge, but reckon the issue will still be he was at or almost past the ball at the point he got the nudge, and was not going for the ball at any point.
                  He put in a shepherd and got him high. Free kick. Move on. A shepherd is putting yourself between your opponent and your team mate. The shepherd is as old as the game. Is the shepherd dead?
                  http://www.nostalgiamusic.co.uk/secu...res/srh806.jpg

                  Comment

                  • i'm-uninformed2
                    Reefer Madness
                    • Oct 2003
                    • 4653

                    Originally posted by Nico
                    He put in a shepherd and got him high. Free kick. Move on. A shepherd is putting yourself between your opponent and your team mate. The shepherd is as old as the game. Is the shepherd dead?
                    No, but it's the got him high bit that's the problem.

                    Hell, I've been more than happy to defend Rowbottom on here. And to be clear, I'd love him to get off with a downgrade of the charge. I'm just realistic about how the AFL approaches head high contact (unless you're Tom Lynch it seems).
                    'Delicious' is a fun word to say

                    Comment

                    • TheBloods
                      Suspended by the MRP
                      • Feb 2020
                      • 2047

                      Who cares , onto this week . Blues will be tough

                      Comment

                      • Industrial Fan
                        Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes!
                        • Aug 2006
                        • 3317

                        I think the fumble was the issue more than the nudge Rowbottom got. He was going for the tackle, Merritt dropped the ball then ducked to retrieve it when Rowbottom arrived.

                        Not sure it changes the grading etc but it looked like he was just trying to tackle rather than bump or block to me
                        He ate more cheese, than time allowed

                        Comment

                        • stevoswan
                          Veterans List
                          • Sep 2014
                          • 8548

                          Originally posted by Nico
                          He put in a shepherd and got him high. Free kick. Move on. A shepherd is putting yourself between your opponent and your team mate. The shepherd is as old as the game. Is the shepherd dead?
                          This is something I've been wondering for years now....ever since 'blocking' free kicks started to be paid. I believe the rule is you can shepherd an opponent as long as the ball is within 5m.

                          I don't think the umpires are totally aware themselves....there seems to be confusion as to what constitutes a 'block' and what constitutes a 'shepherd'. 20 years ago, Rowbottom's bump/shepherd whatever it was, would have attracted little scrutiny.

                          - - - Updated - - -

                          Originally posted by TheBloods
                          Who cares , onto this week . Blues will be tough
                          Obviously not you. No one is surprised.

                          Comment

                          • liz
                            Veteran
                            Site Admin
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 16758

                            Originally posted by Industrial Fan
                            I think the fumble was the issue more than the nudge Rowbottom got. He was going for the tackle, Merritt dropped the ball then ducked to retrieve it when Rowbottom arrived.

                            Not sure it changes the grading etc but it looked like he was just trying to tackle rather than bump or block to me
                            Yes and no. I reckon he was running towards Merrett with the intention of tackling him, not anticipating that Merrett would fumble the ball. But the fumble happened long enough before Rowbottom arrived for him to change his action to a shepherding one, rather than a tackling one. Rowbottom was entirely within his rights to shepherd in that situation - ie the ball was close enough - but not to catch Merrett high. He needed to just lower his body a tad to ensure the contact was all to Merrett's chest.

                            I don't have a problem with Rowbottom sitting out a match for that. If he doesn't, the competition is saying that it is fine for players to be collected high in that way. That's not where the competition is right now (for good reason).

                            Comment

                            • stevoswan
                              Veterans List
                              • Sep 2014
                              • 8548

                              Originally posted by liz
                              Yes and no. I reckon he was running towards Merrett with the intention of tackling him, not anticipating that Merrett would fumble the ball. But the fumble happened long enough before Rowbottom arrived for him to change his action to a shepherding one, rather than a tackling one. Rowbottom was entirely within his rights to shepherd in that situation - ie the ball was close enough - but not to catch Merrett high. He needed to just lower his body a tad to ensure the contact was all to Merrett's chest.

                              I don't have a problem with Rowbottom sitting out a match for that. If he doesn't, the competition is saying that it is fine for players to be collected high in that way. That's not where the competition is right now (for good reason).
                              As opposed to a competition which seems to be saying that it is ok to elbow someone in the head, enough to draw blood, as long as it looks like an accident.....and you come from Richmond?

                              Comment

                              • Bangalore Swans
                                Suspended by the MRP
                                • Mar 2021
                                • 1049

                                Originally posted by stevoswan
                                This is something I've been wondering for years now....ever since 'blocking' free kicks started to be paid. I believe the rule is you can shepherd an opponent as long as the ball is within 5m.

                                I don't think the umpires are totally aware themselves....there seems to be confusion as to what constitutes a 'block' and what constitutes a 'shepherd'. 20 years ago, Rowbottom's bump/shepherd whatever it was, would have attracted little scrutiny.

                                - - - Updated - - -



                                Obviously not you. No one is surprised.
                                Leave TB alone. Many people feel Rowbottom could do with a rest. He’s not going to win the Brownlow so why does one week matter? He can come back in two weeks and give the team his tenacious defensive midfield skills after a good rest. Doing what Rowbottom does is tough week after week. Need to manage these players every now and then.

                                Comment

                                Working...