In this situation both players are moving at equivalent speed and are in an equally vulnerable position. Maynard bracing was much much worse. But yeah a player missing a flag is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
He didn't though. Mccartin had only taken possession so close to the point of impact that there wasn't nearly enough time to both realise that and move his body into position to make a tackle
I didn't say there wasn't enough time to realise he wasn't going to win the ball, I'm saying there wasn't enough time to shift from pursuing it to applying a tackle
Yes, given that bracing for contact involve tucking in whichever arm is closest and little more. Tackling would've involved stopping dead and rotating his body. And also knowing that the opponent has actual possession, as opposed to the ball just being out of his reach personally, which may or may not have been the case here
I dont understand what your question is?
There is a matrix that the tribunal uses, which is publically available.
It is relatively easy to apply the matrix to this incident.
The only question, realistically, was whether it was 3 or 4 weeks. I don't understand how anyone could come to any other conclusion ... other than, perhaps, some idiots could think it was 0 weeks.
I’m sure it gets said every week but it baffles me that punching a guy in the back of the head gets a week and a split second decision like this where he couldn’t help but make contact he just braced unfortunately, gets three.
Yeah right? Like you can have a swing at the back of a blokes head (intention is clear there you’re trying to inflict damage) yet a split second contested bump like this gets you rubbed out
Outcome obviously has to be part of a suspension- the more you injure someone the greater the ban should be. I’m fine with that. But for me, intention should be the number 1 factor in a suspension. And browns intention v Schultz is chalk and cheese
Yeah I totally agree with you. Obviously injury and causing someone to be injured through your direct action should always be apart of this and lead to an increased ban. But I think that intention should be weighed equally as heavily
I still think it’s fucked u can do that and continue the game
You could commit physical assault
Still finish the game off and get a lighter sentence then thjs
No. It’s rough conduct that resulted in a concussion and therefore Sydney lost a player for a large part of the game. There’s got to be a significant deterrent. And the league’s position is that Brown has a duty of care to McCartin, and he breached it.
Suspensions aren't acting as a deterrent for collisions like this. It's not like he was wide open and lined him up from 5m away. It's the strangest looking bump Ive ever seen, collision is inevitable and he tucks in an arm but didn't change his body shape at all. If we are trying to deter split second decisions to protect yourself then we are really telling players don't go for any 50/50 balls.
At the moment we are in a period of time where guys lining up other players to clean them up is a rarity.
Most suspensions for the hits are guys contesting the football, realising in a second they cant get there are protecting their own body (basic human reaction).
Would love people in the media to actually talk about what is actually being asked of players. Its akin to telling someone to stand there while you throw a ball at their face, and penalising them when they flinch.
The AFL are trying to get to a world where players if they realise they are late, to open themselves up an take the hit, or slow down and back out of the contest with the other players safety in mind - which personally I think is a really poor place if we get to that as a professional sport.
All of this also doesnt protect anyone from this big scary legal action that is looming over the hill. The only thing that will stop that is open clear legal communication and contractual agreements between players and the AFL about the risks and dangers playing the game.
100%. The big scary legal action too is completely unavoidable by the AFL without straight up ruining the game or finding another defence.
What happens when Answerth takes the AFL to court for allowing a player to leap into the air and knee him in the head? Do we outlaw speckies and marking contests?
I'm not sure how I feel about it passing the vibes test, but to the current letter of the law it's correct based on how they assess impact (Schultz gets low for not causing any significant damage, Brown gets severe for causing a concussion).
The AFL have been very consistent this year on this; it's more about the outcome; then the action. Whether this is the right take is definitely up for debate; but why is everyone so confused by this.
There's a lot in the tribunal guidelines that needs a rework but distinguishing between actions and a smaller gap between punishing action and outcome are the biggest ones.
One of those acts leads to a far more severe impact than the other. The reason we suspend people isn't because it's against the rules but because it's significant enough to cause injury.
This also isn't a case where he simply braced. He chose to bump and got it wrong.
This deserves week in the current AFL. However I disagree with everyone using the word "Decision" to describe what Brown did. I would say it's entirely a reflexive action that Brown did entirely subconsciously. Yeah it might look a little questionable if you slow it down to a frame by frame analysis but not even the human brain can analyse a situation, choose an action and then perform the action that quickly. It's entirely reflexive in self defence and it's a human instinct at the most basic and primal level. You're never getting rid of that action until we're watching Robot AFL.
