#46 Mason Cox
Moderator: bbmods
-
- Posts: 2228
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:00 am
- Location: Brisbane
- Been liked: 32 times
How does this result in a 1 match ban for this obvious staging of a free kick.
Its just a normal Shepard thats too far away from the ball carrier.
This is some BS where they are trying to punish a player because the onfield umpire didnt pick up that it was a free kick.
And thats all it is, a free kick on the ground.
Its just a normal Shepard thats too far away from the ball carrier.
This is some BS where they are trying to punish a player because the onfield umpire didnt pick up that it was a free kick.
And thats all it is, a free kick on the ground.
- Clifton Hill-Billy
- Posts: 1247
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:50 pm
- Location: 3068----> 3076
- Been liked: 10 times
- Monco Matt
- Posts: 3093
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:47 am
- Location: Sittin, Drinkin, Reloadin & Waitin
MC what in the hell are you looking at mate? Wasn't high contact at all and Grimes took a massive flop, how can you cite an incident like that and keep a straight face, absolute joke and if Coxy doesn't get off then the game is heading down the wrong path. I'm all for keeping the game clean but let's keep a bit of niggle in the game especially when nobody is hurt. Was Grimes injured in anyway? Does he give evidence at the tribunal? Looks as soft as butter frying on a hot tin roof. FMD AFL, what is wrong with you morons?
RED "BABY" CAVANAUGH: Didn't hear what the bet was.
MONCO: Your life.
MONCO: Your life.
- Pebbles Rocks
- Posts: 1241
- Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Collingwood
I don't think we can argue it wasnt high because of the medical report etc.
I think we can argue it was careless and not intentional. Cox has his eyes on the play and the ball carrier when he starts running in the direction of the goal and then in the last split second he sees grimes right in front of him.
It is not conclusive that he intended to run towards Grimes in the first instance.
Case closed your honour
I think we can argue it was careless and not intentional. Cox has his eyes on the play and the ball carrier when he starts running in the direction of the goal and then in the last split second he sees grimes right in front of him.
It is not conclusive that he intended to run towards Grimes in the first instance.
Case closed your honour
"You must be a parking ticket, cuz you got fine written all over you" Glen Quagmire
- Doc63
- Posts: 4558
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 8:58 pm
- Location: Newport
You dont have to get hit in the head to get concussion, but yes, I think we have to go with careless rather than intentional.Pebbles Rocks wrote:I don't think we can argue it wasnt high because of the medical report etc.
I think we can argue it was careless and not intentional. Cox has his eyes on the play and the ball carrier when he starts running in the direction of the goal and then in the last split second he sees grimes right in front of him.
It is not conclusive that he intended to run towards Grimes in the first instance.
Case closed your honour
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within.
- think positive
- Posts: 40223
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 325 times
- Been liked: 101 times
- think positive
- Posts: 40223
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 325 times
- Been liked: 101 times
honestly if thats a suspendable offence, footy is well and truly $@&^#.Monco Matt wrote:MC what in the hell are you looking at mate? Wasn't high contact at all and Grimes took a massive flop, how can you cite an incident like that and keep a straight face, absolute joke and if Coxy doesn't get off then the game is heading down the wrong path. I'm all for keeping the game clean but let's keep a bit of niggle in the game especially when nobody is hurt. Was Grimes injured in anyway? Does he give evidence at the tribunal? Looks as soft as butter frying on a hot tin roof. FMD AFL, what is wrong with you morons?
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Wonder whether that was the only possible passage where he could have taken a head knock.Pebbles Rocks wrote:I don't think we can argue it wasnt high because of the medical report etc. ...
(In the N. Brown case, I'm not convinced he hit Saad's head and guess Saad hit his head on the ground when he went down... but Brown is still doing time for that.)
- Cuthbert Collingwood
- Posts: 5186
- Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:53 am
- Location: The BBC (Brunswick Bowling Club)
All of the decisions / fines in that AFL video looked very soft to me - think it's a bit of a crackdown before the usual easing up through the course of the year. Also interesting they didn't show the other reported incident in the match in that video, the comparison to any of the other reports would have been too great to show methinks
McRae for Governor-General!
Talking Footy just now, all talking about concussions and how Cox will get a week because Grimes had symptoms... Wayne Carey looked like he was about to burst out laughing and say "are you f***ing kidding me?"
And Robbo on FOX was declaring Cox guilty. Jordan Lewis was the same as Carey, but he bit his tongue.
And Robbo on FOX was declaring Cox guilty. Jordan Lewis was the same as Carey, but he bit his tongue.
- ronrat
- Posts: 4932
- Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 11:25 am
- Location: Thailand
The tiggers medical staff have more to do than sink a bloke for no reason but spite. Call them up to the tribunal and they can sit around wasting time until they get grilled by the players advocate. Get a biomedics bloke in as well and have the tribunal say well this is going to take all night , we won't waste time, throw it out.
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967.