TOPIC:

BH.....pretty sure you aint the only SD fan on this site fella....."you guys" is a plural term mate.......you didn't tell me how young Luke went mate?.....I know Callum didn't play sadly.....Jack do ok? and how about little Barry?.....yeah I know Chad and Dylan played well......they always do.....

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Mad Dog wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Mad Dog wrote: If anyone wants to blame the umps they have their heads in the sand! Absolutely no impact in the final result which could've and should've have been much more. That was as pathetic 4 quarter performance as I've seen in 20 years I've been following the ducks.

MD I hope you have no problems with the report of Cary.

I don't think it was a reportable offence but I don't really have an issue with them taking a look at it. At the end of the day it will the tribunal who determines wether guilty or not,not the reporting umpire.
The vision will show it wasn't a slinging or spear tackle. I thought he got him at a good angle and pinned his arms. More unfortunate than anything. A bit like the Bartel one. There was a bit of a scuffle once the east boys realised he was a bit worse for wear but it was malicious then I'm sure they would've got a bit more worked up.
All that being said,if he is somehow found guilty I'd expect that he would get 3-4 weeks.

If Cary gets 3-4 weeks then the umpire should get 30-40 weeks. The umpire is RESPOSNIBLE 100% for what happened subsequent to the 720.

You're so predictable swan old feller

One of the nicer things you may have said 58s. Most assuredly if Cary is answerable for his actions and suffers the consequences of same, then the umpire should be held to account for, in this case, his inaction and be held responsible as well.

swan42 wrote:

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Mad Dog wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Mad Dog wrote: If anyone wants to blame the umps they have their heads in the sand! Absolutely no impact in the final result which could've and should've have been much more. That was as pathetic 4 quarter performance as I've seen in 20 years I've been following the ducks.

MD I hope you have no problems with the report of Cary.

I don't think it was a reportable offence but I don't really have an issue with them taking a look at it. At the end of the day it will the tribunal who determines wether guilty or not,not the reporting umpire.
The vision will show it wasn't a slinging or spear tackle. I thought he got him at a good angle and pinned his arms. More unfortunate than anything. A bit like the Bartel one. There was a bit of a scuffle once the east boys realised he was a bit worse for wear but it was malicious then I'm sure they would've got a bit more worked up.
All that being said,if he is somehow found guilty I'd expect that he would get 3-4 weeks.

If Cary gets 3-4 weeks then the umpire should get 30-40 weeks. The umpire is RESPOSNIBLE 100% for what happened subsequent to the 720.

You're so predictable swan old feller

One of the nicer things you may have said 58s. Most assuredly if Cary is answerable for his actions and suffers the consequences of same, then the umpire should be held to account for, in this case, his inaction and be held responsible as well.

So Swan you obviously disagree with the description in the Wests game report "reported for a sling tackle on opponent Samuel Read in the 1st Qtr that concussed the Sharks defender. Read lay motionless for 30 seconds after his head hit the ground. He took no further part in the game" Yes I know the West is not all that well known for being a bastion of journalistic integrity but .....

The sling tackle has long been a reportable offence as it is such a dangerous tackle, right up their with the spear tackle and tunneling. And if, as you say the umpire took too long to make a decision, does that give Cary the right to sling the player into the turf out of frustration? It just sounds like an isolated but ill disciplined act by a quality young player who realized and accepted his brain fade and rightly apologized to Read after the game for his dangerous and careless actions.

Senior Seagull wrote:

swan42 wrote:

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Mad Dog wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Mad Dog wrote: If anyone wants to blame the umps they have their heads in the sand! Absolutely no impact in the final result which could've and should've have been much more. That was as pathetic 4 quarter performance as I've seen in 20 years I've been following the ducks.

MD I hope you have no problems with the report of Cary.

I don't think it was a reportable offence but I don't really have an issue with them taking a look at it. At the end of the day it will the tribunal who determines wether guilty or not,not the reporting umpire.
The vision will show it wasn't a slinging or spear tackle. I thought he got him at a good angle and pinned his arms. More unfortunate than anything. A bit like the Bartel one. There was a bit of a scuffle once the east boys realised he was a bit worse for wear but it was malicious then I'm sure they would've got a bit more worked up.
All that being said,if he is somehow found guilty I'd expect that he would get 3-4 weeks.

