TOPIC:

Bartel got him in the shoulder on the replay..didnt think that was part of the head..

incorrect, you need to remove the word "head" from your posts..
it was graded as high..

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Adelaide Crows Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points

i think you mean Mark Fraser, Ken was his old man..
whilst it maybe be viewed the same penalty as head high contact, the contact was not head high as you indicated, it was high as per the grading - Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Adelaide Crows Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points

you wrote in your 1st post the contact was "head high", that comment is incorrect.

I think bartel was almost at a stop when contact was made, pav was on the move. Anways worse than that was Pods, grazed his opponent and was given reprimand. king from tiges left the ground and made high contact with a Docker...NOTHING!!

[IMG]
[IMG]

anchorman wrote: Have been amused by the bleating coming from Mark Robinson about the harsh treatment handed out to Jimmy Bartel on the weekend.It is not much different to the Pavlich incident,yet as far as he was concerned Pav was gone as soon as he hit Brown I think it was.Both were head high and had to be penalised.
I agree that the treatment McKernan got was very weak, he should have got four weeks with no down grading.That was a dog act.
They also bleat about the Kelly incident with Goddard.Look at where the ball is when Kelly hit Goddard.Goddards was in a position he would not expect that sort of collision.The ball was more than five metres away and behind, from where contact took place.
Melbourne media,and we complain about our press here.

We have every right to complain about the press here.

Re the Kelly one, search for it own You Tube, and you will see Goddard was about to receive the ball, but the Bombers player was stripped of the ball, changing the course of play. Not saying Kelly is innocent, but he had already committed to the play before the lost of ball occured

here you go i found it for you