whelan on ball again

[Dan Warna]

what alternatives did ball have?

could he have dodged whelan? given whelan didn't line up ball as the tribunal found, ball would have had a fraction of a second to respond so no.

could he back raised his arm to protect himself? well powell was suspended for protecting himself with a raised arm.

the reason whelan was not guilty was he didn't line up ball, and ball wasn't aware enough of his surounds...

if ball was aware what could he do except raise his arm?

as a result of whelans hit ball may have suffered permanent brain damage, missed effectively a month of footy (he was brought back early but had little effect) suffered some internal bleeding and a bruised brain.

what else was whelan aiming for? was he aiming for balls chest? was he aiming for the footy?

what was whelan doing?

saints players get no protection.

when I consider that Ball may have been lost to the game and his own health permanently, when he is clearly a highly intelligent athlete, and according to the tribunal whelan has nothing to answer for, what exactly are the rules to protect the guy who goes for the ball?

people are being suspended for blocks, tummy punches, attempted punches but a blow to the head on someone going for the ball is the fault of the ball gatherer for not enough self awareness?

surely this is a significant flaw in the system?

[Life Long Saint]

Geez, Dan...It's lucky that Pharlap is enclosed in a glass cabinet at Melbourne Museum otherwise you'd spend all day flogging him too!

Was there any need to open up a new thread on this when you've already raised the issue in the Buchannan thread?

[mad saint guy]

Whelan's bump was rough but fair. Stop whinging.

[rodgerfox]

Whelan's bump was rough but fair. Stop whinging.

Fair?

How so?

He got him in the head. Ball went off and had brain bruising due to the impact.

Whelan chose to bump Ball. He also chose to leave the ground. He knew that the consequences could result in injury - and they did.

Based on the fact that Baker got weeks for performing an illegal act (blocking) which resulted in another player being injured, Whelan's wasn't fair at all.

He got him high, so it was illegal for a start. Therefore, the fact that Ball was knocked out meant Whelan's actions were at the very, very least negligent.

[Mr Magic]

Whelan's bump was rough but fair. Stop whinging.

Fair?

How so?

He got him in the head. Ball went off and had brain bruising due to the impact.

Whelan chose to bump Ball. He also chose to leave the ground. He knew that the consequences could result in injury - and they did.

Based on the fact that Baker got weeks for performing an illegal act (blocking) which resulted in another player being injured, Whelan's wasn't fair at all.

He got him high, so it was illegal for a start. Therefore, the fact that Ball was knocked out meant Whelan's actions were at the very, very least negligent.

]

As far as I can see the difference, there was video for the Whelan/Ball incident which meant it was referred to the MRP, whilst there was no video of the Baker/Farmer incident so it was not referred to teh MRP.

On the face of it , it would appear there is a difference of opinion between the MRP and the Tribunal about 'blocking'.

[Dan Warna]

from those who have seen the footage as I have, outside not going for the ball in the first place, what could ball have done to avoid contact, or defend himself that was legal?

[Unforgiven]

lol from round 1? let it go. Fair bump, unlucky for ball.

[rodgerfox]

lol from round 1? let it go. Fair bump, unlucky for ball.

Fair?

Since when are you allowed to bump someone in the head?

[Unforgiven]

lol from round 1? let it go. Fair bump, unlucky for ball.

Fair?

Since when are you allowed to bump someone in the head?

They clashed heads, he wasn't going for balls skull. That was accidental.

If he was going for balls head why didnt he just king hit him or something in that manner.

[Mr Magic]

lol from round 1? let it go. Fair bump, unlucky for ball.

Fair?

Since when are you allowed to bump someone in the head?

They clashed heads, he wasn't going for balls skull. That was accidental.

If he was going for balls head why didnt he just king hit him or something in that manner.

Like Baker on Farmer?

[Unforgiven]

lol from round 1? let it go. Fair bump, unlucky for ball.

Fair?

Since when are you allowed to bump someone in the head?

They clashed heads, he wasn't going for balls skull. That was accidental.

If he was going for balls head why didnt he just king hit him or something in that manner.

Like Baker on Farmer?

Pretty much.

The bump onball had malicious intent no doubt, but it wasn't to take balls head off, it was to lay the solid bump to the body, they clashed heads in a whiplash like motion.

I dislike seeing our players get injured in this manner, Like Kosi n ball (gia on kosi), but this is football, the bumps layed were fair, the result was unlucky our way. Id expect out players to do the same thing in the other position, if they go for the body and heads clip its unlucky.

[satchmo]

if they go for the body and heads clip its unlucky.

It's also reportable. But given the susspension given to Baker, we can think ourselves lucky that Luke wasn't susspended.

[rodgerfox]

Like Baker on Farmer?

Pretty much.

The bump onball had malicious intent no doubt, but it wasn't to take balls head off, it was to lay the solid bump to the body, they clashed heads in a whiplash like motion.

I dislike seeing our players get injured in this manner, Like Kosi n ball (gia on kosi), but this is football, the bumps layed were fair, the result was unlucky our way. Id expect out players to do the same thing in the other position, if they go for the body and heads clip its unlucky.

