He calls me a troll then runs off when I respond to him. It's never gets old for me.That's how you know you are winning.
Classic response; mock, sneer, attack and never make an argument deeper than it just is!
-
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
Under the rules, it would have been a free kick and 50-metre penalty, wouldn't it? So not legal?
It's 3 years later & concussion is front & centre. Broady is caught in a perfect storm. I'm expecting 4 + unfortunately.
It's a shithouse situation & he's going to pay dearly.
I’m thinking 5 weeks.
the AFL will be doing their usual schtick
I have a feeling that if it were Patrick Dangerfield instead of Nathan Broad, people wouldn't be calling for such a harsh punishment.
Not if he made reasonable contact, ball is within 5 metres so he can make contact with him, get in his path and stop him running on. That would happen 300 times a game, it's just not usually done with a running leap and an elbow.
Say what you want about King. But he has been demanding harsher penalties to protect the head for years against just about every guilty case. And he has a point.
He was very strong on Stewart getting 6 minimum don't forget.
What he thinks Broad deserves is only falling into line with every other one of his examples.
I have no problem with Broad getting 3 or 4 weeks. The problem I have is the inconsistencies the AFL imposes. The punish the outcome and not the action.
The jungle drums are beating for poor old Broady. ESPN saying minimum 5. I can understand it and don't disagree with with the basic rationale, but as usual the lack of planning, inconsistency and reactiveness is what frustrates me.
This has been brewing away for years, the rationale and the incident itself are not new. As I said earlier, if the AFL were serious and competent about it, a sling tackle should be a one or two week suspension regardless based purely on the act, then additional penalty based on harm, and it would have been that way for a couple of seasons already. But no, they talk around in circles, have no clear plan and here we are, a reactive media storm test case that shouldn't be.
This has been brewing away for years, the rationale and the incident itself are not new. As I said earlier, if the AFL were serious and competent about it, a sling tackle should be a one or two week suspension regardless based purely on the act, then additional penalty based on harm, and it would have been that way for a couple of seasons already. But no, they talk around in circles, have no clear plan and here we are, a reactive media storm test case that shouldn't be.
I take your point, but if he wants Broad to cop 6, then he should have demanded Stewart cop 10, not 6.
How else can you do it though?
Like would you give the Port player who did the slam tackle 4 weeks as well because he might have knocked him out?
Because wouldn't the logical defence then be but I was careful not to hit him hard enough to do damage, which is why he is ok?
I don't see how you could prosecute the case. You can give a minimal penalty for something that might hurt someone sure, but to give a larger penalty it has to be based on what damage is done I reckon.
Seriously. It is not logical. There have been tackles exactly like Broad's that did no damage. You and I can make judgements on the potential for any given tackle to do damage, well I can anyway. To be clear, it should be a consideration, definately, but the current all-or-nothing approach is not logical and I'd argue strongly that its not tenable. Especially not now.
Two people are out on the street, one is brandishing a machete in a threatening manner, one is carrying a letter opener in their pocket, do we treat these equally because nobody was stabbed?
How else can we do it you ask? By making judgements, assessments. You talking as if its some new radical concept, it aint.
Last edited:
'Outcome' is in part dumb luck - how a guy falls, etc..
think about the 'potential to cause injury' blurb that got dragged out sometime back ...
the parameters set in place by the MRP are too flexible and too open to interpretation
it's like trying to control the weather. the answer? Who The F knows?
No but if you wave your machete around you'll get a minor charge, if you stab someone with it you'll get a bigger charge and if you kill them you'll get a bigger charge again.
Absolutely there's luck but that's just life. If Broad did exactly the same thing and the bloke was unhurt on Saturday he would be looking at 2 weeks because he did something dangerous. I'd be comfortable with that. Would we all be relaxed about him getting 4 weeks if the player wasn't hurt?
I see the problems with the MRP in the execution not the philosophy.
Exactly. So you are agreeing with me. Letter opener guy, who you neglected to mention for some strange reason
, gets off, machete guy gets minor charge, based NOT, my dear TBR, on the wounding of anyone, BUT, based on a JUDGEMENT of intensity, intent and extent and potential of the act.I agree, of course, even though you lobbed it in as a clunky attempt to muddy the waters when it does no such thing, that if harm does occur, there will be bigger charges.
Again, to be crystal clear, harm done should be a consideration, but not the only consideration. Your contention that harm is proof of negligence, and conversely no harm is proof of care, is ludicrous and untenable.
Last edited:
Exactly. So you are agreeing with me. Letter opener guy, who you neglected to mention for some strange reason
I agree, of course, even though you lobbed it in as a clunky attempt to muddy the waters when it does no such thing, that if harm does occur, there will be bigger charges.
Again, to be crystal clear, harm done should be a consideration, but not the only consideration. Your contention that harm is proof of negligence, and conversely no harm is proof of care, is ludicrous and untenable.
A letter opener isn't illegal though so in this scenario that is a fair bump, play on.
So am I understanding your position correctly, that you think Broad should get the same penalty regardless of what happened to the player?
If that was a 6 week act, then he should get 6 weeks regardless of if the player got up and played on?
