Author Topic: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]  (Read 15192 times)

Offline the claw

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4259
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #135 on: June 29, 2022, 04:37:26 PM »
Good onya Balmy of course there was no nastiness to it the idea was to knock him over and intimidate and it went wrong.

If the ball was there and we had the same result  i would be saying free kick for high contact and that would be it.

We don't suspend people for high tackles that have gone wrong or do we now?.

Ah well the wowser brigade have had their moment but i don't think they realise the damage they are doing to the game with their hysteria.

Broadsword

  • Guest
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #136 on: June 29, 2022, 05:55:54 PM »
We don't suspend people for high tackles that have gone wrong or do we now?.

Of course we do. What are you proposing--the William Burroughs rule?

"No, your Honour, I know I shot my wife's head off, but it was a drunken game of William Tell gone wrong. There was no intent."

"Oh fair enough, that's fine then."

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98259
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #137 on: June 30, 2022, 04:32:12 AM »
Chris Scott on @thefrontbar7 trying to summarise the Stewart hit on Prestia - and I REALLY wanted to let this incident go - but then he bloody well sums it up through the modern player prism as “two players running full speed” at one another. Seriously?

https://twitter.com/KonradMarshall/status/1542115809027170305


Online Francois Jackson

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14049
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #138 on: June 30, 2022, 07:30:15 AM »
stuffin gaslighter piece of poo this bloke is.

Has anyone got the vision of the final siren in the game? Post that up and see if he anyone has anything positive to say about this scum and his equally scum club

stuff I really hate this football club.
Currently a member of the Roupies, and employed by the great man Roup.

Offline Tigeritis™©®

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9657
  • Richmond, Premiers 2017.2019.2020
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #139 on: June 30, 2022, 08:30:06 AM »
We don't suspend people for high tackles that have gone wrong or do we now?.

Of course we do. What are you proposing--the William Burroughs rule?

"No, your Honour, I know I shot my wife's head off, but it was a drunken game of William Tell gone wrong. There was no intent."

"Oh fair enough, that's fine then."
:lol :rollin
The club that keeps giving.

Offline TigerLand

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5721
  • I <3 Mrs Hardwick
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #140 on: June 30, 2022, 09:28:34 AM »
Sorry but Balme take is crap. Have we forgotten what happened to Shane Tuck? Danny Frawley? And how that has impacted our club and the game in general?

The game has changed. The days of cheering for Scotty Turner absolutely ironing out Gary O'Donnell is gone.
If you choose to bump and hit them in the head you are toast. If you concuss them or knock them out cold you are I enormous trouble.

Nastiness has nothing to do with it. He ran well passed the ball, Intention was to bump, got him high and knocked him out. That's not a footy act anymore and 4 weeks was minimum. If that was Grimes I'd be going you idiot now we are without you for a month.
Go Tigers!

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13305
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #141 on: June 30, 2022, 09:54:54 AM »
He is not wrong with this

“The less power officials have got, the better off we are. That’s only my opinion”.

Their influence on the game has already stuffed the game, would be worse if they decided on send offs

Online Damo

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4499
  • Member of famed “Gang Of Four”. Ground the airbus!
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #142 on: June 30, 2022, 10:10:56 AM »
He is not wrong with this

“The less power officials have got, the better off we are. That’s only my opinion”.

Their influence on the game has already stuffed the game, would be worse if they decided on send offs

Truth

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98259
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #143 on: June 30, 2022, 02:09:07 PM »
Dimma putting Tom Browne back in his place over this :snidegrin.

3:15 min mark https://www.richmondfc.com.au/video/1160770/hardwick-previews-west-coast

------------------------------

Geelong’s All-Australian defender Tom Stewart copped a four-match ban for his heavily-scrutinised bump on Prestia, with calls growing for a send-off rule in the wake of that incident.

“That, to me, is not a Damien Hardwick decision or a Gill McLachlan decision,” Hardwick said.

“That’s an 18-club decision. I think we’ve got to get better at a collaborative approach about it. Let’s figure out what the clubs want. They’re the key stakeholders, so let’s put it to the clubs.”

But Hardwick was keen to “move on” after Stewart received his sanction, arguing it was “a brutal game” and players had only a split second to make on-field decisions.

“Things happen in AFL footy – some good, some bad. What we’ve got to understand is that these things will happen from time to time,” he said.

“Dion won’t play this week. Would I have loved him to be available last week and this week? Absolutely. Sometimes things happen in footy that are unexplainable.

