Player Watch #35: Nathan Broad - Calf 1 week

[beema limapep]

Decent call, lucky to not be more

Completely dumb from broad, ball was dead, frustrated he couldn’t get him down originally, heat of the contest gets the best of him

Let’s see who steps up in his absence




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Are you serious bro? Good lord.

 

[Rioli2Rioli]

Key difference being Dangerfield was contesting the ball. At least try referencing something in the same ballpark. If that was this year Danger probably gets a week off, just as Trent Cotchin would for his bump on Shiel in the 2017 Prelim.

Pickett & Macadam were also contesting the ball

Nobody is saying the incidents are the same more that some players "Dangerfiled' doesnt even get cited for knocking somebody into next week
he punches the ball and bends elbow to avoid getting hit. has time to consider getting hurt but not consider Vlastuin.

Cotchin's back hits Shiel not his elbow but also Cotchin should have got a week for that elbow drop 2 weeks ago

 

[docko911]

Should appeal due to inconsistency

Should check the Adelaide Oval boundary surface. I imagine it’s far too hard and would explain why concussion was a result of the tackle.

 

[Armitage Shanks]

Wow, seems a tad disproportionate really. 2 weeks max imo. Left arm was free to absorb some impact but the opposition player was unable to break his fall. Will the spineless club appeal?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Should appeal due to inconsistency

Should check the Adelaide Oval boundary surface. I imagine it’s far too hard and would explain why concussion was a result of the tackle.

Hahah alright Colombo. Would have knocked anyone out apart from Ricciouto with his massive ET head.

Just cop it

 

[Timothy Luncheon]

Legitimate question here, why is the general consensus that 4 weeks is fair or even lucky? Are sling tackles looked down upon that much more than flying bumps? From what I understand, it’s 3 weeks for whatever it was graded and then a week for causing concussion? I’ve also heard about the “potential to injure” thing but don’t understand it. I was also under the impression that people didn’t want incidents viewed by the result but the action instead, so shouldn’t there be no extra week for concussing, and all similar incidents should be 4 weeks too? Flying bumps look even worse to me, and with the sling part of it was trying to bring a man to ground after the initial attempt fails (done the wrong way of course, but ideally ball up/throw in/htb should be called earlier to help prevent this), so they should at least also be the same amount of weeks?

Bit of a rambling mess there, but just wondering what people’s conclusions are and how the tribunal gets to this result. 4 games is almost 20% of a season for a player which is a lot, so I wouldn’t go much higher, but how were the round 1 incidents less weeks than this? Is it a case of the AFL being too light on round one and trying to fix their mistake, which we are sadly the recipients of? Don’t like actions that can cause injury, but confused on the process there

 

[Barnzy]

I would've guessed 3 weeks. 4 seems harsh.

As some have mentioned, don't care as long as the AFL is consistent. I gurantee you next tackle with the similar or near identical action will be less than 4 weeks. That is where people get pissed off.

The next one for a sling tackle probably gets 2-3 weeks. Nothing the AFL does is inconsistent. All their decision are based off media reaction and perception.

 

[sante]

Can’t complain with 4. Seems about right. Anymore and I would have been pissed off

 

[Noidnadroj]

IT's a bad action, but the only reason it is 4 and not 1 is because of the outcome. What Pickett, McAdam and Franklin did were far worse "actions".

Yeah but this is like everything in life. If you shoot a gun at someone’s stomach and they die you go to jail for murder and 25+ years. If you shoot a gun at someone’s temple and they don’t die you get done for attempted murder and get 5+ years.

Shooting someone in the head is arguably worse than in the stomach, but the penalty of course depends on the outcome.

Or you run a red light at 150mph and don’t hit anyone at all. Or run a red light at 70mph and hit a car and kill someone. Running the red light at high speed is far worse, so should they be punished more than the person who did something less dangerous but got unlucky?

Can you imagine the cluster f*ck if they started giving penalties for the action and not the outcome? You could throw a haymaker behind play and attempt to strike someone in the jaw and completely miss, and get a longer suspension than someone who hip and shouldered someone and concussed them and broke their jaw.

Having said that I don’t disagree that the action should be a factor in the penalty, but the outcome does need to remain the primary deciding factor on the penalty. As I said, that’s like everything in life.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[shaky]

Decent call, lucky to not be more

Completely dumb from broad, ball was dead, frustrated he couldn’t get him down originally, heat of the contest gets the best of him

Let’s see who steps up in his absence




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The ball wasn’t dead because the umpire hadn’t blown the whistle.

I think this is being missed here.
The AFL want a free flowing game with less stoppages so the there is a directive not to blow the whistle too soon.
Broad lays an effective tackle with no means for the player to dispose of the the ball. He doesn’t bring him straight to ground and there is no whistle so he continues and then goes into a sling motion to bring the player down.

If the Umpire had stopped play a second earlier Broad wouldn’t have felt the need to do what he did.

