Round 18 Swans v Dogs Match Thread

[Dow]

Still on a high from Thursday's win and have just watched the match highlights video and the video of the final 2 minutes for the umpteenth time.

I know I shouldn't complain because we won the free kick count comfortably but, sheesh, the Poodles still got away with a lot! Their first goal came after a Swans defender was CLEARLY interfered with in a marking contest and one of their goals in the third quarter came after the ball was CLEARLY scooped one handed from one Poodle to another. (I will admit that Buddy's first goal came from a free that was a shocker!)

Speaking of Buddy, he was enormous in the last 90 seconds!

GO BLOODS!

Think you have the rose coloured glasses on, supporters only see it one way (we all do it don’t we ???) but we won ????

[stevoswan]

You may be very well be right, but he didn’t have to do it and I’d say it should a week more than 2

So you reckon he should get three? Are you actually a Swans supporter?

We have seen Parker get a week for a tackle that others would and have got off for, we have seen Swans players (Hickey and Blakey) get their heads slammed into the ground and "no, nothing to see here" and now Ramps gets 2 weeks for a bump off the ball that others might get one week or a fine for. The MRP is a bunch of anti Swan wankers....don't stoop to their level.

[Dow]

So you reckon he should get three? Are you actually a Swans supporter?

We have seen Parker get a week for a tackle that others would and have got off for, we have seen Swans players (Hickey and Blakey) get their heads slammed into the ground and "no, nothing to see here" and now Ramps gets 2 weeks for a bump off the ball that others might get one week or a fine for. The MRP is a bunch of anti Swan wankers....don't stoop to their level.

No I believe he should probably get one and yes I am swans supporter, I think you are seeing what you want to see

[Meg]

Round 18 Swans v Dogs Match Thread

So you reckon he should get three? Are you actually a Swans supporter?

......Ramps gets 2 weeks for a bump off the ball that others might get one week or a fine for......

Careless, high impact, high contact = 2 weeks in the Tribunal Classification table.

Rampe’s bump was off the ball, so we cannot argue “The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way.”

Unless Swans can demonstrate that the bump was not high and/or it was not the cause of the delayed concussion, I don’t think we have much chance of getting penalty down from 2 weeks.

This is very unfortunate and disappointing - but it’s not bias against the Swans.

[caj23]

According to some (not me), he should’ve been sent off

[Markwebbos]

Careless, high impact, high contact = 2 weeks in the Tribunal Classification table.

Rampe’s bump was off the ball, so we cannot argue “The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way.”

Unless Swans can demonstrate that the bump was not high and/or it was not the cause of the delayed concussion, I don’t think we have much chance of getting penalty down from 2 weeks.

This is very unfortunate and disappointing - but it’s not bias against the Swans.

Surely the AFL have to demonstrate that it was the cause rather than vice versa?

[liz]

Surely the AFL have to demonstrate that it was the cause rather than vice versa?

How do you propose the AFL would go about proving that?

I imagine there is a protocol whereby all clubs have to report concussions to the AFL, including (or maybe especially) those that develop later. The AFL would then ask the club if they know how the concussion arose. Presumably the Dogs reported that there was a head clash in the first quarter with Rampe and that they believe that was the cause.

I imagine that’s sufficient for the AFL.

If the Swans wanted to argue otherwise they’d have to identify other head contact that McNeill suffered during the game.

[lwjoyner]

maybe we should promote arnold to take Rampes postion. I agree rampes was stiff but he is a swan. 1 less than nankervis with loyds consussion obvious

[KSAS]

Careless, high impact, high contact = 2 weeks in the Tribunal Classification table.

Rampe’s bump was off the ball, so we cannot argue “The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way.”

Unless Swans can demonstrate that the bump was not high and/or it was not the cause of the delayed concussion, I don’t think we have much chance of getting penalty down from 2 weeks.

This is very unfortunate and disappointing - but it’s not bias against the Swans.

This could be a test case for the Tribunal if we decide to challenge, as I'm not aware of any previous suspensions based on delayed concussion?

We may well argue how the AFL can be definitive the delayed concussion was a direct result soley of Rampe's bump, showing other physical contests involving McNeil before & after this incident which may have also contributed to his delayed concussion.

This is different to player coming off for concussion directly after a tackle/bump.

Either Rampe gets off because of reasonable doubt or the 2 weeks remain. Can't see grounds for reducing penalty by 1 week.

If roles were reversed, we'd be upset losing Rampe for at least a week and be looking for a penalty on McNeil.

[liz]

This could be a test case for the Tribunal if we decide to challenge, as I'm not aware of any previous suspensions based on delayed concussion?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-10/nic-natanui-ruling-at-afl-tribunal-slammed/9745572

This is from a few years ago, and thus pre-dates the current tackle crackdown. Back then you probably were free to tackle (almost) how you wanted if there was no adverse effect on the player. But Amon was reported to have delayed concussion and Naitanui was suspended for a week.

[Blood Fever]

We'll have to cop it sweet

[Markwebbos]

How do you propose the AFL would go about proving that?

I imagine there is a protocol whereby all clubs have to report concussions to the AFL, including (or maybe especially) those that develop later. The AFL would then ask the club if they know how the concussion arose. Presumably the Dogs reported that there was a head clash in the first quarter with Rampe and that they believe that was the cause.

I imagine that’s sufficient for the AFL.

If the Swans wanted to argue otherwise they’d have to identify other head contact that McNeill suffered during the game.

Isn’t that the foundation of our justice system that Rampe is presumed innocent and it’s up to the AFL to prove him guilty?

[Roadrunner]

Isn’t that the foundation of our justice system that Rampe is presumed innocent and it’s up to the AFL to prove him guilty?

What world are you living in Mark?????

[Ludwig]

I thought the foundation of the legal system was that the rich get off and the poor go to prison.

[waswan]

It happened 1st qtr ? The Docs saw the guy at 3 qtr breaks, plus interchanges, surely theur conduct should be looked at too ?