Herkes tarafından bilinerek sevilen site olan 1xbet canlı adresi sizlere büyük avantajlar ile farklı bahis imkanları sunmaktadır. Bilindik bir firma olması nedeni ile her defasında yeni bir 1xbet güncel adrese taşınıyor. Paylaşılan adreslerden sizlere en uygun 1xbet türkiye giriş güncel adresine kolaylıkla hemen ulaşabilirsiniz. Sizlerde kolaylıkla her cihazınızda aktif olan 1xbet mobile ile bahis yaparak, üyelik oluşumunu halledebilirsiniz. Büyük promosyonlardan yararlanarak üyelik açmak için 1xbet live adresini kullana bilirsiniz.
Üyelik oluşturduktan sonra kolaylıkla yatırım yapmak için mobil ödeme bahis kabul gördüğünü anlayabilirsiniz. Hiç bir yerde olmayan canlı bahis özelliklerini sizlerde hemen kullanın.
Aktif bir şekilde işlem yapan canlı bahis sitesi editörler tarafından özenle araştırılarak seçilmiştir. Ülkemizde resmi yayın yapmayan sitelerin çoğu kaçak bahis adı altında görev yapmaktadır. İnternetten yayın yapan kaçak bahis siteleri kullanıcılarına yüksek oranlar sunan bir adrestir. Hemen sizlerde casino oyunun farkına ve eğlencesine varmak için kayıt oluşturun.
As the rules stand, yep it was a good legal mark, however it was nothing like the Sampi or Smith or thousands of other marks that use the knee on the shoulder to try to get some more elevation when jumping fairly vertically.
It could be used as a tactic (I am not saying this was the case on this occasion) to inflict pain or injury on opposition players.
As mentioned it is a question of sportsmanship and if Natainui (or anyone else for that matter) start to regularly break ribs and puncture lungs the AFL will have no option but to look at ways of stopping the injuries.
As I said earlier however, in the past a player using the knee like that would have had his neck on a swivel and his hearing would have gone up a notch or two.
Had the roles been reversed and Sandi took that grab over NicNat, we'd all be in raptures and touting it as a potential Mark of The Year. Unfortunate injuries aside, that was a legitimate mark executed well within the rules.
Had the roles been reversed, Sandi would still have missed 6 games, the only difference being instead of busted ribs and a punctured lung, he would have been ineligible for the Brownlow. Claiming NN was going for the mark is stretching it a bit, the fact that the ball landed in his hands was coincidental as evidenced by his marking stats over however many seasons.
A few, final observations on this topic.
Lions v GC last weekend.
Steven May, a thug if ever there was, is tracking towards Lions ruckman Stephan Martin, apparently hoping to create space for Gary Ablett to run through. He elects -his word- to bump and does so by leaping off the ground and forcefully crashes down onto Martin's head. No surprise that Martin is KO'd on the day and the AwFuL, with it's "protect the head" mantra, gives May five weeks off, to consider his actions, despite his honest admission of fault and the fact that Stephan Martin is fit to play this week.
Nat the Knee saw Sandi running backwards with the flight of the ball and elects to fend him off by aggressively raising his knee as he jumps forward to mark. The unsurprising result is shattered ribs, a punctured lung and who knows? how many weeks out. Yet this big fairy is called a champion and praised for his (unopposed) ruck work in the remainder of the game.
Shameful.
There are two points of distinction: First, head injuries are cumulative and can have an on-going and debilitating effect on the quality of a player’s life, long after their football career has finished. Also, concussions are frequent. How often does a player look wobbly on the ground after a big hit? Broken ribs and a punctured lung are serious injuries, but they are rare, and there’s no evidence to suggest the injury will adversely affect Sandi’s long-term well-being.
Second, running past the ball and hitting a bloke in the head is outside the rules. Lifting your leg in a marking contest (to protect yourself, elevate or, being cynical, to injure a bloke) is within the rules so long as you are going for the mark. We can debate all day which category NicNat falls in. I don’t think he’s a dirty player, but that’s subjective. I know if a 130 kg monster was backing into me at speed, and I can’t use my hands, I’d probably stick my leg up too.
If you think that’s a dirty play, the real question is how do you legislate to separate the knees in the marking contest that are fair and unfair?
NicNat’s eyes never leave the ball. It was a realistic attempt, and he marks the ball. You can’t say that he had no ‘intent’ to mark the ball. NicNat might have had a collateral intent to hurt Sandi – I don’t think he did, but it’s possible. Does the intent to hurt have to be primary, or can a free kick be paid if a secondary intent is to hurt someone? As you already know, it’s already a free kick if he has no intent to mark the ball, or even if he has an intent to mark, but it was completely unrealistic. If the intent is solely to injure, he’ll be charged with rough conduct.
As for impact, are we measuring the potential force, or actual injury? If Sandi was an average sized player, he’d cop it in the shoulders, and would have been sore but fine. If he was tiny, he probably would have copped it in the head, and that would also cause harm, but would probably play on (or only miss a weed). Is NicNat supposed to take his eyes off the ball, assess the potential harm caused to that specific opponent, and then try and take the mark? The dude can barely walk and chew gum. Personally, I’d rather that players just look at the ball and go for it.
Or, put another way, if Luke connected with this Eagles bloke’s head instead of shoulders, should this mark of the year be a free kick? That knee is awfully high, and it’s a Derby, so the ump would be looking for any excuse to pay them a free kick, right?
If a lot of people start getting serious injuries then the AFL will have to make a call on the legitimacy of breaking your opponent's ribs. They'll base the guilt and punishment the same way they do on everything else, by assessing intent and impact with a list of guidelines for the MRP to consider.
Intent can mean deliberately injuring someone or it can mean recklessly injuring someone. Impact is the severity of the collision which takes into account the outcome. If you are reckless and you really hurt someone then you might find yourself in more trouble than someone who deliberately only hurt them a bit.
As for the height nonsense. Sandilands didn't get off because he was taller than Ben Griffiths.
Login to reply,
Dockerplus, Raglan Matt, DockerKnockers said You Beaut
You can't change the laws of the game because a player is a klutz. Naitanui is a klutz.
My wife's cousin had his AFL dream cut short after continually backing into packs as a defender. Had a shoulder reco and never played one game for the Swans (was on their list for 3 years). Back into a pack, there's a good chance you'll get hurt. Especially if Klutzanui is around.
he was looking for elevation, not forward velocity. As has been stated before most high marks using the knee do not cause damage because the player going for the mark realises that the faster he is going at the player he intends to use as a stepladder the more likely he will knock him flat, making said stepladder less than useless, resulting in a missed mark.
If NN was not intent on hitting Sandi with the knee, he would have used his fabled "vertical leap" to stand on Sandi's shoulders and head a la all the "mark of the century" marks we see on the highlight reels. His intent looked to be to cause damage to his opponent, and should be judged accordingly.