 

[Armitage Shanks]

Can’t complain with 4. Seems about right. Anymore and I would have been pissed off

Around 50-75% of it was a legitimate football action. 4 weeks is way too harsh. The second motion (i.e., the sling) should be punished. Not Broad's fault the player could not cushion his fall with his free left arm.

 

[shaky]

Wow, seems a tad disproportionate really. 2 weeks max imo. Left arm was free to absorb some impact but the opposition player was unable to break his fall. Will the spineless club appeal?

No because they pleaded guilty and tried to argue 3 instead of 4 for good character

 

[GN272]

How many would you get if you actually (heaven forbid) .... killed a bloke ???

 

[sante]

Around 50-75% of it was a legitimate football action. 4 weeks is way too harsh. The second motion (i.e., the sling) should be punished. Not Broad's fault the player could not cushion his fall with his free left arm.

Duty of care? 4 is fair, I don’t think anyone was expecting anything other than 3 or 4. 2 isn’t enough and 5 would be too much

 

[inCOGnito]

What is it with Richmond that sends these media flogs into a frenzy, we see it every time a tiger is up for suspension. The calls for over the top sanctions is mind blowing from these flogs.

Not just media, had a convo bout it today with a one eyed Collingwood mate that hates Richmond and he was worse than the media.

Was it really that bad? I get the implications of it all, but was broad really trying to smash the living daylights outta him and inflict injury, or was it just a hard tackle that he tried to bring him to that he's gone a bit too hard? Apparently I'm too biased to have an opinion.

 

[Timothy Luncheon]

I would've guessed 3 weeks. 4 seems harsh.

As some have mentioned, don't care as long as the AFL is consistent. I gurantee you next tackle with the similar or near identical action will be less than 4 weeks. That is where people get pissed off.

The next one for a sling tackle probably gets 2-3 weeks. Nothing the AFL does is inconsistent. All their decision are based off media reaction and perception.

As others have mentioned too, half of it was a footy action, the other half wasn’t good, but they still had an arm free, and ideally play would be stopped earlier in the first place to stop the player feeling like they need to bring someone to ground. It also doesn’t seem as bad as Lycett last year, and you could say the reason it’s the same penalty is because they’re being harsher this year, but that’s just not true when you look at round 1, where worse actions are being given 2-3. Having said that, 3-4 still seems fair on its own, it’s just that the round 1 incidents should have gotten the same, if not more if we weren’t factoring in if the player is concussed, which is what I thought people wanted (penalise the action, not the outcome). Feels like they stuffed up round 1 and as a result they’ve tried to fix it and we’re on the back end of that.

 

[Armitage Shanks]

Duty of care? 4 is fair, I don’t think anyone was expecting anything other than 3 or 4. 2 isn’t enough and 5 would be too much

Arguably did exercise some - Broad may have only slinged because he was aware one arm was free and believed that any reasonable AFL player would use his free left arm to break the fall....

 

[tony__montana]

As someone pointed out earlier today, Lycett got 4 for very similar, so can’t complain. Hopefully they stay consistent, moving forward.

 

[SavDog23]

Can't wait for someone from any other team to do the exact same thing next week and get 2 weeks

 

[Bojangles17]

How many would you get if you actually (heaven forbid) .... killed a bloke ???

prob 5-6 I’d say , 4 with remorse perhaps ,

 

[BruceTempany14]

Can't wait for someone from any other team to do the exact same thing next week and get 2 weeks

You just know that’ll happen .
So Broad incident judged equal to the Tom “ the-good guy “ Stewart king hit on Prestia . Fk me .


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[BruceTempany14]

How many would you get if you actually (heaven forbid) .... killed a bloke ???

Tom Stewart would get 6 weeks , anyone else would get life .


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[sante]

The club and Broad have accepted it. Why can’t the fans?

 

[LTT]

4 was expected.

the tackle was a complete football action. so I just don't understand everyone last week coping 2 or 3 weeks.

wasnt anywhere near as bad as tom stewarts KO on prestia and he only got 4.

so where's the equality?

I agree. Look at MacAdams shoulder charge last week. The giant’s player was wide open and MacAdam ignored the ball, jumped off the ground and hit the gaints player just below his throat. From memory the grading was careless. What do you have to do to get deliberate. Then he got a reduction because the giant’s player played out the match. Thats like getting a reduced sentence for attempted murder because your victim survived, not because of your compassion but by pure luck. The AFL needs to adopt a system like the Olympic scoring. Have 5 ex players judge each offence ominously then ignore the two highest and two lowest penalties and the remaining players verdict is applied. The only problem I see with this system is that the AFL would not be able to manipulate it and that would be a good thing

 

[smasha]

I'll cop it.
Classy by Broady to go to the Crows coach and apologise.

3 weeks with Broady's good record was my verdict.

The 1 week Richmond tax takes it to 4 but I will deal with it.

They look at it and look at it and talk about it then a Tiger does it then bang.