PDA

View Full Version : Bartels trip on Higgins - what will he get?


bornadog
24-05-2009, 11:46 PM
Absolute deliberate trip, no free kick paid. What will he get?
Bulldog Revolution
24-05-2009, 11:48 PM
Nothing - protected species, not even a free kick awarded

Worst case - reprimand
LostDoggy
24-05-2009, 11:51 PM
Nothing. Bartel, Ablett, Selwood and Ling will never be suspended as long as they play. Golden Boys.

Cam Mooney is the only Geelong player in the bad books because of a prior reputation.
The Coon Dog
24-05-2009, 11:51 PM
I had another look at it & I really think it was accidental.

At first I thought he stuck a leg out deliberately, but upon reviewing it seemed to me that it wasn't a deliberate action.

Still baffled how the umpire didn't pay a free kick. :eek:
AndrewP6
24-05-2009, 11:57 PM
Have to confess...didn't see it
mighty_west
24-05-2009, 11:57 PM
I had another look at it & I really think it was accidental.

At first I thought he stuck a leg out deliberately, but upon reviewing it seemed to me that it wasn't a deliberate action.

Still baffled how the umpire didn't pay a free kick. :eek:

I'm not too sure the tribunal cares if somethings an accident, especially when players accidently bump umpires, but, as everyone else suggests, he is a protected species, and will most likely get off.

To me, wasn't too much different to Akers trip earlier in the season where he copped a week.
The Coon Dog
24-05-2009, 11:59 PM
To me, wasn't too much different to Akers trip earlier in the season where he copped a week.

Vastly different, Aker's leg shot out, Bartel's was just out there & Higgins tripped on it.
boydogs
25-05-2009, 12:06 AM
I'm not too sure the tribunal cares if somethings an accident, especially when players accidently bump umpires, but, as everyone else suggests, he is a protected species, and will most likely get off.

To me, wasn't too much different to Akers trip earlier in the season where he copped a week.

I think the Aker suspension was from carry over points - Bartel may get away with a reprimand
immortalmike
25-05-2009, 03:28 AM
Vastly different, Aker's leg shot out, Bartel's was just out there & Higgins tripped on it.

I will have to respectfully disagree. Bartel looked like he saw Higgins running towards goals and he then flung his legs out to stop him. I reckon it's as deliberate as you'll ever see.
Go_Dogs
25-05-2009, 09:40 AM
I will have to respectfully disagree. Bartel looked like he saw Higgins running towards goals and he then flung his legs out to stop him. I reckon it's as deliberate as you'll ever see.

I tend to agree. I thought the reason Bartel went to ground was because he hung that leg out so long trying to trip Higgins.
Mantis
25-05-2009, 09:44 AM
I thought it was a deliberate act and think he will be sighted over the incident. Not sure what his record is like, but I think it is worthy of a 1 match one ban (reprimand if he has a clean record)
Desipura
25-05-2009, 09:47 AM
I had another look at it & I really think it was accidental.

At first I thought he stuck a leg out deliberately, but upon reviewing it seemed to me that it wasn't a deliberate action.

Still baffled how the umpire didn't pay a free kick. :eek:

it was on the blind side of his.
aker39
25-05-2009, 10:33 AM
it was on the blind side of his.

but not on the blind side of the mid zone umpire.

A classic case of where he should have over ruled. The other umpire clearly did not see.
LostDoggy
25-05-2009, 12:25 PM
The most impressive thing was Higgins getting on with it and winning back the ball.
mighty_west
25-05-2009, 06:38 PM
Vastly different, Aker's leg shot out, Bartel's was just out there & Higgins tripped on it.

Yet both get the same result..;), Aker also recieved a reprimant but had the carry over points.

I just wonder what Bartel would have recieved has he broken Higgin's leg ala Peter Foster?
azabob
25-05-2009, 07:11 PM
Yet both get the same result..;), Aker also recieved a reprimant but had the carry over points.

I just wonder what Bartel would have recieved has he broken Higgin's leg ala Peter Foster?

A lot more I would think. The AFL are very big on the more serious injury infilcted the greater the punishment.
mighty_west
25-05-2009, 07:34 PM
A lot more I would think. The AFL are very big on the more serious injury infilcted the greater the punishment.

...and thats probably fair enough, just like Bartels reprimand, as long as they are consistant, in which they seem to be with this case.
LostDoggy
26-05-2009, 01:54 PM
bartel copped 88 demerit points and now is appealing the decision! He wont get suspended if he loses, i guess thats why he's appealing!
The Pie Man
26-05-2009, 02:30 PM
bartel copped 88 demerit points and now is appealing the decision! He wont get suspended if he loses, i guess thats why he's appealing!

I find it really strange he's contesting the reprimand, I thought that was a fair call from the MRP (and that in itself is also strange)
mighty_west
26-05-2009, 06:08 PM
I find it really strange he's contesting the reprimand, I thought that was a fair call from the MRP (and that in itself is also strange)

He has nothing to lose, you don't want a reprimant hanging over your head come finals time if you can help it.
Go_Dogs
26-05-2009, 07:40 PM
Can't your points get upgraded if you challenge and don't win? Maybe I'm confused.
The Coon Dog
26-05-2009, 08:28 PM
Can't your points get upgraded if you challenge and don't win? Maybe I'm confused.
You don't get the discount for an early plea by going to the tribunal. He lost at the tribunal too, so he's now carrying 80 points. Might come back to bite him later in the season.
The Pie Man
26-05-2009, 11:22 PM
He has nothing to lose, you don't want a reprimant hanging over your head come finals time if you can help it.

Yeah I guess - so losing and still no suspension doesn't hurt? Only 20 or so points more, perhaps not. It might mean the difference with an early plea for something b/w a week or not (or 1 week or two) or it might be nowhere near it.

If he was cleared it would've been a further nail in the MRP's credibility; it was relatively minor but he did it.
mighty_west
26-05-2009, 11:27 PM
If he was cleared it would've been a further nail in the MRP's credibility; it was relatively minor but he did it.

A relatively minor incident cost Chris Grant a brownlow......:(
The Pie Man
26-05-2009, 11:32 PM
A relatively minor incident cost Chris Grant a brownlow......:(

hmmm - I wonder if that's how Hawthorn (or even Carlton as when this comes up it's always Collins I turn the conversation to) people feel about that....
KT31
27-05-2009, 01:14 AM
And we still didn't get a free kick ?
Sleeve1970
27-05-2009, 01:28 PM
I had another look at it & I really think it was accidental.

At first I thought he stuck a leg out deliberately, but upon reviewing it seemed to me that it wasn't a deliberate action.

Still baffled how the umpire didn't pay a free kick. :eek:

Um look at it again and I think you will find the Bartel way eying Higgins and threw his leg. AKA got a week Golden Boy, wrap on the knuckles.:mad:
The Coon Dog
27-05-2009, 01:32 PM
Um look at it again and I think you will find the Bartel way eying Higgins and threw his leg. AKA got a week Golden Boy, wrap on the knuckles.:mad:

Aker got a week because he had carry over points from a head high contact v North Melbourne in R2. Both of Aker's were 'reprimands' but coupled together they got him over the 100 points.
Sleeve1970
28-05-2009, 10:38 PM
Aker got a week because he had carry over points from a head high contact v North Melbourne in R2. Both of Aker's were 'reprimands' but coupled together they got him over the 100 points.

Got that thanks...:D