Round 9 vs Bombers @ SCG - match thread

[111431]

This could happen in the 1st of July match.

AFL Line in The Sand Incident 11/6/2004 . Essendon v Hawthorn Anazing Scenes . - YouTube

The result could possibly be that someone from the Swans will get hurt or several Swans will get suspended in a fracas.

If the Don’s have nothing to play for by the 1st of July this could happen. Loyd, Cornes, Brown, BT - they will all be talking up the Essendon response before the 1st of July game. Heppell has been condemned by Cornes for giving a mature answer to the Parker question.

You manage Parker and the sting goes out.

Are you serious? Every player who runs out on the ground is in some form of physical danger. The players are competitors and want to beat their opponent each week. The best form of beating them is on the scoreboard. There is no way our strongest competitor, and his coach, would allow him to be managed for that game.

[stevoswan]

Not sure where you’re going there, Nico. If you put in a shepherd and it’s high, you are right it is a free kick. But if the contact is significant and to the head then it’s suspension as well.

If there are no mitigating circumstances.....like the push RB received to make his 'contact' more awkward and severe.

[stevoswan]

I confess I didn't go and look at vision when I made my earlier post. I have no doubt that the majority of the bumps that Pickett was lauded for over his career would fall foul of today's MRO and tribunal.

So I just went to seek out vision of the Kirk bump and found it quite close to the start of this compilation.

Byron Pickett unleashes brutal bumps and massive torps | Cult-Figure Fridays | 2020 | AFL - YouTube

It's actually hard to see the extent of head high contact from the full speed vision, and there is no slo-mo on this compilation. Certainly the brunt of the force was to Kirk's body but his head immediately goes back. I can't tell whether there was direct contact or if it was just a whiplash-type reaction.

Either way, it doesn't really detract from my point that the duty of care in certain football actions has changed over time.

I viewed this footage at one quarter speed (you can change speed in the settings) and there appears to be head to head contact.....would definitely be a suspension today. It would probably only be a week as Kirky has a hard nut and played out the game but a lot of players would have stayed down after a hit like this.....and he may have got more.

- - - Updated - - -

I've just seen some clearer footage of the Lynch incident and I've changed my mind. He looked to be fully aware of where his tackler was, and attempted to fend off with his elbow. I don't see that can be considered a reasonable action.

+1

- - - Updated - - -

Great link liz! Byron really was a master of the bump based on that montage (and assisted by his shorter stature and low centre of gravity). I think he clearly got Kirk's body in that instance - Kirk's head goes forward on impact and then recoils like whiplash as his body is thrown the other way. Totally legitimate. Might explain why Kirk was able to play out the game although no doubt he would have been very sore. There's a reason he was dubbed the toughest man alive!

Play it at one quarter speed and you may change your mind on that one.

[TheBloods]

If there are no mitigating circumstances.....like the push RB received to make his 'contact' more awkward and severe.

- - - Updated - - -



Since this claim, I have found no evidence that this is the case.....anywhere.

??? Anyone.

Never mind then , i spose i made it up to troll all of you

[stevoswan]

I think it’s essential that the Swans withdraw Parker (managed) from the 1st of July game v Essendon.

If the Dons are still losing, their sole focus for that game will be trying to run through Parker.

All the old Essendon legends will be firing up the Dons player group to take a stand against Parker in the week of the game.

The 1st of July game has the makings of the famous 2004 Dons V Hawks “line in the sand” game.

I just hope the Swans don’t put Parker in that situation.

WTF?!

Parker will insist on playing in that game.....if only to grate Caroline Wilson and prove that it didn't 'come back to bite him'.

- - - Updated - - -

This could happen in the 1st of July match.

AFL Line in The Sand Incident 11/6/2004 . Essendon v Hawthorn Anazing Scenes . - YouTube

The result could possibly be that someone from the Swans will get hurt or several Swans will get suspended in a fracas.

If the Don’s have nothing to play for by the 1st of July this could happen. Loyd, Cornes, Brown, BT - they will all be talking up the Essendon response before the 1st of July game. Heppell has been condemned by Cornes for giving a mature answer to the Parker question.

