Well, we're asking the question.
https://i.ibb.co/C99szfw/Screen-Shot...1-03-40-PM.png
Printable View
Well, we're asking the question.
https://i.ibb.co/C99szfw/Screen-Shot...1-03-40-PM.png
Good.
Even the accepting of an early suspension vs risking an additional week is complete bullshit as a concept. You have highly questionable decisions on inconsistently ruled matters and you risk an additional week just for asking a reasonable question?
It's a complete shitshow.
That is a long bow to draw.
Smith was unaware and basically turned into Atley.
There are incidents that are unavoidable but Crozier did apply a slinging motion, although i do agree that his tackle was certainly on the lighter end of any scale of such tackles.
You could argue it's on the onus of the tackler not to tackle a player who is completely unaware he is about to be tackled. Obviously i'm purely playing devils advocate and that would be a ridiculous expectation but the comparison is somewhat relevant.
The thing with Crozier's tackle is also that his momentum was going in the direction of the supposed "swing". It would be very difficult for him to stop his momentum and apply an effective tackle. I think he did as much as he could to not hurt the guy. I can see both sides of the coin but if he gets a week for that it's going to set an interesting precedent for tackling going forward.
Yes I think that's right. I certainly wouldn't advocate Atley being in any trouble for it, however it was deemed a legal tackle that caused a serious head injury. That was my comparison in saying I believe Crozier also tackled legally, between the knees and shoulders; the discussion point being the perceived sling/momentum into the turf. No one likes to see head injuries but it happens during fair play. I'm glad we challenged be interesting to see what arguments we use at the tribunal. Good discussion.
There are precedents and Bulldog precedents.
With the MRO we are much more likely to cop the suspension, evidence Hunter, Cordy, Redpath and Hayes.
Unfortunately we can't actually challenge someone else getting off even if the tribunal affirms the suspension.
It won't prevent the profile player exemption being applied in the future.
If the tackle had been laid by Bont or Shaun Higgins, I feel confident it would have been no case to answer.
If the suspension is upheld the precedent is that ANY tackle that results in a player hitting their head on the ground with a reasonable amount of force will be a suspension, regardless of how the tackle is executed. I think that is a ridiculous precedent.
On one hand they adjust the holding the ball interpretation to reward the tackler and on the other they want to punish tacklers for reasonably executed tackles that may occasionally be unfortunate enough to cause injury.
When do we find out about Crozier?
Tribunal on now