Stenglein- How many weeks?

[sedders]

hit the with the shoulder just after he touched the ball

shoulnd't have been a free

 

[Debaser]

Reckless contact
Head high
Behind play
Moderate Impact

Two of those are bull********. I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out which ones.

 

[Portia]

Some of you have no idea what your talking about? Some of you have even said it was off the ball?

By Pickett charge standards, it was. Begley had also fumbled the ball, but the grading was `behind play' from the video review team regardless.

Eckerman had the ball a second before he was ironed out.

On the contrary, he never had possession, ergo the fumbling.

Stinger was coming in for the tackle, saw that Eckers had spilled it and it had falled to Kerr and instead gave him a legal hip and shoulder to allow Kerr to break free with the ball.

If it was legal, it wouldn't be head high and a free.

The elbow definitely tucked in and it was most certainly in the play. The only reason it slipped high was that Eckerman was falling over or stumbling over

That didn't excuse Pickett on Begley, did it?

 

[Portia]

if he is even cited the match review panel is a joke.

the fact that the port players didnt really make much of it speaks volumes

You mean apart from the argybargy on the field between the sides until play restarted?

 

[Altum Volantes]

So that was the biggest ever loss Porthos?, SANFL included?

 

[Portia]

I believe so, yeah. Funny, hey?

Of all the sides it could've been that did it, I didn't expect it to be West Coast.

 

[Altum Volantes]

Quite, but I'd swap ya for the flag.

 

[Portia]

I'd say you're a good chance to do the double, barring dodgy MCG tomfoolery or a Judd, Cox and Cousins suspension in round 22.

 

[theorangeapple]

It was a bloody hard hit. it was in play, his feet were on the ground. Initially i thought there was nothing in it but when they showed the second angle it showed the elbow was out. it certainly wasnt a dirty behind the play incident, it was hard football. we dont see hits like that often nowadays but they were common place 20yrs ago. I think he might get 1-2weeks.

 

[jod23]

pfft.
jod - Eckermann was not falling over and Stenglien definately was not looking the other way.

.

He wasnt falling over but he was stumbling so his head was down. Hence the high contact. You obviously werent watching the game because Stenglein was CLEARLY looking the other way.

 

[Ljp86]

I was at the game and it was a fair hit, i don't think he'll get suspended.

 

[pazza]

Wouldn't have been any more than a week to be fair.

 

[Sheeds]

At the time I just thought it was a good, hard bump.

I havent looked too closely at the replay of the incident as of yet.

 

[coopers pale]

Picketts was WAAAYYY different, he ran PAST the ball to nail begley. Didn't deserve 6, but 4 was about right for mine.

With Stengleins hit, I agree that his arm was away from the body, but the ELBOW wasn't used with the intent to injure. Just cos the arm is away from the body doesn't make it a deliberate elbow. When contact occurred he was already looking away from Eckermann at the ball, so no deliberate intent either.

No case to answer, free kick for a high hit was exactly right, IMO.

Hang on, when do the kangas play WCE again?? He should get that many
+ 1.

 

[The Hobo]

With Stengleins hit, I agree that his arm was away from the body, but the ELBOW wasn't used with the intent to injure. Just cos the arm is away from the body doesn't make it a deliberate elbow. When contact occurred he was already looking away from Eckermann at the ball, so no deliberate intent either.

never said it was deliberate...but reckless and highly dangerous...that can get you weeks

 

[Portia]

Picketts was WAAAYYY different, he ran PAST the ball to nail begley.

If Stenglein..
a) had eyes on the ball
b) wasn't looking at Eckermann
then how was he not past the ball when nailing him?

 

[Faithful Hawk]

Was nothing in it young fella left himself wide open his head hit his sholder which is perfectly legal. Would be a joke if it is even looked at, but with how soft the game is becoming he will get 6 weeks....

 

[The Hobo]

deserves 1-2 imo... definately not 6

 

[jod23]

By Pickett charge standards, it was. Begley had also fumbled the ball, but the grading was `behind play' from the video review team regardless.

On the contrary, he never had possession, ergo the fumbling.

If it was legal, it wouldn't be head high and a free.

That didn't excuse Pickett on Begley, did it?

The ball was in play, he had only just fumbled it to Kerr and he was maybe 2 metres away from the ball...thats in play.

Getting nit picky, I said he had the ball...he never really had posession of the ball because his skills let him down and he fumbled it.

It was a legal bump but because his head was down he copped it high? Therefore the free kick, but nothing reportable.

It didnt excuse Pickett because he is a dog.

 

[coasting]

What would the charge be, striking or charging? I don't see how he can go for striking. Eckerman had the ball, Stenglein went to tackle him, he fumbled it so he bumped him instead and caught his head with his shoulder. There was no striking motion and the elbow was not raised. If the ball was not within 5ft he could go for charging but I think it was close enough to the play to not be called charging.

 

[Portia]

It would be `rough play', same as Pickett.

 

[jod23]

If Stenglein..
a) had eyes on the ball
b) wasn't looking at Eckermann
then how was he not past the ball when nailing him?

His intent was to remove Eckermann from the play, he knew where he was and was lining up the tackle. The ball spilled free, Stinger is already on his way but his eyes and head follow the ball, his body follows through on the player. It's quite simple really.

 

[tribey]

My two cents, I think Carey's defence of his former teammate was dodgy from the get-go.

For starters, on the replay you should watch Stinger's feet. He wasn't simply "standing his ground" like Carey stated, rather he took two steps directly towards Eckermann's line before making the contact.

Some have said that Stinger was looking the other way at the point of contact, I disagree. Stinger turns his head at or just after the moment of impact.

Judging by his movement (albeit small) towards Eckermann and the fact he was looking at him up until or immediately after the moment of contact, there is no doubt he meant to hit him, but the issue is clouded by the area of contact, which we all agree was high.

As far as the elbow/shoulder debate goes, I'm sure this will be cleared up by sometime tomorrow, but unlike Carey's unequivical "no way, he hit him with the shoulder and the elbow came up afterwards which is the natural reaction blah blah blah" spiel, replays suggested the elbow may not have been tucked in at the moment of contact.

Finally, we'd all agree the high contact (shoulder or elbow) wasn't intentional, so therefore it has to be reckless[?], whatever that's worth at the tribunal these days.

 

[Portia]

His intent was to remove Eckermann from the play, he knew where he was and was lining up the tackle. The ball spilled free, Stinger is already on his way but his eyes and head follow the ball, his body follows through on the player. It's quite simple really.

I agree, its very simple.

Reckless contact (intent to make contact, but its worse than intended)
Head high
Moderate impact (would've been forceful even if legal)
Off-play (the two players were not actively disputing the ball)

Its a tough situation to be in, but there you go. I dare say off-play will be a dropped component, but if any of the rest is, the video review board has ignored the book and shown Stenglein enormous leniency.

 

[Port01]

It was a legal bump but because his head was down he copped it high?

All bumps are legal by that logic. Shouldn't be reportable but by the standard the review panel have set I think he'll be lucky to get nothing.

Apart from one being a thug and the other not, is there any reason why Pickett would get 6 and Stenglein nothing? Both had a guy fumble then get cleaned up. Both would have been legal if it wasn't high. Both had the arm tucked in. Both were past the ball that was fumbled when it happened.