If Cary gets 3-4 weeks then the umpire should get 30-40 weeks. The umpire is RESPOSNIBLE 100% for what happened subsequent to the 720.

You're so predictable swan old feller

One of the nicer things you may have said 58s. Most assuredly if Cary is answerable for his actions and suffers the consequences of same, then the umpire should be held to account for, in this case, his inaction and be held responsible as well.

So Swan you obviously disagree with the description in the Wests game report "reported for a sling tackle on opponent Samuel Read in the 1st Qtr that concussed the Sharks defender. Read lay motionless for 30 seconds after his head hit the ground. He took no further part in the game" Yes I know the West is not all that well known for being a bastion of journalistic integrity but .....

The sling tackle has long been a reportable offence as it is such a dangerous tackle, right up their with the spear tackle and tunneling. And if, as you say the umpire took too long to make a decision, does that give Cary the right to sling the player into the turf out of frustration? It just sounds like an isolated but ill disciplined act by a quality young player who realized and accepted his brain fade and rightly apologized to Read after the game for his dangerous and careless actions.

No SS it was not an ill-disciplined act. The fact is that the tackle involved 2 revolutions of a circle, i.e. 720 degrees. This FACT was not included in the report. Virtually all sling tackles involve an action where the player who is tackled is immediately slung to the ground. The Cary tackle was most certainly not of that ilk. I also did not imply that Cary's action was out of frustration. Fundamentally if the umpire had blown the whistle in a timely fashion there would not have been any contact between the East Freo player and the ground. If there had been contact under those circumstances Cary would deserve to be suspended.

With respect to the apology I am not sure that it is logical to deduce from that fact that there was any admission of guilt.

swan42 wrote:

58shark wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Mad Dog wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Mad Dog wrote: If anyone wants to blame the umps they have their heads in the sand! Absolutely no impact in the final result which could've and should've have been much more. That was as pathetic 4 quarter performance as I've seen in 20 years I've been following the ducks.

MD I hope you have no problems with the report of Cary.

I don't think it was a reportable offence but I don't really have an issue with them taking a look at it. At the end of the day it will the tribunal who determines wether guilty or not,not the reporting umpire.
The vision will show it wasn't a slinging or spear tackle. I thought he got him at a good angle and pinned his arms. More unfortunate than anything. A bit like the Bartel one. There was a bit of a scuffle once the east boys realised he was a bit worse for wear but it was malicious then I'm sure they would've got a bit more worked up.
All that being said,if he is somehow found guilty I'd expect that he would get 3-4 weeks.

If Cary gets 3-4 weeks then the umpire should get 30-40 weeks. The umpire is RESPOSNIBLE 100% for what happened subsequent to the 720.

You're so predictable swan old feller

One of the nicer things you may have said 58s. Most assuredly if Cary is answerable for his actions and suffers the consequences of same, then the umpire should be held to account for, in this case, his inaction and be held responsible as well.

I'll sleep a lot better tonight swan knowing that I said something "nicer". As for the "720 degree tackle" you claim happened - it doesn't matter how many times he was turned around -a sling tackle is illegal and dangerous. As for making the ump responsible for the boy's moment of stupidity - perhaps they could sue the ump for any games lost by the lad

Why are the umpires the only ones not held accountable for their performances? If the umpire had blown the whistle when he should have the tackle would not have involved the East Freo hitting the ground.

swan42 wrote: Why are the umpires the only ones not held accountable for their performances? If the umpire had blown the whistle when he should have the tackle would not have involved the East Freo hitting the ground.

Simply spinning someone around in the tackle doesn't instantly equal holding the ball Mr 42. You and your duck pond mates need to open the other eye and quit the constant umpire bashing.

Umpiring standard is pretty poor mate to be honest very inconsistent at best

2 weeks

Fair enough. Hopefully he learns his lesson and pulls his head in.