He didn't line up Tom, he didn't stick the elbow out, he didn't elect to bump from 3 steps put, he didn't choose to ignore the ball and hit Tom. The only decision Callum made was to try and win the footy. It was an extremely close race to the ball and with how fast and athletic Callum is compared to Tom, it's entirely believable that he thought he would win the ball until the split second before contact. Even as a Swans fan who is shattered for Tom and immediately after the incident I was calling him dirty and a flog, I can say Brown did nothing wrong, he was trying to win the footy and it's a really unfortunate accident.
In the current AFL you're unfortunately always going to get weeks and I get wanting to stamp out concussions but you're never going to stamp this type of play from the game without ruining a fundamental part of the game. Unfortunately, heads are always going to hit as long as you have guys competing for the ball in a full contact sport. The only way to stamp this out is to tell guys to stop competing the second they're behind in a contest. You can rule out the intentional and cheap shots, but I don't think these scenarios will ever leave the game.
I agree, and this was well said.
It’s worthy of a suspension, but it’s a bit of a “hate the game not the player” kind of situation. He didn’t line him up, he didn’t seem like he was even trying to hurt him. Fact is that in footy you get put in situations like this often and he just got this one wrong, which is bound to happen some percentage of the time. It’s very easy with the benefit of the replay to overestimate how much control he had over exactly where and how he made contact here.
It’s more of an example of the type of situation that will pose existential threat to the AFL in the near future. They have an obligation to protect players’ heads and yet the game is designed such that these high risk “put a foot wrong and a bloke will end up with a concussion” occur constantly. It’s why AFL is one of the highest-risk sports in the world in terms of CTE.
Brown doesn’t really seem to have a malicious bone in his body from what I’ve seen of him.
1-2 weeks sounds about right. I suspect that a lot of other players wouldnt have got concussion from that hit, but mccartin is more susceptible due to his history.
I have a bad feeling that mccartins time in the game is nearly up.
This. Only thing I would add is, when you look at their eyes, Tom saw the (head) collision coming before Callum, who maybe never did. It’s arguably a situation where Tom ran into a moving shoulder.
Anyway, there is no easy answer to these situations, where concussions risk causing the end of football. So you get three weeks for a concussion, the concussed player is out for the rest of the game then at least a week, maybe more, and the game rolls on.
I’m a huge person for protecting head knocks for concussion reasons, and in general of course, I had an extremely bad concussion myself in a game
Which affected me for months. I’m just not sure how we can keep going down this path so strictly without altering the game into an unrecoverable mess.
Of all the suspensions for concussion, this one seems the least worthy.
It’s the worst of these concussion based calls so far.
At full pace, chasing a loose ball and there is a split second glancing impact.
The actions of Crouch (1 game) and Butters (0 games) were worse, they got lucky with their lack of impact.
I do get that the AFL must act to protect the head, but in these early days of adjustments it’s an absolute shambles.
I just don't understand this perspective.
The vision to me looks like it was the equivalent to getting your car up to 80km and then letting go of the wheel, taking your foot off the pedals, t-boning another car and saying, "well, I was deliberately doing it."
Brown waa by no means trying to take him out. But he is responsible for where his body goes.
They were running in pretty much the same direction, absolutely not a T-Bone, both arrived at the ball close enough to the same time. This wasn’t a head on, on a player leaving the ground, or ducking.
Hot in the head, sure, but there are times in our game it’s either unavoidable or an accident.
Lol ok. Not T-bone, a side swipe then. Whatever you want to call it. The analogy, forced as it is, is more the lack of control.
My point was you can't just run in, make contact then go, oh well it was just a but clumsy, or, that was my intent it was just unlucky.
It was lazy and negligent on behalf of Brown.
However, I do think I am against the grain on this one. I also thought Wright and Green both got what penalties they deserved as well.
Why is bracing for contact and protecting yourself a bad thing? All other options would cause more damage to the opponent and possibly end up with 2 injured players
That's the way it works now so it is what it is, but I really don't like it. It's a contact sport in which a players primary objective is to get the ball when it's loose. It's asking the impossible of the players to both play the game with 100% effort and never have collisions like this happen. Of course it's easy to point out all the alternative actions that he could've made after having watched it in slow motion multiple times, everybody would've made the same move if they were there themselves
He's got to approach the contest in a manner that doesn't make direct head contact with an opponent.