So the bump was malicious, and got him in the head. Knocked him out cold.

But was fair?

It is not fair to get someone in the head whether you intend to or not. Whelan got Ball high.

Gia got Kosi high.

Both were collisions which they instigated.

Both resulted in severe head injuries.

Both were not fair. Both were reportable, dangerous and should have resulted in lengthy suspensions.


According to the AFL - the head is sacrosanct.

[joffaboy]

lol from round 1? let it go. Fair bump, unlucky for ball.

Fair?

Since when are you allowed to bump someone in the head?

You are not - and this is the reason why so many Saints fan felt Baker was victimised by the tribunal.

Forget the Kosi bump - that was last year. The AFl came out and made a statement about the head being sacrosanct.

First 5 minutes of the first game Whelan smashes Balls head in. Was it in play? Yes. Was it accidental? Yes. Did Whelan hurt himself? Yes.

All very well and it was indeed accidental, but the AFL chose to ignore it. At the time I thought fair enough, as long as the AFl are consistant.

This is why the AFL lack credibility. It makes a statement, lets a player get away with smashing open the head of a player, and then pulls it back out of their arses when it suits them.

This is the reason so many of us are dissillusioned with the AFL, and Anderson and Dimwit in particular.

The lack of consistancy and credibility lends itself to crys of conspirarcy when it is just gross incompetence.

[Unforgiven]

read what I wrote again instead of being selective. The bump was malicious(well as all bumps in afl are mostly one would think). Thought the intention was not for the head.

''Both were collisions which they instigated.

Both resulted in severe head injuries. ''

well done, that's correct.

Ball was unlucky to cop one in the head. A free kick should've been paid. The intent of Whelan wasn't to knock balls head off.

''According to the AFL - the head is sacrosanct.''

Ben Johsons suspension kinda holds that up.

P.S (I didn't quite as it gets messy and what not with a few quotes)

Also Joffa raises a very good point. Whelan hurt himself, so we I sincerecly doubt he was getting a 20m run up to head but Bally in the head.

[Dan Warna]

the implication from the AFL was Ball had a duty of care to protect himself despite not being the instigator and being targetted.

where was the duty of care for farmer who ran into a stationary baker?

the implication was baker had a duty of care to avoid the contact, even though he was stationary, adna duty of care to avoid head contact.

the implcation was ball had a duty of care despite being the target of an intended block to avoid being hit in the head?

the logic is opposite...

one case a person who is stationary and the instigator of teh strike when a person is running TOWARDS him has the duty of care.

the other case the person who is HIT, has the duty of care to avoid injury?!?!?!!

farmer running in a straight line not looking where he is going smacks of a lack of awareness.

ball was focussing on the footy was struck and the head impact was caused by a lack of care from the targetter...

in boths cases the wrong outcome by natural justice occured.

[Mr Magic]

Maybe I'm being paranoid StCorin, but why is it always Saints players who have serious injuries from questionable collisions where there is no case to answer?

It's not just Whelan/Ball this year.
There was also Burgoyne on Lenny
There was also Johnson(freo) on Sam Gilbert

In both instances the offending player chose to deliver a head-high bump rather than tackle. I'm not a mind reader but I'm pretty confidant that in both cases the offenders chose the path they took BECAUSE IT INFLICTS MORE PAIN AND/OR DAMAGE to the recipient. You cannot get a free kick for bumping someone, only if you tackle them.

In both cases neither offender was 'rubbed out'.

So please explain what the circumstances were that were so different as to allow Baker to be given 4 weeks for his heinous crime?

[Mr Magic]

And apparently the MRP assesed the Buchannan hit as BODY CONTACT.

I'm going to make an appointment with my Optometrist because I was sure I saw Clark assisted from the field after suffering a blow to his head? I'm obviously seeing things that never occured.

[St DAC]

Whelan's shepherd was within 5 metres of the pill; Ball was chasing the Melbourne player, therefore a legitimate target for a shepherd. The head clash was accidental; Whelan hit him in the body with his arms tucked in; it was a fair bump with unfortunate side effects of the head clash.

Who knows what Baker did? Without any vision, how would anyone know? Baker himself says he stepped into Farmer and "blocked" him. Although off the ball (and therefore a free kick if caught) "blocking" is in itself not a reportable offence. Baker was reported for the consequence, not the act. Very poor decision by the AFL IMHO, although given they change the rules as they go along I doubt a similar case will come up in the short term. In essense, Baker got 7 weeks for being Baker. He was shafted, pure and simple. But that being the case doesn't make Whelan's bump on Ball unfair.

[Unforgiven]

So please explain what the circumstances were that were so different as to allow Baker to be given 4 weeks for his heinous crime?

Sorry? bakes 4 weeks(got 7 didnt he?) You means Bakes hit on Farmer?

Yeh we get hit and injured, so do others.

