If Martin had left the ground to bump, and bags wasn’t bags and was more soft say like a fark carlton player then Martin may have got a warning.
Nothing wrong with his, Richmond played hard footy, but nothing illegal.
On a seperate note, I did think the FC putz that punched buddy then sunk the knees in should have got a look at. Esp after carslile.
Bags was in the air, eyes on the ball, Martin goes low and drives an elbow into his ribs. It was a bump designed to injure, and was in no way contesting the ball.
As I have said, that was OK in the past, but they tried to outlaw that after the 89 grand final.
I think you’ll find the fact that it wasn’t cited and lack of outrage from everyone but yourself that it hasn’t been cited says that it is indeed acceptable in 2018. No problems, good bump. Play on.
I think it kind of fits into that odd category of ‘acceptable’ because it doesn’t really happen that often.
Like the Toby Greene incident last year where he protected himself by putting the boot into that other players face. It’s always been legal, but rarely does it happen.
If this started happening every match, and people were injured, it’s be stamped out pretty quickly.
You’re writing the tribunal as a source of objective evidence?
And the general footy media?
I’m not outraged, but I know that if the roles were reversed, and Bags ran through Martin in the same style, who was then ineffective for the rest of the game, that there have been a fair bit more made of it.
I must be reading it all wrong, because the MRP report said Alex Rance got fined $1000. Surely they meant the AFL is giving him a $1000 bonus? I mean, it’s Alex Rance…
I think the umpire should get a week for his free kick to Rance. I would like him to try to justify, by saying what he saw, the free kick given. A player diving forward should never justify a free kick.
I like Martin as a player but I think his charge on Bageley was a low act. The fact that the AFL tribunal or MRP didn’t even address it is pathetic. They feign concern about the potential to cause injury when bumping yet let this one go through to the keeper. Baguley was in the air with no protection whatsoever. Martin had no eyes for the ball and charged him with no other intent than to cause injury. Lucky Baguley is no sook. I wonder if the roles had been reversed what the reaction would have been. After all, the name of the game is protecting the guy going for the ball isn’t it? Me thinks it depends on who that guy is.
Edit: sorry Frosty, just saw your last post. Beat me to it.
Martin would have done more damage if he’d tackled rather than bumped.
Unless, of course, you believe tackling “a guy who was wide open with no intent of contesting the ball“ is also everything the AFL has tried to stamp out.
A belief that would be incorrect given the following incidents in recent years that haven’t yielded suspensions
if you’d listened to Christian, you wouldn’t be surprised. They’ve basically changed the rules re: careless/intentional since the Stephen May incident earlier in the season.