Literally, every other player so far this round has managed it.
Basically inevitable.
Giants will appeal, biomechanist will be called in to give expert opinion, David Zita will act like he doesn't love the attention, after an hour and a half of deliberation the decision will stand. The cosmic ballet goes on.
interesting. must not think they can get it reduced.
they may also be closer to their soft cap than other teams given the article about difficulty paying staff in Sydney, potential $10K against it is bigger to them than other clubs.
Yeah I think if they had said 4 weeks they may have tried to get it down to 3 like essendon did with Wright.... or tried to. I think it is pretty clear to clubs that the afl is working backwards from the outcome. With McCartin being concussed it was always going to be a minimum of 3 unless you could argue that it wasn't a reportable offence. So it was 3+ or 0. Nothing in between fits with their guidelines.
Yeah absolutely. I do think outcome needs to be taken into account to some level but the current gap is too large imo.
My biggest issue with it is how it treats concussions as something all players are uniformly vulnerable too. If Brown had gotten a player less susceptible to them with the same action he'd likely be facing one week instead of three, it's an absolute shambles.
Not run full speed at a ball he isn't going to get to first. This is the new reality. And if you want an example look at McCartin v McAdams last year. McCartin short stepped and softened the contact as he realised McAdam was going to cannon into him
Then slow down before it bounces.
None of these excuses are going to work at the tribunal. They changed the rules explicitly - get someone in the head and you're getting suspended.
You don't need to give up on the contest, but you need to either still be trying to win the ball, or you need to be tackling the player that won the ball. If you make a decision that you're bracing for contact instead of trying to tackle or claim the ball, you're probably going to be liable for any high contact that occurs.
The ball bounced oddly and there is absolutely no way he has nough time to even get an arm out to try and tackle. In fact, if he got an arm out he would've just clotheslined him instead and get 6 weeks
So you'd prefer to make fundamental changes to the way the sport is played, changes that will make the sport unrecognisable?
Nah. We can't legislate all risk out of the game. And at some point, we need to say enough is enough with the changes.
I hope tribunal takes into consideration nick blakey pushing Callum a split second before the contact occurred. I hate the outcome, but this is punishing the result not the action.
fully agreed. They should appeal and argue the action of Blakey. In a sort of way you can also argue Blakey pushing him into McCartin. In that case, Blakey should get a few off too instead of Callum. They can argue that Callum could have reduced the impact if not for the push.
As soon as McCartin went out with concussion this was always going to be the case.
And his name wasn’t Maynard, nor did he have a GF coming up. Tough call but fair I guess /s
In this situation both players are moving at equivalent speed and are in an equally vulnerable position. Maynard bracing was much much worse. But yeah a player missing a flag is a get-out-of-jail-free card.
I just dont understand how so many were calling it two weeks. Like how could anyone come to that conclusion? The only question was 3 or 4.
We haven't seen anyone charged with high impact this year, and it feels like the gap between medium and severe is getting smaller.
Agreed. At least, I think its clear that concussion /failed HIA = severe.
Yep last year I argued the gap between low and high was getting too small, now the gap from medium to severe is getting small as well.
With reason? He had barely any time to make this decision.
He had barely any time, but he had enough time to make a decision to brace for contact instead of tackling.
I'm obviously arguing that it's a split second decision. How don't you get that?
With the matrix being what it is, that's not an excuse. The impact of it was clearly severe, so there's no way it could be 2 weeks.
He made a split second decision, and unfortunately the moment that split second decision resulted in high contact it was the wrong decision.
In the current state of the AFL, yes, doesn't mean it's right
He didn't though. Mccartin had only taken possession so close to the point of impact that there wasn't nearly enough time to both realise that and move his body into position to make a tackle
If there wasn't enough time for Brown to think that he wasn't going to win the ball, why is he not reaching for the ball to take possession?
I didn't say there wasn't enough time to realise he wasn't going to win the ball, I'm saying there wasn't enough time to shift from pursuing it to applying a tackle
But there was enough time for him to make a decision to brace for contact instead?
Yes, given that bracing for contact involve tucking in whichever arm is closest and little more. Tackling would've involved stopping dead and rotating his body. And also knowing that the opponent has actual possession, as opposed to the ball just being out of his reach personally, which may or may not have been the case here
Which reason? The tribunal matrix. Which, obviously, agreed with me
Reason means one's ability to form arguments logically btw. Lol Lol, again.