“Tom’s got his four weeks now, so we move on. We’re looking forward to the West Coast game.”

Source: HeraldSun

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58597
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #144 on: June 30, 2022, 05:40:08 PM »
stuffin gaslighter piece of poo this bloke is.

Has anyone got the vision of the final siren in the game? Post that up and see if he anyone has anything positive to say about this scum and his equally scum club

stuff I really hate this football club.
Don't have the vision but Scott was banging on the glass and celebrating like they had won the flag.

How about Selwood laughing and patting Stewart after the siren  ::).

All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Online Francois Jackson

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14049
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #145 on: June 30, 2022, 10:06:57 PM »
stuffin gaslighter piece of poo this bloke is.

Has anyone got the vision of the final siren in the game? Post that up and see if he anyone has anything positive to say about this scum and his equally scum club

stuff I really hate this football club.
Don't have the vision but Scott was banging on the glass and celebrating like they had won the flag.

How about Selwood laughing and patting Stewart after the siren  ::).



Yep i saw that. Hope Dimma puts that up before our next game against them.

I just read somewhere perhaps a twitter comment someone had made regarding Scott's comments in that punching the wall incident.

Was probably nothing other than he is the biggest flog in the afl coaching right now.

Currently a member of the Roupies, and employed by the great man Roup.

Offline the claw

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4259
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #146 on: July 01, 2022, 09:54:39 AM »
We don't suspend people for high tackles that have gone wrong or do we now?.

Of course we do. What are you proposing--the William Burroughs rule?

"No, your Honour, I know I shot my wife's head off, but it was a drunken game of William Tell gone wrong. There was no intent."

"Oh fair enough, that's fine then."
I suppose when we  have nothing else we resort to spurious arguments.
What game are you watching.tackles bumps everything in the game is done with intent EVERYTHING they are not the last time i looked illegal as long as they stay with in the rules yet we dont rub out players for a tackle that goes high nope thats a simple free kick and we move on but a bump that goes wrong and look at what we get mass hysteria from a whole pile of wowsers.

Broadsword

  • Guest
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #147 on: July 01, 2022, 02:58:09 PM »
We don't suspend people for high tackles that have gone wrong or do we now?.

Of course we do. What are you proposing--the William Burroughs rule?

"No, your Honour, I know I shot my wife's head off, but it was a drunken game of William Tell gone wrong. There was no intent."

"Oh fair enough, that's fine then."
I suppose when we  have nothing else we resort to spurious arguments.
What game are you watching.tackles bumps everything in the game is done with intent EVERYTHING they are not the last time i looked illegal as long as they stay with in the rules yet we dont rub out players for a tackle that goes high nope thats a simple free kick and we move on but a bump that goes wrong and look at what we get mass hysteria from a whole pile of wowsers.
You say spurious I say reductio ad absurdum.

We punish players for tackles that inadvertently damage and endanger the head (and brain). A clear case is a tackle that drives the head dangerously into the ground. And that's not even a high tackle!

You seem to be confusing intent as a general concept with specific intents, ie yes all football acts are done with intent--with intentionality--but they could be done with intent A: dispossess my opponent legally or intent B: damage and incapacitate my opponent or intent C D E ... n.

To make the argument that all football acts have intentionality and therefore it is inconsistent to ban players for specific intents is spurious indeed.

If you think that a high tackle that slips above the shoulder and slings the neck is the same thing qualitatively as a high speed bump to someone's cranium then you would identify reversing into your wheelie bin and getting hit by a 10 ton truck at 100 km/h as the same thing--they're both 'collisions'. I put it to anyone else reading this that that is absurd, as is comparing a high tackle to a severe impact bump to someone's brain cavity.

That's reductio ad absurdum.






Online JP Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
  • For We're From Tigerland
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #148 on: July 01, 2022, 03:26:26 PM »
bump to someone's brain cavity.
That's reductio ad absurdum.
Nice work!  You could've just gone with gluteous maximus ...    :thumbsup
Once a Tiger, always a Tiger!  Loud, proud & dangerous!

Broadsword

  • Guest
Re: Sniper Stewart given 4 weeks [update]
« Reply #149 on: July 01, 2022, 03:31:00 PM »
bump to someone's brain cavity.
That's reductio ad absurdum.
Nice work!  You could've just gone with gluteous maximus ...    :thumbsup
Biggus Dichus? :)