Welcome to the Tigers Nathan Broad

[TigerFlag2017]

x2.

I put Broady aside. Given what we now know about concussion, I want to see bumps/excessive tackles reduced and concussion become a rare event, not a weekly event.

The initial tackle was the football act. Perfect - arms pinned, going nowhere. Why he then flipped him and slammed his head into the ground is beyond me. The more I watch it, the worse it gets.

 

[Redford]

Yeah, 3 weeks is fair. Cop it, don't whinge and move on.

Yep. Gotta suck this one up.

 

[eZyT]

Pretty kind description of it, I think.



Stewart's was a body check after he had just knocked the ball on, to stop him going forward for next possession. It is a staple act for every single player and happens non-stop all game. If Stewart had done it in the usual way and just blocked him no-one would have ever noticed it happened.

It was a football act deplorably executed in a violent way that caused great harm to a vulnerable opponent, which is exactly what Broad's tackle is.



I reckon there's the same chance of that as Scott's saying 'knock out Prestia'.

Well have to agree to disagree on this one

 

[Brodders17]

I probably have b;ack and yellow coloured glasses on, but i reckon he is a bit unlucky. He tackled the guy and tried to pull him down. he couldnt, ball was still in play so he turned him. I dont reckon he lifted and dumped him, i dont reckon he drove him into the ground.

i think it was more a poorly executed tackle in the end, rather than a malicious or aggressive act. but obviously he did have his arms pinned, and he did tackle him to he ground and the crows head hit the ground, so the suspension is warranted.

 

[mrposhman]

Yeah, 3 weeks is fair. Cop it, don't whinge and move on.

In isolation I would agree, but bearing in mind what Pickett got last week (he was lucky IMO, as he could easily have broken a jaw / caused a massive concussion, accelerating in an upward motion into a contest is incredibly dangerous), and what Stewart got last year, its really hard to take that we get punished correctly, and other players appear to get off very easily.

Pickett last week for example, probably couldn't say accept quick enough when he got offered 2 weeks.

 

[Tigertool]

I probably have b;ack and yellow coloured glasses on, but i reckon he is a bit unlucky. He tackled the guy and tried to pull him down. he couldnt, ball was still in play so he turned him. I dont reckon he lifted and dumped him, i dont reckon he drove him into the ground.

i think it was more a poorly executed tackle in the end, rather than a malicious or aggressive act. but obviously he did have his arms pinned, and he did tackle him to he ground and the crows head hit the ground, so the suspension is warranted.

I don't think Broad was unlucky. Broad had him basically over the boundary line already which made it look pointless and even worse.

Broad doesn't lift him, but he absolutely makes a second action to flip him hard. It's a 4 weeker in my eyes.

 

[eZyT]

The half page photo on p36 of todays Age

Clearly shows Parnells arms were not pinned

Dunno if that is a defence at the tribunal,

But it a defence to those saying

His arms were pinned

 

[spook]

I know this will be impossible to take for plenty but there's not a lot of difference to the Stewart/Prestia one in a lot of ways.

Two players in vulnerable positions knocked unconscious by acts that are really just violence dressed up as football acts.

Except Broad's was a football act because the Adelaide player had the ball. Stewart's was not because Dion was nowhere near the ball. It was behind the play, off the ball, assault.

 

[tigersnake]

Within the schiztophrenic, idiosyncratic internal logic of the AFL, its 3 weeks. Sling tackle + no injury = free kick, sling tackle + knocked out = 2 weeks, Richmond player + media judgement = 1 week. = 3 weeks.

If the AFL were serious, and logical, a sling tackle would be a 1or 2 week suspension, regardless of outcome. Outcome is mostly accidental, its just how the cards fall.

As I've said before, if this logic had always existed, Des Tuddenham would have been suspended for breaking MacClure's arm with his head.

 

[wigglyworm]

Its a free hit against Richmond. The AFL will be demanding 5-6 weeks. We will be lucky to get it back to 4.

Anyone who thinks they will just agree at 3 hasnt been watching the AFL trying to ream us over the last 5 years

 

[mrposhman]

Within the schiztophrenic, idiosyncratic internal logic of the AFL, its 3 weeks. Sling tackle + no injury = free kick, sling tackle + knocked out = 2 weeks, Richmond player + media judgement = 1 week. = 3 weeks.

If the AFL were serious, and logical, a sling tackle would be a 1or 2 week suspension, regardless of outcome. Outcome is mostly accidental, its just how the cards fall.

As I've said before, if this logic had always existed, Des Tuddenham would have been suspended for breaking MacClure's arm with his head.

Agree, you look at the 2 actions at the weekend. I'd love to know the difference in the action between Broad and Burton. The actions look identical for me. 1 gets 2 weeks, the other 1, some in the media are calling for 6!! Was the action REALLY that much different to result in a tripling of the penalty.

Geez, even Andrew Gaff when he punched a guy and broke his jaw only got 8 weeks!! How is it even possible that people are talking about 6 weeks for this!!

 

[TigerForce]

Yeah, 3 weeks is fair. Cop it, don't whinge and move on.

+ Richmond factor = 4 weeks...you watch.

 

[Sintiger]

In isolation I would agree, but bearing in mind what Pickett got last week (he was lucky IMO, as he could easily have broken a jaw / caused a massive concussion, accelerating in an upward motion into a contest is incredibly dangerous), and what Stewart got last year, its really hard to take that we get punished correctly, and other players appear to get off very easily.

Pickett last week for example, probably couldn't say accept quick enough when he got offered 2 weeks.

This

The outlier here is Pickett who should have got 3 weeks, not Broad . Airborn bump to defenceless player, maybe even 4 weeks would have been right

 

[MD Jazz]

Except Broad's was a football act because the Adelaide player had the ball. Stewart's was not because Dion was nowhere near the ball. It was behind the play, off the ball, assault.

Yeh, other than that pretty much the same. Broad should have got 4.

TBR taking his contrarianism to new levels. The Buffet of PRE.

 

[MD Jazz]

The AFL are so predictable. They *smile* up week 1 penalties so in week 2 produce a record penalty for a "sling" tackle that didn't involve much slinging nor driving nor dumping. Yes he should have been suspended but it's far from the worst example you will see.

They never fail to deliver.

 

[The Big Richo]

Except Broad's was a football act because the Adelaide player had the ball. Stewart's was not because Dion was nowhere near the ball. It was behind the play, off the ball, assault.

Your memory is failing you, the ball was comfortably within 5 metres, fair contact was perfectly legal.

 

[The Big Richo]

Stewart was regretful; in shock; was pouring his heart out
Etc etc.

We've had Broad apologise to his coach and the opposition coach and the player so far, if we are smart he will front up today and face the music. Would have been a good idea to do so yesterday.

 

[tigersnake]

Your memory is failing you, the ball was comfortably within 5 metres, fair contact was perfectly legal.

Probably within 5 metres, but comfortably is a stretch. More importantly, what has fair contact got to do with anything? Anyone with a brain can see its very late, consciously late, and intentional.

 

[TT33]

Your memory is failing you, the ball was comfortably within 5 metres, fair contact was perfectly legal.

But the contact was to the head which is supposed to be sacrosanct, Stewart also jumped into the air to make contact which is also supposedly no longer allowed.
Sorry TBR I sometimes agree with you but definitely not On this occasion, imo it was a callous act on Stewart's part, he was very lucky to only get 4 games suspension.

 

[The Big Richo]

More importantly, what has fair contact got to do with anything?

The original point was they were both potential legal acts if executed fairly, but they were both executed unfairly and violently and knocked their opponents out. Fundamentally the two incidents aren't that different.