You manage Parker and the sting goes out.

To do so would say 'we are scared'.....and we're not.

- - - Updated - - -

A shepherd can only be carried out if your teammate has the ball. You are protecting the person with the ball. If you do the same thing when the ball is in dispute then it is a block. You can legally take a player out by bumping him off balance to ensure a, teammate gets the ball but you cannot put y?u ám out in a shepherding motion in a n?king contest ? contested ball. Ythis í impeding a player's run ?y the contest án illegally blocking.

Th? ?e so many íntances ò blocking in the m?king contest that are lauded by ex players. But technically every one is illegal of a players mover to deliberately impede an opponent's run at the contest. If you stand still in the way of, am opponent that is quite legal. But move to intercept a players run in a marking contest is illegal blocking

So it comes down to being in possession.....makes sense. Thanks for that wolfie.

[stevoswan]

From the Laws Of Australian Football on the AFL resources site comes this definition
Shepherd: the act of a Player using the body to push, bump or block an opposition Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than five metres away from the football.

Seems like James fulfilled that criteria quite clearly it’s just the point of contact in dispute.
It doesn’t appear to matter where you are in relation to the ball as long as you are within five metres so mentions of running past the ball are irrelevant.

Well this says nothing about a team having to be in possession of the ball to be able to shepherd legally. So the block and the shepherd comes down to the ball having to be within 5 metres for it to be a legal shepherd.....which is the way I've always seen it.

Yet another potential grey area in the AFL rules.

[iigrover]

[QUOTE=wolftone57;845025]A shepherd can only be carried out if your teammate has the ball.

This is not exactly correct. @stevoswan understanding is right.

The Laws of the Game define a Shepherd as "the act of a Player using the body to push, bump or block an opposition Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than five metres away from the football."

See here: https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/doc...me-Booklet.pdf

There is no requirement for a player on your team to have possession of the football

A free kick is awarded only for an illegal Shepherd. i.e. one that doesnt meet the definition above.

However, separately and distinctly there are Free kicks for blocking in either a marking or ruck contest, or for using unreasonable force ('charging'). But in general play, if the ball is within 5 meters - shepherding is fair game.

In fact in most games, there are multiple occasions where a player will shepherd a ball to allow a teammate to pick it up, or to shepherd the ball while it travels over the goal line.

[Ludwig]

This could happen in the 1st of July match.

AFL Line in The Sand Incident 11/6/2004 . Essendon v Hawthorn Anazing Scenes . - YouTube

The result could possibly be that someone from the Swans will get hurt or several Swans will get suspended in a fracas.

If the Don’s have nothing to play for by the 1st of July this could happen. Loyd, Cornes, Brown, BT - they will all be talking up the Essendon response before the 1st of July game. Heppell has been condemned by Cornes for giving a mature answer to the Parker question.

You manage Parker and the sting goes out.

We could be in for a horrid night of revenge taunting. Oh my!

[Nico]

This could happen in the 1st of July match.

AFL Line in The Sand Incident 11/6/2004 . Essendon v Hawthorn Anazing Scenes . - YouTube

The result could possibly be that someone from the Swans will get hurt or several Swans will get suspended in a fracas.

If the Don’s have nothing to play for by the 1st of July this could happen. Loyd, Cornes, Brown, BT - they will all be talking up the Essendon response before the 1st of July game. Heppell has been condemned by Cornes for giving a mature answer to the Parker question.

You manage Parker and the sting goes out.

I can't believe I am replying to this pantomime, but does it occur to you that we might want to win the game.

[Nico]

A shepherd can only be carried out if your teammate has the ball. You are protecting the person with the ball. If you do the same thing when the ball is in dispute then it is a block. You can legally take a player out by bumping him off balance to ensure a, teammate gets the ball but you cannot put y?u ám out in a shepherding motion in a n?king contest ? contested ball. Ythis í impeding a player's run ?y the contest án illegally blocking.