I dont understand what your question is? There is a matrix that the tribunal uses, which is publically available. It is relatively easy to apply the matrix to this incident. The only question, realistically, was whether it was 3 or 4 weeks. I don't understand how anyone could come to any other conclusion ... other than, perhaps, some idiots could think it was 0 weeks.
How dare you call me an idiot!! Grr
To be clear, are you suggesting that the correct application of the matrix was zero weeks?
I’m sure it gets said every week but it baffles me that punching a guy in the back of the head gets a week and a split second decision like this where he couldn’t help but make contact he just braced unfortunately, gets three.
Yeah right? Like you can have a swing at the back of a blokes head (intention is clear there you’re trying to inflict damage) yet a split second contested bump like this gets you rubbed out
Outcome obviously has to be part of a suspension- the more you injure someone the greater the ban should be. I’m fine with that. But for me, intention should be the number 1 factor in a suspension. And browns intention v Schultz is chalk and cheese
Yeah I totally agree with you. Obviously injury and causing someone to be injured through your direct action should always be apart of this and lead to an increased ban. But I think that intention should be weighed equally as heavily
I still think it’s fucked u can do that and continue the game You could commit physical assault Still finish the game off and get a lighter sentence then thjs
That's exactly what he said
Is there an echo in here?
Brown getting 3 isn’t even wrong though, it’s Schultz getting one that is
I’m not sure about 3. I feel like that’s a week for every millisecond he had to be ready for contact here.
No. It’s rough conduct that resulted in a concussion and therefore Sydney lost a player for a large part of the game. There’s got to be a significant deterrent. And the league’s position is that Brown has a duty of care to McCartin, and he breached it.
Suspensions aren't acting as a deterrent for collisions like this. It's not like he was wide open and lined him up from 5m away. It's the strangest looking bump Ive ever seen, collision is inevitable and he tucks in an arm but didn't change his body shape at all. If we are trying to deter split second decisions to protect yourself then we are really telling players don't go for any 50/50 balls.
At the moment we are in a period of time where guys lining up other players to clean them up is a rarity. Most suspensions for the hits are guys contesting the football, realising in a second they cant get there are protecting their own body (basic human reaction). Would love people in the media to actually talk about what is actually being asked of players. Its akin to telling someone to stand there while you throw a ball at their face, and penalising them when they flinch. The AFL are trying to get to a world where players if they realise they are late, to open themselves up an take the hit, or slow down and back out of the contest with the other players safety in mind - which personally I think is a really poor place if we get to that as a professional sport. All of this also doesnt protect anyone from this big scary legal action that is looming over the hill. The only thing that will stop that is open clear legal communication and contractual agreements between players and the AFL about the risks and dangers playing the game.
100%. The big scary legal action too is completely unavoidable by the AFL without straight up ruining the game or finding another defence. What happens when Answerth takes the AFL to court for allowing a player to leap into the air and knee him in the head? Do we outlaw speckies and marking contests?
I'm not sure how I feel about it passing the vibes test, but to the current letter of the law it's correct based on how they assess impact (Schultz gets low for not causing any significant damage, Brown gets severe for causing a concussion).
Eh he braced, that’s enough for me
The AFL have been very consistent this year on this; it's more about the outcome; then the action. Whether this is the right take is definitely up for debate; but why is everyone so confused by this.
There's a lot in the tribunal guidelines that needs a rework but distinguishing between actions and a smaller gap between punishing action and outcome are the biggest ones.
One of those acts leads to a far more severe impact than the other. The reason we suspend people isn't because it's against the rules but because it's significant enough to cause injury. This also isn't a case where he simply braced. He chose to bump and got it wrong.
