TOPIC:

mikeh wrote:

Swandog wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Swandog wrote:

mikeh wrote: I saw the incident from a distance but it did look like excessive force to me so I think the penalty is justified in this case. Hopefully Ricky will learn from this incident and direct his vigour towards the ball which is what he normally does.

Cmon Mike what have you grown up watching, soccer or Aussie Rules?? You cant be serious surely??

So you reckon Swans should appeal it then? As I said I was watching it from a long way away but it looked to me like a deliberate sling and the EF guy was concussed. The tribunal these days is hot on anything to do with the head.

It was right in front of me and myself and everyone else around me were absolutely flabbergasted he got booked, and so what he got concussed! It is a contact sport and it happens, the game is going backwards fast if they are going to report blokes for strong tackles and as Swan42 has eluded to the umpires have something to answer for as well for not rewarding his tackle and others earlier in the tackle, otherwise what is a bloke supposed to do just stop dead, drop the bloke and say sorry the whistle hasn't gone off you go now hurry along

OK fair enough you got a better view than I did but I would repeat my question, do you think that Swans should appeal this judgement on the basis that Cary had no other option to do what he did or could he have tackled the EF player in a different way and still stopped him?

Mikeh I think that he would garner from this is that after 720 degrees he should let the player go and let him take off with the ball. Alternatively Mikeh what do you think Cary should have done after the 720 degree tackle?

swan42 wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Swandog wrote:

mikeh wrote:

Swandog wrote:

mikeh wrote: I saw the incident from a distance but it did look like excessive force to me so I think the penalty is justified in this case. Hopefully Ricky will learn from this incident and direct his vigour towards the ball which is what he normally does.

Cmon Mike what have you grown up watching, soccer or Aussie Rules?? You cant be serious surely??

So you reckon Swans should appeal it then? As I said I was watching it from a long way away but it looked to me like a deliberate sling and the EF guy was concussed. The tribunal these days is hot on anything to do with the head.

It was right in front of me and myself and everyone else around me were absolutely flabbergasted he got booked, and so what he got concussed! It is a contact sport and it happens, the game is going backwards fast if they are going to report blokes for strong tackles and as Swan42 has eluded to the umpires have something to answer for as well for not rewarding his tackle and others earlier in the tackle, otherwise what is a bloke supposed to do just stop dead, drop the bloke and say sorry the whistle hasn't gone off you go now hurry along

OK fair enough you got a better view than I did but I would repeat my question, do you think that Swans should appeal this judgement on the basis that Cary had no other option to do what he did or could he have tackled the EF player in a different way and still stopped him?

Mikeh I think that he would garner from this is that after 720 degrees he should let the player go and let him take off with the ball. Alternatively Mikeh what do you think Cary should have done after the 720 degree tackle?

I don't know Swan42, maybe he had no other alternative after that than to let him go, but surely that issue would have been presented to the tribunal last night as mitigating circumstances by Swans and presumably that reasoning has been rejected given the penalty. So for the third time I ask the question, do you think Swans should appeal this decision?

How the fark was Read gonna run off with ball if his head was buried into the well groomed Steel Blue turf 42?....pretty sure the fella didnt play out the rest of the game.......Swandog interested to hear how many of those "flabbergasted" folk you speak of were EF fans or even non SD fans?.....anyway Cary got 2 weeks and SD young guns lost to a bunch of geriatrics for the 3rd time running......no wonder why you guys are pissed!

Yes they should appeal!!

SO what would have been the outcome if he had broken Reads neck? I recall a Melbourne player (Jack Trengrove?) getting a 3 week suspension for a sling tackle a few years back.

mikeh wrote: SO what would have been the outcome if he had broken Reads neck? I recall a Melbourne player (Jack Trengrove?) getting a 3 week suspension for a sling tackle a few years back.

That would be shear bad luck mate just like Hughes dying from getting hit in the head by a bouncer...Ok lets just ban tackling and ANY contact at all because that's the way it is heading with that attitude!..And they aren't appealing I am informed

Swandog wrote:

mikeh wrote: SO what would have been the outcome if he had broken Reads neck? I recall a Melbourne player (Jack Trengrove?) getting a 3 week suspension for a sling tackle a few years back.

That would be shear bad luck mate just like Hughes dying from getting hit in the head by a bouncer...Ok lets just ban tackling and ANY contact at all because that's the way it is heading with that attitude!..And they aren't appealing I am informed

No Hughes was a freak accident. By giving Ricky 2 weeks holiday the tribunal was more or less saying that he was either deliberate, reckless or careless in throwing Read to the ground head first and this was an unacceptable risk to the player. With Swans not appealing you would have to assume that they are comfortable with this ruling. I have watched many football matches and seen thousands of vigorous tackles and not many were like the one that Cary attempted, so to say that genuine proper tackling is under threat is a bit of an over reaction IMO.

Mikeh.....Swandog is just overacting with his comments like ban tackling etc....no point having a balanced debate here with SwanDog, because it involves the SDFC and TBH we all admire his passion for the club, but it is obviously clouding his judgement with ridiculous statements like that......hopefully Cary learns from this and next time refrains from repeating it....yeah collisions happen, yeah momentum happens but was there any need to bury an opponents head into the ground whilst doing it.....Cary had plenty of time in his 720 arc not to bury Reads head into the ground.....that's why he got two weeks not for the 720 revolution bit.....

Freezin wrote: How the fark was Read gonna run off with ball if his head was buried into the well groomed Steel Blue turf 42?....pretty sure the fella didnt play out the rest of the game.......Swandog interested to hear how many of those "flabbergasted" folk you speak of were EF fans or even non SD fans?.....anyway Cary got 2 weeks and SD young guns lost to a bunch of geriatrics for the 3rd time running......no wonder why you guys are pissed!

Freezin for both 360s the players were on their feet.

mikeh wrote:

Swandog wrote:

mikeh wrote: SO what would have been the outcome if he had broken Reads neck? I recall a Melbourne player (Jack Trengrove?) getting a 3 week suspension for a sling tackle a few years back.

That would be shear bad luck mate just like Hughes dying from getting hit in the head by a bouncer...Ok lets just ban tackling and ANY contact at all because that's the way it is heading with that attitude!..And they aren't appealing I am informed

No Hughes was a freak accident. By giving Ricky 2 weeks holiday the tribunal was more or less saying that he was either deliberate, reckless or careless in throwing Read to the ground head first and this was an unacceptable risk to the player. With Swans not appealing you would have to assume that they are comfortable with this ruling. I have watched many football matches and seen thousands of vigorous tackles and not many were like the one that Cary attempted, so to say that genuine proper tackling is under threat is a bit of an over reaction IMO.

A few points Mikeh:

I am not privy to what was put before the tribunal; therefore, I am not in a position to comment vis a vis an appeal.

How many tackles have you seen involving two revolutions without a whistle being blown?

I would have no problems with the decision if Cary had tackled the East Freo player and immediately slung him to the grass. However, this is most certainly and patently not what Cary did.

Do I think that the final consequences of the tackle were directly attributable to the inactions of the umpire? UNambiguously and unequivocally yes. Hence there are mitigating circumstances in this particular case. Did the tribunal take that into account and Cary would have received a greater penalty otherwise, I don't know.

If the tribunal did accept that there were mitigating circumstances due to the inaction of the umpire; what penalty, if any, will the umpire get?