He launched into a bloke's head. Lucky to only get one.
I agree.
im still astounded that Maynard got off. catastrophic impact.
He launched into a bloke's head. Lucky to only get one.
I think the suspension is probably right but the problem is that the AFL are so inconsistent on this.No you suspend on the action not the injury, the potential to cause injury is the overriding factor 1 week was warranted IMO
His shoulder makes contact with Melican's headIf he hit him in the head he deserves a week. From what I could see the arm hit him high up on the chest.
If this is the case then one week is justified. You can argue to impact but the AFL has us in the gun and it wont come down from Medium to low even though he bounced back up.His shoulder makes contact with Melican's head
Just wondering if you are aware of any earlier case where the player has been charged with causing "medium impact" to the head, but convicted on the basis that his action had the "potential" to cause damage.Sorry Smoking but precedence does not prevail is this day and age, action couldn't be much later by Bake's, luck does not get you off and a fine does not deter.
Not saying the actual outcome in either was wrong, but how is Pendleburys hit to Neale low impact and Bakers medium?
Pendlebury got him with force straight in the guts.
And with an open handed slap like his mother used on him when he wet the bed as a 15 year old.Pendlebury was smart, he hit him in the guts knowing full well that the guts aren't "sacrosanct".
Your interpretation is spot on, so I'm having a go at the system not you.I'm not surprised with the suspension. They're trying to protect the head. Always going to get time if he hit the head, due to the "potential" clause in classifying incidents.
you answered your own question "2 swans players"When Bakes was jumping to that contest you could see he was going to try & punch the ball, he saw that if he did that that he'd hit Pelican in the head so he dropped his hand down. His momentum caused him to impact mainly on the chest area.
If the head is sacrosanct, why weren't the 2 swans players who hit Baker in the head i while he was on the ground mmediately after the incident cited for rough conduct. They deliberately targeted his head.
They have to sentence based on potential, as you don’t know actual til after the event. They want to stop all “potentials” accordingly. I agree with this - so long as they are consistent on what is a potential.Your interpretation is spot on, so I'm having a go at the system not you.
All of a sudden we are judging an action on the potential for injury, something that has never been done. Look at Hind two rounds ago, raised an elbow, that has the potential to do untold damage. Should've got 12 weeks if "potential" is in the punishment. It's always been the outcome not the action. Until Baker.
We got screwed here.
watch the AFL double down & Bakes will get 3 weeks !Apparently the Tiges are appealing the suspension.
We might as well beg for mercy and mention the many injured players we have.watch the AFL double down & Bakes will get 3 weeks !