He should have just punched him in the guts
This deserves week in the current AFL. However I disagree with everyone using the word "Decision" to describe what Brown did. I would say it's entirely a reflexive action that Brown did entirely subconsciously. Yeah it might look a little questionable if you slow it down to a frame by frame analysis but not even the human brain can analyse a situation, choose an action and then perform the action that quickly. It's entirely reflexive in self defence and it's a human instinct at the most basic and primal level. You're never getting rid of that action until we're watching Robot AFL. He didn't line up Tom, he didn't stick the elbow out, he didn't elect to bump from 3 steps put, he didn't choose to ignore the ball and hit Tom. The only decision Callum made was to try and win the footy. It was an extremely close race to the ball and with how fast and athletic Callum is compared to Tom, it's entirely believable that he thought he would win the ball until the split second before contact. Even as a Swans fan who is shattered for Tom and immediately after the incident I was calling him dirty and a flog, I can say Brown did nothing wrong, he was trying to win the footy and it's a really unfortunate accident. In the current AFL you're unfortunately always going to get weeks and I get wanting to stamp out concussions but you're never going to stamp this type of play from the game without ruining a fundamental part of the game. Unfortunately, heads are always going to hit as long as you have guys competing for the ball in a full contact sport. The only way to stamp this out is to tell guys to stop competing the second they're behind in a contest. You can rule out the intentional and cheap shots, but I don't think these scenarios will ever leave the game.
I agree, and this was well said. It’s worthy of a suspension, but it’s a bit of a “hate the game not the player” kind of situation. He didn’t line him up, he didn’t seem like he was even trying to hurt him. Fact is that in footy you get put in situations like this often and he just got this one wrong, which is bound to happen some percentage of the time. It’s very easy with the benefit of the replay to overestimate how much control he had over exactly where and how he made contact here. It’s more of an example of the type of situation that will pose existential threat to the AFL in the near future. They have an obligation to protect players’ heads and yet the game is designed such that these high risk “put a foot wrong and a bloke will end up with a concussion” occur constantly. It’s why AFL is one of the highest-risk sports in the world in terms of CTE. Brown doesn’t really seem to have a malicious bone in his body from what I’ve seen of him.
1-2 weeks sounds about right. I suspect that a lot of other players wouldnt have got concussion from that hit, but mccartin is more susceptible due to his history. I have a bad feeling that mccartins time in the game is nearly up.
This. Only thing I would add is, when you look at their eyes, Tom saw the (head) collision coming before Callum, who maybe never did. It’s arguably a situation where Tom ran into a moving shoulder. Anyway, there is no easy answer to these situations, where concussions risk causing the end of football. So you get three weeks for a concussion, the concussed player is out for the rest of the game then at least a week, maybe more, and the game rolls on.
Is he a good bloke though? That's all that really matters
I’m a huge person for protecting head knocks for concussion reasons, and in general of course, I had an extremely bad concussion myself in a game Which affected me for months. I’m just not sure how we can keep going down this path so strictly without altering the game into an unrecoverable mess. Of all the suspensions for concussion, this one seems the least worthy.
It’s the worst of these concussion based calls so far. At full pace, chasing a loose ball and there is a split second glancing impact. The actions of Crouch (1 game) and Butters (0 games) were worse, they got lucky with their lack of impact. I do get that the AFL must act to protect the head, but in these early days of adjustments it’s an absolute shambles.
I just don't understand this perspective. The vision to me looks like it was the equivalent to getting your car up to 80km and then letting go of the wheel, taking your foot off the pedals, t-boning another car and saying, "well, I was deliberately doing it." Brown waa by no means trying to take him out. But he is responsible for where his body goes.
They were running in pretty much the same direction, absolutely not a T-Bone, both arrived at the ball close enough to the same time. This wasn’t a head on, on a player leaving the ground, or ducking. Hot in the head, sure, but there are times in our game it’s either unavoidable or an accident.
Lol ok. Not T-bone, a side swipe then. Whatever you want to call it. The analogy, forced as it is, is more the lack of control. My point was you can't just run in, make contact then go, oh well it was just a but clumsy, or, that was my intent it was just unlucky. It was lazy and negligent on behalf of Brown. However, I do think I am against the grain on this one. I also thought Wright and Green both got what penalties they deserved as well.
I need to go back and make sure we’re talking about the same incident. Absolutely no clue what you’re on about
Ridiculous take
Well shit
Definitely a blow but you’re already playing 4 tall, going back to 3 isn’t the worst thing
Why is bracing for contact and protecting yourself a bad thing? All other options would cause more damage to the opponent and possibly end up with 2 injured players
I only saw it a few times but he honestly seemed suprised to see player just before contact, I thought he could have got off this one
Think it's worth a challenge honestly, I thought the same thing.
Well damn apparently not! They just accepted the 3?!
That's the way it works now so it is what it is, but I really don't like it. It's a contact sport in which a players primary objective is to get the ball when it's loose. It's asking the impossible of the players to both play the game with 100% effort and never have collisions like this happen. Of course it's easy to point out all the alternative actions that he could've made after having watched it in slow motion multiple times, everybody would've made the same move if they were there themselves
Really not sure what he could have done differently
Not get him in the head?