Th? ?e so many íntances ò blocking in the m?king contest that are lauded by ex players. But technically every one is illegal of a players mover to deliberately impede an opponent's run at the contest. If you stand still in the way of, am opponent that is quite legal. But move to intercept a players run in a marking contest is illegal blocking

Sent from my JAT-L29 using Tapatalk

Wikipedia: Shepherding is the act of legally pushing, bumping or blocking an opposing player from gaining possession of the ball or reaching the contest within 5 metres of the ball, and cannot make contact below the knees or above the shoulder. Regardless of whether the player has possession.

I have read the Rules of The Game and can't see where there is a definition of the shepherd. There is reference to a free kick being given for an illegal shepherd.

[stevoswan]

Never mind then , i spose i made it up to troll all of you

Wasn't having a go, just thought it strange that there was nothing in the media about it because I'd been searching. Probably just a case of Swans news being given less priority.

I actually removed that bit after I read your follow up post re: Swans challenge. All good.

[Faunac8]

Wikipedia: Shepherding is the act of legally pushing, bumping or blocking an opposing player from gaining possession of the ball or reaching the contest within 5 metres of the ball, and cannot make contact below the knees or above the shoulder. Regardless of whether the player has possession.

I have read the Rules of The Game and can't see where there is a definition of the shepherd. There is reference to a free kick being given for an illegal shepherd.

Not sure where you are looking but check out the section titled
PART B DEFINITIONS,INTERPRETATION and VARIATION
It’s on page 12 In the link iigrover posted above.
That’s the same source I referenced earlier and it’s the official AFL site so pretty hard to argue with.

[i'm-uninformed2]

This could happen in the 1st of July match.

AFL Line in The Sand Incident 11/6/2004 . Essendon v Hawthorn Anazing Scenes . - YouTube

The result could possibly be that someone from the Swans will get hurt or several Swans will get suspended in a fracas.

If the Don’s have nothing to play for by the 1st of July this could happen. Loyd, Cornes, Brown, BT - they will all be talking up the Essendon response before the 1st of July game. Heppell has been condemned by Cornes for giving a mature answer to the Parker question.

You manage Parker and the sting goes out.

Would it add to your paranoia if I told you that Mark Johnson was in a Nick Holland chokehold in that fracas, struggling to breathe and making gurgling sounds, and apparently a Hawks player said “put him to @@@@ing sleep”?

But seriously, you think Luke Parker would give two hoots about those fairy puffs from Essendon coming after him? Or we should even blink at the prospect of it?

[i'm-uninformed2]

We are going the full roost tonight .

We are gonna try get it down to a fine or thrown out completely .
We are saying RB came in at speed to tackle Merrett ,not bump.
Merrett fumbles so RB didnt deliberately run past the ball
Split second on a slippery SCG wicket
Pushed by Mills
Knows he cant tackle or will give away a free
Braces for inevitable contact so not a bump , but a fend
Was doing what he could not to infringe and to minimise inevitable contact
Not a high bump , more through upper body and chest (dont know about this didnt Merrett grab his nose ?
Not conclusive in footage that it gets him in the head
Medical report totally clear
No free kick paid on the night
Merrett played on with no issues
No concussion test needed
Questioning the word "usually" when grading high bumps as medium , so must be cases where high bumps arent upgraded to medium

Its a very thorough argument and we will come in fully armed to fight it . You know what i think of him so its no skin off my nose , this is just what we are doing . Important we stand by our players .

Thanks for sharing.

A few elements of the case look dubious, but appreciate the insights and as you say, good on the club for sticking by one of the boys.

[Faunac8]

Appeal rejected

https://mobile.twitter.com/foxfooty/status/1526501689196367872/photo/1

Tribunal chairman's reasoning for decision:

A player can bump with a front-on action such as occurred here. While we accept the player who does no more than brace for contact does not engage in the bumping of an opponent, that is not what occurred here.

We're satisfied there was high contact here.

We're not satisfied that any contact from player Mills was such as to constitute circumstances outside Rowbottom's control.

The force of impact was considerable and had the potential to cause injury. While we acknowledge Rowbottom's crossed or braced arms may have reduced the impact to some extent, this was not sufficient to reduce it to low impact.