Malcolm/Scott on Riewoldt

[liz]

I've only just seen the incident (having fallen asleep last night) and really don't think there was much to get worked up about. He was back in position to play and the contact wasn't particularly hard - just the kind of jostling that happens off the ball in every game.

It wasn't particularly sporting but not suspendable IMO.

[Wardy]

I agree Charlie.

I used to have time for Brisbane, its starting to fade a bit after last nights performance.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by liz
really don't think there was much to get worked up about.

If there was football played today we would have heard jack **** about it.

[desredandwhite]

Fair game IMO.

I don't think it was terribly good sportsmanship, but the fact of the matter is that it was "legal", and the bumps weren't even that hard. If he was being attended to, or was heading straight to the boundary, then leave him alone. By the look of the footage (and I only saw replays FWIW), he was getting back into position. He (or someone else) made a call that he was going to stay on, and the Brisbane players were perfectly entitled to "test him out".

Not a lot of honour in targetting an opponent who might be in some discomfort, but IMO it was "legal".

If the AFL investigate the incident then you run into all sorts of problems trying to enforce it consistently from then on. If the 2 players get suspended, does that mean you are no longer supposed to touch or bump an opposition player off the ball if he "appears to be injured"? How the hell do you police that?

If Riewoldt hadn't been injured, the same bumps wouldn't even have warranted a second thought. If you're injured and you stay on the field, you have to accept the consequences.

[Tooth Fairy]

exactly!

It was Riewoldt's fault for staying on the field.

However. I think this calls for a rule of a "no go zone" when a player is in the hands of a trainer. Meaning that no pushing, shoving, bumping (physical contact) should be allowed to a player who has an official trainer attending them. Easy to police, and stops the ugliness of the incident, that the media (god love them), is beating up. Because really, that's all this is, a media beat up. He was fair game ffs!

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by Red
There's nothing wrong with aggression towards an opponent, or even 'testing' his injury for him. But there's an appropriate time and place for that sort of thing -- during play or just before a bounce/throw in.

Michael & Scott's thuggery last night just made them look like the brainless gorillas they are. Unlike some posts here state a trainer was next to Riewoldt at the time, and he was obviously in plenty of pain. The ball was miles away and play had stopped! I have no love for Riewoldt (or the Aints), but do I want to see a couple of overgrown kindergarten bullies running around blatently aggravating a potentially serious injury and get away with it? Nope. Certainly not at the game's 'highest' level.

Brisbane really need to be taught a lesson or two. Their cheif meat-axe, Brown, got off on a technicality last year because his charge of rough-play (mindless aggression) didn't happen during play! Thankfully the AFL plugged that particular bull@@@@ loophole but obviously Brisbane still treat the Gabba like it's their own 'get of of tribunal free' card.

**** them. Three weeks each for Michael & Scott -- and not just because we play them in two -- but because there needs to be a few lines of conduct drawn against that mob and penalities handed out when they cross them.

I'm pleased you weren't at the tribunal when Barry fronted last year for the Chris Grant/miles away from play 'incident'.

One of the things that bothered me was that Riewoldt didn't even attempt to have a go back, not even verbally. What's the difference between being out for 4 weeks injured, or being suspended if it means not being intimidated, or not instantly tattooing a bullseye on your forehead for future reference?

Chris Scott said he wouldn't have done it if it was Barry Hall, why is that?

Riewoldt's a great player but then again he'll need to be that and a little bit more for what he's going to cop from now on. I hope he can.

Brown might have got off on a technicality last year and he might be a bit of a goose in general, but he was a victim of exactly the same treatment Riewoldt got last night - having an obvious injury targetted. He also got cleaned up at the first bounce in a grand final but he didn't sit on the sideline and sob. He's also got 3 Premiership medallions in his cupboard, so they must have been doing something right in Brisbane.

Personally, i think they're great to watch because they're one of the few sides who have great skills AND real toughness.

Or maybe it's because i arrived here from the old days at Victoria Park, and think there's only one way to be intimidated and that's to let it happen.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Ruda Wakening

One of the things that bothered me was that Riewoldt didn't even attempt to have a go back, not even verbally. What's the difference between being out for 4 weeks injured, or being suspended if it means not being intimidated, or not instantly tattooing a bullseye on your forehead for future reference?