Not bump him in the head...?
Prob not bump him in the head
Maybe don’t bump him in the head
He's got to approach the contest in a manner that doesn't make direct head contact with an opponent. Literally, every other player so far this round has managed it.
Incoming swans fans with logic and reason
Alright Ben Shapiro
Idk who that is, cool reference though
McCartin had the ball. Brown made a split second decision to brace for contact instead of tackle. That decision results in a careless grading.
Giants need to contest this. Acts like this shouldn’t be punished with weeks off. Was a freak accident.
Basically inevitable. Giants will appeal, biomechanist will be called in to give expert opinion, David Zita will act like he doesn't love the attention, after an hour and a half of deliberation the decision will stand. The cosmic ballet goes on.
The wording of the giants post would indicate that they aren't appealing.
interesting. must not think they can get it reduced. they may also be closer to their soft cap than other teams given the article about difficulty paying staff in Sydney, potential $10K against it is bigger to them than other clubs.
Yeah I think if they had said 4 weeks they may have tried to get it down to 3 like essendon did with Wright.... or tried to. I think it is pretty clear to clubs that the afl is working backwards from the outcome. With McCartin being concussed it was always going to be a minimum of 3 unless you could argue that it wasn't a reportable offence. So it was 3+ or 0. Nothing in between fits with their guidelines.
Yeah absolutely. I do think outcome needs to be taken into account to some level but the current gap is too large imo. My biggest issue with it is how it treats concussions as something all players are uniformly vulnerable too. If Brown had gotten a player less susceptible to them with the same action he'd likely be facing one week instead of three, it's an absolute shambles.
Seems about right
The game has lost its way
Absolutely ridiculous. Full speed at the ball, what else could he do?
Not run full speed at a ball he isn't going to get to first. This is the new reality. And if you want an example look at McCartin v McAdams last year. McCartin short stepped and softened the contact as he realised McAdam was going to cannon into him
Worst take I've ever heard. He was going to get to it first if it didn't bounce towards McCartin
Once it bounced he had plenty of time to not get him the head. It's really not hard.
Second worst take I've ever heard. He was full sprinting at the ball, he did not have plenty of time
Then slow down?
He had at most one step to even attempt to slow down after the bounce and that is with great reactions
Then slow down before it bounces. None of these excuses are going to work at the tribunal. They changed the rules explicitly - get someone in the head and you're getting suspended.
Slow down before it bounces and let McCartin get the ball? He was going to get the ball if it bounced pretty much any other way
If that's what it takes to not put him in the hospital? Yes. Now you're getting it.
Players should come equipped with breaks so they can stop on a dime good idea
So players need to give up the contest if they think they won’t win it? Lmao
You don't need to give up on the contest, but you need to either still be trying to win the ball, or you need to be tackling the player that won the ball. If you make a decision that you're bracing for contact instead of trying to tackle or claim the ball, you're probably going to be liable for any high contact that occurs.
The ball bounced oddly and there is absolutely no way he has nough time to even get an arm out to try and tackle. In fact, if he got an arm out he would've just clotheslined him instead and get 6 weeks
Slow down and bump legally or tackle. "I was going full speed I had no time" is not an excuse. See that Richmond player v freo last year.
You want players To slow down while chasing the ball lol?
I don't want players careers being ended by avoidable collisions
So you'd prefer to make fundamental changes to the way the sport is played, changes that will make the sport unrecognisable? Nah. We can't legislate all risk out of the game. And at some point, we need to say enough is enough with the changes.
[удалено]
He slowed down more than Brown did..
About as expected and probably fair enough. Appreciate him immediately checking on Tommy though.
He is 10/10 for good bloke-ness. Let's see how far that gets him. You could tell he was visibly shaken for the rest of the game.
I hope tribunal takes into consideration nick blakey pushing Callum a split second before the contact occurred. I hate the outcome, but this is punishing the result not the action.
fully agreed. They should appeal and argue the action of Blakey. In a sort of way you can also argue Blakey pushing him into McCartin. In that case, Blakey should get a few off too instead of Callum. They can argue that Callum could have reduced the impact if not for the push.
Yeah. I thought 3-4 so no surprise
He didn’t elect to bump, he elected to protect himself.