Hamil made Aker injure his AC join by running off the line to hit him
Lenny broke Ruslings Shoulder with a bump
Hamil drove a richmond dude into the ground hurting his shoulders...

This is called football.

[Mr Magic]

So please explain what the circumstances were that were so different as to allow Baker to be given 4 weeks for his heinous crime?

Sorry? bakes 4 weeks(got 7 didnt he?) You means Bakes hit on Farmer?

Yeh we get hit and injured, so do others.

Hamil made Aker injure his AC join by running off the line to hit him
Lenny broke Ruslings Shoulder with a bump
Hamil drove a richmond dude into the ground hurting his shoulders...

This is called football.

No Baker got 4 weeks for his 'block' on Farmer. His carryover and bad record added another 3.

Thank you for the history lesson of injuries delivered by our players. Not that I asked for the information, but thank you anyway.

Now if you would like to answer the question I asked you I would apreciate that also.
What was the difference between what Baker did that earned him 4 weeks and what Whelan did to Ball that was deemed accidental?

[Unforgiven]

I dont see how the Baker incident has many similarities with the Ball incident.

lol we'll I can't compare the 2... because unlike you I assume i didn't actaully see the hit(or was that the whole country as well?).

Bakes is a mongrel and a dirty player. I love him to death and is a great plaer for our club, but I dont wear rose coloured glasses.. Remember bakes hit on Kane Johson in 04, he just run up and smacked him(yes well done Magic man another history lesson from me ).

I think it's a little silly asking me thoughts on the Baker hit, when I didn't see it. My ASSUMPTION is the Baker king hit Farmer to be honest.

You can't compare the 2. As none of us KNOW what happened. Though the Whelan hit we can actaully sit, watch and replay and asses. Though im ment to know what baker actaully did, and then explain the difference?

[Mr Magic]

I dont see how the Baker incident has many similarities with the Ball incident.

lol we'll I can't compare the 2... because unlike you I assume i didn't actaully see the hit(or was that the whole country as well?).

Bakes is a mongrel and a dirty player. I love him to death and is a great plaer for our club, but I dont wear rose coloured glasses.. Remember bakes hit on Kane Johson in 04, he just run up and smacked him(yes well done Magic man another history lesson from me ).

I think it's a little silly asking me thoughts on the Baker hit, when I didn't see it. My ASSUMPTION is the Baker king hit Farmer to be honest.

You can't compare the 2. As none of us KNOW what happened. Though the Whelan hit we can actaully sit, watch and replay and asses. Though im ment to know what baker actaully did, and then explain the difference?

Thank you St Corin for admitting what I suspected.
On this issue you know jacksh!t.

I believe the point of the thread was that how come Baker's incident with Farmer resulted in him being suspended when the Tribunal/MRP have deemed accidentel head clashes to be o.k. this whole season.

You obviously didn't bother to read the OP but decided to add your opinion based on your assumption that Baker is 'a mongrel and a dirty player'. And in this instance you have assumed he is a 'kinghitter' behind play so you probably think he got off lightly?

I hope you have the courage to tell him that if you see him and not just hide behind your keyboard making posts.

I look forward to more history lessons from you in the future though.

[Dan Warna]

the logic is that ball should have been more aware of the hit for one case.

the logic was farmer should have been more aware of the hit in the other case.

farmer/baker based on even the evidence of runner should have been nore more than a free kick down field, not a report or suspension.

if we are having a shot for goal, and our FB drops their FF, they get a shot at goal, simple as that, it should have been a freekick based EVEN on their evidence.

it is not a reportable offense.

[Unforgiven]

Spot on, read a few lines of the OP and posted no doubt about it. No problem admitting it.

Though I was arguing that the hit was fair. Threads evolve as conversation develops.

All I said was the the hit was fair. I didn't relate it to Bakes hit until you raised it to me. Though comparing the 2 is ridiculous.

I added my opionio about the Whelan hit soly on that hit, no other incidents.

Correct I made the assumption the Baker king hit Farmer, I still think it.

Baker is one of my more liked players at the club. Though to say he hasn't been a dirty player isn't the truth. Excuse me if im incorrect, though you yourself may have negative thoughts about players? As I do with Bakes here. Though what is telling him this gonna do? get me king hit probably. I don't claim to be my hero, and when I go to training I don't sit there and go you suck ''so n so'' etc. I also think a lot of positive things about Bakes and do have the courage to tell him those things. It would probably mean jack all to him, but oh well.

Do you mean im not supposed to think or express these things unless I have the balls to tell the player what I think?

Im not a keyboard hero lol. I don't post here and bag players and what not and all that. I have things I dislike or negative views on some, but im not gonna rip into one all thread long. I still think the hit on ball was negative, and going by my opinion on bakes(based on the past and what he has done, it makes logical sense that he possibly did hit farmer).

I got nothing to hide, or anything to hide behind here. Im just sharing my 2cents and shoot me down all you like, thats part of forums. Though don't insinuate im a coward. (maybe we should PM each other if this is gonna continue coz I hate the flame wars of other posters, now im probably just as bad).