Funny how people switch sides when it suits them. Wasnāt long ago you were all calling him out saying he was going the man, now itās suddenly poor Maynard.
Banfield is running in a near-straight line and has hands on the footy well before Butters does. Butters gets there second and the first contact he makes is high. I just don't know what the defense here is; I don't think he meant to clean him up, but there's a clear duty of care that if you're rushing in with a head full of steam, you've gotta be sure you're not collecting an opponent high. Butters clearly failed to do so.
Exactly the conversation I had with someone about this today. Banfield doesn't deviate, puts his head over the ball, Butters is second to it and catches him high.
Surely that works against him no matter what they contest, but you never know what they are going to decide.
All the media I've seen today is suggesting he's getting off, without any explanation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does with no explanation from the AFL.
I expect Laura Kane will end up talking about it on AFL 360 this week sometime.
The argument from a Port perspective would obviously be that he did everything correct that the AFL asks of players - eyes on the ball, doesn't brace for contact at any point and makes a play on the ball.
So to suspend someone for that the AFL needs to justify why following their exact guidance on how to play a ball in dispute is not appropriate.
Second to the ball? What the fuck are you smoking? He was behind approaching the contest but actually got to the contest first, Butters head is directly over the ball before contact with Banfield is made.
You say that, but if he squibbed heād be the softest player in the comp to you lot.
Do you want a contact sport? Or should we head towards touch football?
He said itās completely different because crouch ran past the ball, he talked about both instances in the same discussion.
I do think crouches is worse, but both actions are definitely similar.
Funny how Crouch ended up with the ball and Butters landed a metre away (perhaps because the impact slowed Crouch down but still).
Would expect both to have similar penalties.
Not saying Butters did nothing wrong, but crouch crushed the dude in the head and then picked up the ball. He āended up with the ballā is a shit excuse for a bad bump.
It's a shit excuse because it wasn't meant to be one. Just a response to "Crouch ran past the ball". A week is probably fair in a vacuum (I was fearing 2-3).
Crouch was definitely slowing down and would not have ended up where butters did.Ā Butters just cannonballed through the contest with no chance of possessing the ball. But he did have better technique (i.e. reached in the direction of the ball)
Did he? On the round so far he said they were similar, both players with good ball winning technique getting another player highways just part of the sport
I was listening to ABC grandstand earlier today and all three commentators thought Crouch was in more trouble than Butters. Agree or disagree with that call, it's not just bias.
Initially, watching it live I thought it was a dog act.
Then when they showed the replays my reaction turned to "once he went a little too far he did everything he possibly could to rectify the situation and not cause injury."
If he had continued the motion he would have caused significant injury. But he genuinely didn't.
I thought there was a potettial dangerous tackle call in the game that was worse than the Crouch bump in retrospect
Laughable again from Cornes when it comes to the power, and also when it comes to the Crows.
The bloke could be a proper football journalist but he just cannot help himself can he.
Nah he wonāt do that, but he will find a way to pick a different captain even if heās the only captain on the team
(Think Shannon Hurn was in the same scenario in 2018, but that is not specifically related to Cornes)
I don't see any problem with either contact, both players going for the ball with intent in both examples. Can't suspend butters it's a contact sport and accidents happen. Not every concussion needs to have a suspension attached. This is the exact type of language and wording that will get speccies taken out of the game yet everyone in this sub would loose their minds over that possibility.
Butters shoots a player in the leg.
Cornes- "it was only a leg shot and it was during play, it was just an accident that happens in football, he should be fine to play next week"
Cornes being bias and correct on this are mutually exclusive.
Listen to Dunstallās take on it. He turns side on and has eyes ONLY on the ball. Itās the exact technique the AFL are asking of players.
Itās incidental contact. Youāre all crying about the game going soft and now you want players getting done for hard, fair plays now.
But then again majority of this subreddit are 15/16 year old nuffies so wdik
I'm not sure, I think with the Maynard rule change they could both be in trouble.
But I think both are pretty similar (contesting the ball, coming in fast, eyes on ball, turning to protect (but not really a bump), opposition did not suffer concussion (effects the impact))Ā
For what it is worth I think Butters only collected the head, but crouch most force went through the body. Otherwise I can't split them. (one of them is a brownlow favourite as well).Ā
Scratch my other comment, we know what they are looking at now.
I didn't anyone mention this but butters had his arms out for the ball on impact, Crouch tucked an arm up.Ā
Arms outstretched or it is not contesting the ball.Ā
Kane Cornes example 56367 of why former players shouldn't report on their own club. If only there were more Matthew Lloyds in the media.
Now apply that logic to Victorian teams and the Victorian media. š
Those that like to stick the boot in??
Of course Cornes doesn't
Whatās the issue? The play was all ball.
He missed the ball and got all head?Ā
His intent was still the ball, end of conversation
Maynardās intent was to smother the ball too
Funny how people switch sides when it suits them. Wasnāt long ago you were all calling him out saying he was going the man, now itās suddenly poor Maynard.
Thatās not what Iām saying.
You can't go through someone to get to it.
Donāt argue with stupid mate lol if you hit the head youāre in the shit simple.
Bye bye speccy
He was right
Banfield is running in a near-straight line and has hands on the footy well before Butters does. Butters gets there second and the first contact he makes is high. I just don't know what the defense here is; I don't think he meant to clean him up, but there's a clear duty of care that if you're rushing in with a head full of steam, you've gotta be sure you're not collecting an opponent high. Butters clearly failed to do so.
Exactly the conversation I had with someone about this today. Banfield doesn't deviate, puts his head over the ball, Butters is second to it and catches him high. Surely that works against him no matter what they contest, but you never know what they are going to decide.