He was clearly in pain and was in no position to 'fight back'.

Chris Scott said he wouldn't have done it if it was Barry Hall, why is that?

Actually what Chris Scott said was that there wouldn't be all this furore if the player hurt was for example, Barry Hall. He didn't elaborate on what he meant.

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by ugg
He was clearly in pain and was in no position to 'fight back'.

What, his mouth stopped working?

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by ugg
Actually what Chris Scott said was that there wouldn't be all this furore if the player hurt was for example, Barry Hall. He didn't elaborate on what he meant.

Ok, maybe i did take that out of context. I thought he meant that he wouldn't have done it to Barry Hall for obvious reasons.

[Diego]

Originally posted by ugg
He was clearly in pain and was in no position to 'fight back'.


Actually what Chris Scott said was that there wouldn't be all this furore if the player hurt was for example, Barry Hall. He didn't elaborate on what he meant.

Stick to basketball ugg boot.

[Red]

Originally posted by Ruda Wakening
I'm pleased you weren't at the tribunal when Barry fronted last year for the Chris Grant/miles away from play 'incident'.

Was Grant with a trainer at the time, or limping or in some obvious discomfort? The issue here is not about targeting a player, it's about targeting an injury. It's a little pathetic in a way, like they just couldn't get on top of him within the game, so they wait 'till he's hurt then get stuck in.

One of the things that bothered me was that Riewoldt didn't even attempt to have a go back, not even verbally. What's the difference between being out for 4 weeks injured, or being suspended if it means not being intimidated, or not instantly tattooing a bullseye on your forehead for future reference?

I don't know if you ever suffered an injury like a broken collarbone during your "old days at Victoria Park", but there's something about intense pain that distracts you from verbal banter. Or is that just being a bit soft?

Chris Scott said he wouldn't have done it if it was Barry Hall, why is that?

No, he said that if it was Barry Hall that there wouldn't be any problem. I presume by that he means that Riewoldt was being a bit of a sook but someone like Baz would just shrug it off. I could be wrong about that, but it raises an interesting question: what if it was our Barry?

What if Baz went down in a clash, gets up and starts limping. The trainer comes and has a look, and as BBB limps away from him, Mal & Chris both come up and give him a dead-leg each (in whichever leg he's favouring of course). Later on it turns out that the injury was quite serious, will require an op. and a few weeks on the sidelines. Personally, Ruda, would you think that's great to watch?

[ROK Lobster]

If he was in so much pain, why did he stay on the field? If he has seen the trainer, and stayed on the field, he would have to appear to be OK. This is a storm in a tea cup. If a plyer runs back to his position it is game on. From the way some are carrying on you would think they tipped him off a stretcher...

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by Red

What if Baz went down in a clash, gets up and starts limping. The trainer comes and has a look, and as BBB limps away from him, Mal & Chris both come up and give him a dead-leg each (in whichever leg he's favouring of course). Later on it turns out that the injury was quite serious, will require an op. and a few weeks on the sidelines. Personally, Ruda, would you think that's great to watch?

Would Barry sit on the sideline and blubber? No. Would he have a go back? Yes.

Didn't you say that it was fine to target injuries so long as it was an an appropriate place? I'd have thought being on the field and going back to fill your position would be a fairly appropriate place. As Lee Mathews said "It's not tennis".

I haven't suffered an injury at the football apart from self inflicted ones, but my partner has many times. I can't recall ever seeing him sit and cry. Nor would he ever expect to be treated as anything other than an opposition player whilst on the field regardless of whether he was injured or not.

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by Red
there's something about intense pain that distracts you from verbal banter. Or is that just being a bit soft?

Women talk during child birth.

[Wardy]

Good point Ruda - although I believe that should be women scream abuse during child birth, unless you are a scientologist of course, you have to keep quite if you belong to that crowd.

Perhaps Reiwoldt had put so much pressure on himself that when this happened he just lost it - he's not the first, wont be the last.