Rawlings on Tambling

[Ox]

Discuss.

I wasnt there but saw it on the replay thanx to MT.
Genius that boy



Jade Rawlings' bid to revive his AFL career has been dealt a blow after he was handed a one-match ban by the AFL Match Review Panel for engaging in rough conduct against Richmond youngster Richard Tambling.

Rawlings was one of three players from the weekend to be suspended for allegedly high contact with an opponent, with Geelong midfielder Jimmy Bartel and Carlton's Ryan Houlihan also facing one-match bans.

Rawlings was charged with engaging in rough conduct against Tambling during the first quarter of match between the Kangaroos and the Tigers on Saturday afternoon.

The incident, a level two offence, was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), medium impact (one point) and high contact, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension.

However an existing good record, which is subject to confirmation by Football Victoria, and an early plea has seen the penalty reduced to 126.56 points and a one-match suspension.

[Moi]

He deserved 8 weeks - one week is a farce 

[Ox]

NRL Standatds nut not by ours,imo.

Maybe 2-3.

So waht if Tambo is a little kid?

It was a good learning curve for him.

Bang -WELCOME TO AFL - NOW GET ON WITH IT -which he did.

I think Rawlings was disgusted in himself actually.

Could have really wrecked Tambling if he wanted.

[Moi]

I would hate to see any player lose the ability to walk like Neil Sasche.
It's only happened once and i think we forget it can happen. 
Maybe 8 weeks is extreme, but so is one week very lenient.
What in the tribunal's mind thought it was of medium impact?  Looked pretty full on to me.

[mightytiges]

One week is a farce. Rawlings hit Tambo front on while Blingers' head was down over the ball. I'm all for keeping the hip and shoulder but you were always taught as a kid that that sort of thing is a cowardly act. The head must always be protected. He should have got 4 weeks minimum. 

[WilliamPowell]

I think this just continues to hightlight the problems with system and how farcial it is.

Now I am not condoning for one milli-second what Rawlings did - it was crude, it was stupid but I do agree with Ox, it could have been a helluva lot worse.

But what concerns me is that appears that yet again the Review Panel has changed direction mid-season. Have they received a direction from AA and his team in the past week to get tougher on head high contact this week because of what happened last week? If they have then that is a farce and removes what very little credibility the system had left.

There have been far worse forms of contact this season that have gone unpunished or should that be unnoticed .

I mean seriously look at the game last week against Freo and I can remember 3 occassions where players where hit like Tambling was this week and the decision in those cases were "play on" forget about it being reportable 

I agree that they have to do something and they had there opportunity IMO with the Waters hit on Copeland (that deserved at least 6 weeks) but they didn't and now they have this massive problem and quite frankly AA has no idea how to fix it

[one-eyed]

Bump at your peril
13 June 2006   
Herald Sun
Comment by Mike Sheahan

WHEN Jade Rawlings sat Richard Tambling on his bum at the MCG on Saturday, my instinctive reaction was Rawlings was headed for a month's holiday he didn't want.

The Roo veteran collected an unsuspecting Tambling high at the end of a week of unprecedented conjecture about the bump to the head.

A week that finished with the AFL's match review panel chairman Peter Schwab indicating he would have come down with a much tougher penalty in the Beau Waters-Robert Copeland case with his time over again.

In short, it was simply not the time to be turning a hip into a bloke with his head over the ball.

The more I thought about it, the more I wondered whether Schwab and company might go even to six matches to reinforce the point.

When they completed their deliberations yesterday, Rawlings emerged with a one-match penalty – two reduced to one conditional upon a "guilty" plea.

What Rawlings did wasn't malicious, for he is not a malicious person, yet it wasn't an accident, either. He deliberately bumped a bloke over the ball to the head from front on.

He is an extremely lucky man.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,19450197%255E19742,00.html

[letsgetiton!]

yes it was careless, but in jades defence, he is not malicious and if he wanted to could have whiped out bling 4 life.
it wasnt as hard a hit as it seemed but still should be pnalised just to set the standard and make a statement that this is not on.
we cant though let lasy weeks incident effect this one because they were totally diff. caracella head was hit from side on and bent his neck.
i agree , the head must be protected at all times. players must learn in these situations to hip teh players side on not head on or wait till they gain possession then tackle them.

the penalty shoulsd be 2-3 weeks in this instance, 2 imo as jade has a good record and is not a killer

[Cain]

Rawlings pulled up signififcantly. Contact was light.
2 weeks is plenty.

[mightytiges]

Rawlings will contest the charge.

[letsgetiton!]

Rawlings will contest the charge.

he might get 2 weeks now!

[mightytiges]

Rawlings will contest the charge.

he might get 2 weeks now!

That's what I thought X when they said Rawlings' appeal was rejected but he still will only get a week  ???. Why wouldn't you appeal if there's no risk in trying. Anyway Rawlings got off lightly but I thought they got the Bartel decision right. 

[one-eyed]

Rawlings out, Bartel OK
Bruce Matthews
Herald-Sun
14jun06

FOOTBALL'S contentious bump claimed one victim and let another accused walk free from the AFL Tribunal last night.
 
Kangaroo Jade Rawlings fell foul of a rough conduct charge in only his second senior game of the season and he will miss the split-round game against Carlton on Friday week.

The Roos are unlikely to appeal Rawlings' one-match suspension.

"I'm disappointed, but I have to accept it. That's all I can do," Rawlings said after the hearing.

Rawlings and Bartel pleaded guilty to the match review panel charges, but both tried to have the conduct category downgraded from reckless to the less serious negligent.

Rawlings told the jury he turned his body to ensure he did not collect Richmond forward Richard Tambling to the head during the opening quarter at the MCG on Saturday.

"I believe I took a duty of care. I'm well aware after 12 years playing what that duty of care is," Rawlings said. "My mindset during the whole contest was to win the ball. When Richard fumbled (the mark), I thought I was a genuine chance to win the ball."

Rawlings stood in the witness box and raised his shirt to reveal a large bruise on the right hip from the collision.

"I uphold my integrity. I'm a non-malicious person and I believe I've taken a duty of care in this instance. I firmly believe it's a negligent act," he said.

Rawlings said if anyone canvassed his teammates' view of him, "the resounding theme would be. . . that I'm a ball player and . . . a fair player".

Umpire Shaun Ryan, who reported Rawlings on the day, did not accept contact was inevitable. "The player has got his head down trying to get the ball and is met solidly high when the player didn't have the opportunity to protect himself," Ryan said.

The jury deliberated for only three minutes before returning the guilty verdict and, even though Rawlings forfeited the discount for an early plea, he only misses one game.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19464954%255E11088,00.html