remind me what Stewart was trying to execute fairly again?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Welcome to the Tigers Nathan Broad
- Thread starter tigersnake
- Start date
As long as it’s not 4.
The current rules say 3 weeks for severe impact which it was.
Should be obvious to anyone who understands anything about the rules of football.
You can’t take a player out after the ball is disposed. It’s illegal and triggers a down the ground free. The umpires and the tribunal got the Stewart incident completely wrong.
Wasn’t a football act or “body check”. It was a malicious dogs act.
he elbowed Prestia to the head, no body involved so you cant call it a bump gone wrong. any comparison to Broad is ridiculous.
I reckon Stewart was just trying to body check him. Probably happens 100 times a game without issue, but gets undone by Prestia’s height and extremely poor execution.
I don’t see either Stewart’s action as “assault” like some here want to dress it up as. It was clumsy, but he did not intentionally knock Prestia out. Ridiculous for some to imply that was what Stewart was trying to do. 4 week suspension was right for the act given the outcome.
I would also classify Broads charge the same way. Clumsy, not intentional, but it’s probs 4 weeks.
I must be missing something, a body check is usually done with the body not the elbow?
For a bloke who is pretty good at executing all sorts of precise, talented feats on a footy field its amazing he could "unintentinally" get it so wrong.
Deliberately clumsy is a phrase often associated with recidivists like Hawkins and Franklin.
Comparing Broads and Stewarts acts on any level other then outcome for their opponents is nothing more than deliberate trolling.
Had tons of space, looking directly at Prestia, could've tackled but didn't. Intention 100%. Bumps are not clumsy.
I think I can disagree with you without being called a troll.
Initially Prestia looks like he is going to take possession so he would have been looking to tackle. Prestia taps the ball on instead and Stewart has less than a second to change his mind on what hes doing. Clumsy IMO
So shouldn't he be setting up to tackle him?
They train this sort of stuff and have it happen in games all the time, why doesn't this type of clumsy outcome occur more often?
I would have thought he'd commit to that decision once Prestia takes possession. Stewart is sprinting to get to the vicinity to impact on Prestia with that mindset, then commits a poor bump instead once Prestia doesn't take possession. We are talking about a split second contest here. I would be amazed if you honestly think Stewart started running to the contest with the intention of knocking Prestia out.
Do you think every single AFL contest has exactly the same outcome? Broads tackle KO'd Parnell, but you would surely acknowledge that wouldn't knock out every single player in that exact same situation?
Split decisions are made a million times per game that don’t involve running past the ball and lifting your elbow. He didn’t do it to avoid contact and to defend himself, he did it to take Prestia out. That’s illegal and deserving of a down field free kick, which we didn’t get, and a 6 week suspension for smashing a guy in the head with a raised elbow when the ball was not within 5 metres.
You’re not a troll. Just terribly wrong
He changes his mind to an elbow. he doesnt turn side on to try to bump.
he may not have run at the contest with the intention to KO Prestia, but once Prestia taps the ball on, the only action Stewart takes is to raise his elbow.
If it is clumsy, what is it a clumsy attempt to do?
Exactly.
You don't tackle someone by picking them up and slamming their head into the ground either. But a tackle is the right action in that situation, he just did it badly.
In the same way a block is the right action for Stewart in that situation, he just did it badly as well.
In your opinion, but thats fine. From what i've seen of Stewart over his career he seems a pretty clean player to me. Maybe i'll change my mind if I see something else that indicates he wants to knock players out on purpose.
I personally think it's a very poorly executed body check. Players often like to body players after the ball is disposed of, but i think Stewarts speed to get to the contest, Prestia's height and the fact he doesn't take possession has Stewart doing something stupid.
He's such an important player for us & has been really good the past couple of games.
Accidental or not however many games he gets, it hurts us as a team. Don't think he'll do it again in a hurry.
Honestly overall though I just hope Parnell makes a complete recovery from the incident. That is the most important thing.
Accidental or not however many games he gets, it hurts us as a team. Don't think he'll do it again in a hurry.
Honestly overall though I just hope Parnell makes a complete recovery from the incident. That is the most important thing.
Arguing this one will make us look like hypocrites. Could even pull some points back with the HQ if you play this right.
You can't win this one, PR nightmare.
Shame as well that Tom Brown is injured as well, this was his chance. Reckon it's too early for Banks to get a go.
Only based on 2 games, but looks like he's lifted this season.
Yes, but I was giving an example of “potential to do damage” and then it’s not that but “the outcome”