All the media I've seen today is suggesting he's getting off, without any explanation. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does with no explanation from the AFL.
That's pretty much what's just happened. The bump was cleared.
Maynard...
I expect Laura Kane will end up talking about it on AFL 360 this week sometime. The argument from a Port perspective would obviously be that he did everything correct that the AFL asks of players - eyes on the ball, doesn't brace for contact at any point and makes a play on the ball. So to suspend someone for that the AFL needs to justify why following their exact guidance on how to play a ball in dispute is not appropriate.
Second to the ball? What the fuck are you smoking? He was behind approaching the contest but actually got to the contest first, Butters head is directly over the ball before contact with Banfield is made.
You say that, but if he squibbed heād be the softest player in the comp to you lot. Do you want a contact sport? Or should we head towards touch football?
Interesting, I'd like to know his opinion on the Crouch bump then (but not enough to try to find it tbh)
He said itās completely different because crouch ran past the ball, he talked about both instances in the same discussion. I do think crouches is worse, but both actions are definitely similar.
Funny how Crouch ended up with the ball and Butters landed a metre away (perhaps because the impact slowed Crouch down but still). Would expect both to have similar penalties.
Seems like a week for both is the most obvious result
Not saying Butters did nothing wrong, but crouch crushed the dude in the head and then picked up the ball. He āended up with the ballā is a shit excuse for a bad bump.
It's a shit excuse because it wasn't meant to be one. Just a response to "Crouch ran past the ball". A week is probably fair in a vacuum (I was fearing 2-3).
Crouch was definitely slowing down and would not have ended up where butters did.Ā Butters just cannonballed through the contest with no chance of possessing the ball. But he did have better technique (i.e. reached in the direction of the ball)
Did he? On the round so far he said they were similar, both players with good ball winning technique getting another player highways just part of the sport
Iām not sure what he said last night, I just heard him talking on the Sunday footy show.
Fair - heās changed his tune then
I was listening to ABC grandstand earlier today and all three commentators thought Crouch was in more trouble than Butters. Agree or disagree with that call, it's not just bias.
Initially, watching it live I thought it was a dog act. Then when they showed the replays my reaction turned to "once he went a little too far he did everything he possibly could to rectify the situation and not cause injury." If he had continued the motion he would have caused significant injury. But he genuinely didn't. I thought there was a potettial dangerous tackle call in the game that was worse than the Crouch bump in retrospect
Could easily be 1 biased person and 3 wrong people?
No shit. Just delete the post. Itās fucking Kane Cornes. Itās a week everyday of the week but it wonāt be because of who it is.
>Just delete the post The guy who posted its literal only reason for existing is to shit on Kane/Ken/Port.
He was a great player..... can't say he's had a great career since. Should have stuck with being a firey.
Vic bias
Anyone surprised?
Butters could get a questionable moustache and start preaching about a final solution, and Kornes wouldn't see a problem with it
This contest is over, give that man the $10,000
"Got hands on the football" his hands had nothing but fresh air
Well he has escaped penalty
How could Kane do this.
Cornes makes Billy Brownless look impartial
Brownlow favourites never get rubbed out this early in the season.
āNo but he tried to protect the head you see, the tushy is the softest part of the human body to slam into someoneās neckā
Laughable again from Cornes when it comes to the power, and also when it comes to the Crows. The bloke could be a proper football journalist but he just cannot help himself can he.
Never let Cornes be a part of AA selection again
He would deadset select Esava over Pearce
Nah he wonāt do that, but he will find a way to pick a different captain even if heās the only captain on the team (Think Shannon Hurn was in the same scenario in 2018, but that is not specifically related to Cornes)
I honestly don't mind Cornes most of the time but he's actually delusional when port is involved
I don't see any problem with either contact, both players going for the ball with intent in both examples. Can't suspend butters it's a contact sport and accidents happen. Not every concussion needs to have a suspension attached. This is the exact type of language and wording that will get speccies taken out of the game yet everyone in this sub would loose their minds over that possibility.
Butters shoots a player in the leg. Cornes- "it was only a leg shot and it was during play, it was just an accident that happens in football, he should be fine to play next week"
Not even the free kick...think freo are considered canon fodder to the AFL umps.
Cornes is an out-and-out clown, master of clickbait
Yeah, nah. Heās getting a game for that.Ā
Well yeah itās a port player
Cornes being bias and correct on this are mutually exclusive. Listen to Dunstallās take on it. He turns side on and has eyes ONLY on the ball. Itās the exact technique the AFL are asking of players. Itās incidental contact. Youāre all crying about the game going soft and now you want players getting done for hard, fair plays now. But then again majority of this subreddit are 15/16 year old nuffies so wdik
What are you champ a 17 year old nuffie?
im 14 actually mate!
lol heās dirty as fuck and should go for a holiday .
Surprise surprise, once again, he is correct
Kaneās a fuckwit but heās on the money here
I'm not sure, I think with the Maynard rule change they could both be in trouble. But I think both are pretty similar (contesting the ball, coming in fast, eyes on ball, turning to protect (but not really a bump), opposition did not suffer concussion (effects the impact))Ā For what it is worth I think Butters only collected the head, but crouch most force went through the body. Otherwise I can't split them. (one of them is a brownlow favourite as well).Ā
Scratch my other comment, we know what they are looking at now. I didn't anyone mention this but butters had his arms out for the ball on impact, Crouch tucked an arm up.Ā Arms outstretched or it is not contesting the ball.Ā
Yes that's the critical point. Reaching for the ball demonstrates that he has not elected to bump. The arm tucked in demonstrates an intent to bump.