I question his judgment.
Hawthorn defence counsel illustrating how his real intent was to pinch lower
…
2 Likes
Because Stratton’s are great people. Trust me i know
8 Likes
He’s only remorseful he got caught. Should have been fined for it vs brisbane. That stomp just affirmed he is a Class A ■■■■.
5 Likes
Good on them.
Simply a matter of Stratton doing these actions for a period of time - Clubs/players are sick of these actions and brief the media - And you have a ■■■■ storm - There will be another dubious tactic that will come under the microscope in the next twelve months.
Thank you, Nostradanus.
3 Likes
This incident has all the makings of when the AFL decides to take a stance against rough conduct.
They will allow McGoverns to go through to the keeper but I can see Redman getting a week.
Literally zero force
Not a good look but fine at worst.
McGovern put a bloke who was already outside field of play into the fence that got concussion and rib damage. 2-3wks IMO
I was factoring in the essendon rule in my evaluation.
3 Likes
Redman should be fined, at worst. It’s hard to argue it’s equivalent to Pinchy’s stomp last week in terms of injury potential.
EDIT: plus I didn’t notice the Weagle grabbed his foot. I initially thought Redman had initiated this by dragging his toe over his belly.
1 Like
I think he should get off.
I’m never confident though when one of our boys are up.
It should be a fine for Mason, I’m more concerned on T-bell
The weagle will get off scott free
To be honest, I think anyone who stomps another player should get a week.
I initially thought the McGovern one was fine. From the main angles shown, it looked like it was in the field of play. Then Ch7 showed one angle from the opposite direction with the boundary line, and it looked over. But I didn’t see that again. If it was inside, it should be fine. If it was outside, he should get weeks.
2 Likes
I too wouldn’t be upset if a stomp was worth a week but I also believe an elbow to the head is a week.
3 Likes
Weeks regardless in my book.
He shoved a bloke half his size square at the fence. Inside or outside the line, it was the deliberate act of a dog ■■■■.
8 Likes
If its inside the field of play, its legal. I personally get annoyed when the consideration is how much injury someone suffered from. It should be whether or not the act was legal/illegal, and how much risk it created.
If it was in the field of play, McGovern has every right to shove a player without getting suspended.
1 Like
So if his toe is inside the line, it’s perfectly fair, but if his heel is on the other side, it’s a dog act?
I’ve had some really good lines in the past, but that one sounds magical.
2 Likes
Well it certainly is one way to take someone out of the game without punching/elbowing them in the head. I thought it was over the line but I could be mistaken.
That’s the nature of rules and laws. Where you have a continuum of levels of severity/action, the rules/laws draw what some might see as an arbitrary line where we make the call on one side its legal, and the other side its not. That’s what a rational and logic based society does anyway. People might argue with where that line is, but unless its changed by law it should hold. The boundary line is a pretty simple way of defining the field of play.
So yes.