You've got to be kidding me. He hit the bloke in the head after the ball had gone. The onus is on him. The duty of care is his. Day got concussed. It wasn't vicious, he could have killed the kid if he'd been inclined, but he made contact he could have avoided and his opponent got brain damage. Open and shut.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Agree jb. The data is showing players are getting brain damage even in mild collisions if people really want to get serious about brain injury.
Either we have football as a contact sport or we don't. Ryder has a right to protect himself too by bracing. Watch the video he was was standing still when Day changed direction & collided with him.
They're so terrified by concussion that what's deemed acceptable is constantly shifting & shifting rapidly. It's like death by 1000 cuts for contact sport.
Maybe it's close to dead already. Only a successful lawsuit or two away.
He wasn't standing still. He ran at him and hit him in the head and gave him concussion. Ryder could have protected himself by not running into Day. No hand-wringing about woe is our game required. "Don't hit blokes in the head" does not make the game less tough.Agree jb. The data is showing players are getting brain damage even in mild collisions if people really want to get serious about brain injury.
Either we have football as a contact sport or we don't. Ryder has a right to protect himself too by bracing. Watch the video he was was standing still when Day changed direction & collided with him.
They're so terrified by concussion that what's deemed acceptable is constantly shifting & shifting rapidly. It's like death by 1000 cuts for contact sport.
Maybe it's close to dead already. Only a successful lawsuit or two away.
It seemed to me that Day was unaware that Ryder was even there, as he slightly changed direction after his kick, straight into Ryder. Because Day had no awareness (imho) he didn’t brace for contact and this caused his head to whiplash back. Didn’t even look high to me, just in the chest. His unawareness caused the whiplash effect not a high hit.
Ryder ran towards Day without knowing what Day would do. Day may have tried to go around him. Day kicked and Ryder stopped running towards him almost immediately. He braced for contact. Unfortunately Ryder is a big man and Day wasn’t quite in control of his own movement at that point and they collided. If Day was a bit more seasoned he wouldn’t have bounced like he did. Surely big blokes don’t have to start being careful of their size?
Not sure Ryder could have done much different other than jump out of the way. That’s a different game altogether then.
I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you make it out.
Big blokes, like any blokes, always have to be careful not to shirtfront other blokes after they've kicked the ball. It's against the rules, always has been.
I guess the difference is whether you believe Ryder could have avoided the contact. I do. If he could, he's liable for the result of his illegal action.
Dangerfield gets to run elbow first into Vlastuin and no issue, Ryder actually had a more difficult task in avoiding Day but should have done more. I don't think shirt-fronting has always been against the rules (hey, I went to the footy in the 1970s, sure didn't look illegal back then) but it has been illegal for a long time now. I figure they have to do something about avoiding these sorts of incidents as concussion is a big problem so we end up with a suspension.
Just wish they would do it every time not just when it takes their fancy to rub a player out for a couple of rounds. This is where they end up confusing everyone as it is damned near impossible to work out what is incidental and what needs to be avoided.
DS
The part I have most difficulty with is that it was Day that changed his line quite significantly literally a step before contact. Ryder could not possibly have reacted to that in time or have predicted the movement. I have no doubt whatsoever Ryder wasn't trying to hit him in the head as he was in the act of pulling up prior to collision. The resulting whiplash was what created the concussion. It's largely an accident. An unfortunate accident but an accident.
Haven't looked at the incident that closely although saw it live on TV. If that is the case then the AFL need to sort out how they deal with such incidents.
DS
yet Hawkins can cave someones face in last season...nothing, that prick Darcy was pretty quick to put Nank in it. Fook the AFL, more corrupt than Angus Taylor
A highly unhelpful guide to Round Five
The only guide to the round that admits it’s completely unhelpful. What it lacks in insight, it makes up for with wild theories and detours onto unrelated
www.titusoreily.com
"
Paddy Ryder will miss two weeks for his bump on Will Day, despite the Saints appealing to the Tribunal, which they lost in true Saints fashion.
Some have argued the sanction is over the top and the bump was not that bad, others point to the resulting concussion and the head contact.
My problem is I have no idea if it was too harsh or the correct decision, due to the wildly inconsistent AFL approach to protecting the head.
The problem with the whole match review system is it uses a criteria that looks at each incident and grades it against the following:
Was it intentional, reckless, or negligent?
Was it severe, high, medium, or low impact?
Does the player play for Geelong?
"
Some great zingers in that article. A few digs at the handbaggers which is always enjoyable to read.A highly unhelpful guide to Round Five
The only guide to the round that admits it’s completely unhelpful. What it lacks in insight, it makes up for with wild theories and detours onto unrelatedwww.titusoreily.com
"
Paddy Ryder will miss two weeks for his bump on Will Day, despite the Saints appealing to the Tribunal, which they lost in true Saints fashion.
Some have argued the sanction is over the top and the bump was not that bad, others point to the resulting concussion and the head contact.
My problem is I have no idea if it was too harsh or the correct decision, due to the wildly inconsistent AFL approach to protecting the head.
The problem with the whole match review system is it uses a criteria that looks at each incident and grades it against the following:
Was it intentional, reckless, or negligent?
Was it severe, high, medium, or low impact?
Does the player play for Geelong?
"
One of my favourites though was
“Jack Ziebell said this week that you should, “Bring your kids, bring your mum and dad, bring everyone you know.”
But what if you like your kids and your mum and dad”
Just keep this pinned to the top of the threads as it's a regular every week.
As usual the media a-holes keep showing Chimp's incident with the racist bastard.
As usual the media a-holes keep showing Chimp's incident with the racist bastard.
Looks like it is Cotchin's turn to chip in for the AFL social fund this week
Reported MRP are looking at Hawkins staging in the 3rd qtr
Any chance they will fine him?
just in ……
Hawkins is pushed by Hawthorn's Sam Frost as he jumps for the ball and a free kick is paid. It was the view of the MRO that Hawkins exaggerated the contact but that his actions did not constitute a reportable offence.
No further action was taken.
not surprised Hawkins gets off again
Any chance they will fine him?
just in ……
Hawkins is pushed by Hawthorn's Sam Frost as he jumps for the ball and a free kick is paid. It was the view of the MRO that Hawkins exaggerated the contact but that his actions did not constitute a reportable offence.
No further action was taken.
not surprised Hawkins gets off again
skit on tik tok of Tommy winning himself an oscar, his acceptance is more than worthy of a chortle.Reported MRP are looking at Hawkins staging in the 3rd qtr
Any chance they will fine him?
just in ……
Hawkins is pushed by Hawthorn's Sam Frost as he jumps for the ball and a free kick is paid. It was the view of the MRO that Hawkins exaggerated the contact but that his actions did not constitute a reportable offence.
No further action was taken.
not surprised Hawkins gets off again
Reported MRP are looking at Hawkins staging in the 3rd qtr
Any chance they will fine him?
just in ……
Hawkins is pushed by Hawthorn's Sam Frost as he jumps for the ball and a free kick is paid. It was the view of the MRO that Hawkins exaggerated the contact but that his actions did not constitute a reportable offence.
No further action was taken.
not surprised Hawkins gets off again
They talk about Rance "staging" but what he did was less than half of what Shovkins did & " there's nothing to see here" just a corrupt bunch of *smiles*
Just out of interest, what is the significance of it not being a reportable offence?
If it was deemed to be excessive exaggeration it would be a reportable offence and he would get a fine. How this has not been deemed excessive exaggeration is beyond my powers of comprehension.
But MRO final decision maker Brad Scott is the twin brother of Geelong FC head coach Chris Scott. Not that this would have anything to do with it of course….
