Bombertalk

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 5:35 pm**

Staggy wrote:Kerr's not a dirty player, and it wasn't a dirty act. Just unlucky, wrong place at the wrong time. The guy ducked his head in late and Kerr did his best to keep the contact minimal.

Will still get a couple though.

He may not be dirty but if not then he's a bloody idiot.

What about his cheap shot on Mitchell last year?

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 5:40 pm**

Staggy wrote:Kerr's not a dirty player, and it wasn't a dirty act. Just unlucky, wrong place at the wrong time. The guy ducked his head in late and Kerr did his best to keep the contact minimal.

Will still get a couple though.

Thats the confusing part though, he ducked Kerr did try to keep contact minimal, had he ironed him out then yeah rub him out but being in the wrong place at the wrong time doesnt deserve two weeks...

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 7:02 pm**

Will get 2 weeks.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 8:03 pm**

Kerr has accepted two weeks.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 8:12 pm**

dom_105 wrote:Kerr has accepted two weeks.

spewing

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 8:41 pm**

dom_105 wrote:2 weeks.

To follow AFL precident that allows the screwing of the Essendon Football Club at every available opportunity.

I, for one, saw it coming a mile off.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 9:08 pm**

I new it!

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 9:44 pm**

Stocksy wrote:
Staggy wrote:Kerr's not a dirty player, and it wasn't a dirty act. Just unlucky, wrong place at the wrong time. The guy ducked his head in late and Kerr did his best to keep the contact minimal.

Will still get a couple though.
Thats the confusing part though, he ducked Kerr did try to keep contact minimal, had he ironed him out then yeah rub him out but being in the wrong place at the wrong time doesnt deserve two weeks...

Yes it does....you've got to protect the player with his head over his ball, when Kerr lined him up Bruce had his head over the ball, sure Kerr might have thought Bruce was going to collect the ball and straighten up, but the fact is that he fumble the ball and still had his head over the ball.

We all know what happened to Blake Caracella last year when he got collected with his head over the ball.

Players heads and neck have to be protected at all costs and if that means punishing players for accidental contact then so be it.

When the potential damage is so bad, everything has to be done to stamp these hits out of the games.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 9:54 pm**

I wonder how many weeks it would have been at most other clubs.

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 10:11 pm**

Well Fletch would've got life!!!

Posted: **Mon May 21, 2007 10:17 pm**

will have to take him out of my dream team now

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2007 8:18 am**

Watched it again this morning. He's very unlucky IMO. Saw that the bloke still had his head over the ball, did everything he could to mimimise the contact, barely made contact with the head (it was mainly the shoulder region), and still gets two weeks. Very, very stiff.

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2007 10:13 am**

Thought the same when I watched it again on the news last night, think the match review panel got this one wrong, but hey when do they get one right...

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2007 6:21 pm**

GRRR

comes back against us

screwed again

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2007 6:51 pm**

JumboPaddy wrote:GRRR comes back against us screwed again

Don't worry too much just yet...he's still got a couple of weeks to beat up another taxi driver, get arrested again and be in the slammer that weekend.

Posted: **Tue May 22, 2007 7:58 pm**

Staggy wrote:Watched it again this morning. He's very unlucky IMO. Saw that the bloke still had his head over the ball, did everything he could to mimimise the contact, barely made contact with the head (it was mainly the shoulder region), and still gets two weeks. Very, very stiff.

If thats the case, then why did Kerr bend his knees and "drop" into his opponent with his head over the ball? Surely if he thought Bruce was going to come up, Kerr would have stayed upright in order to tackle him?

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2007 10:26 am**

Most players bend at the knees to tackle Ross, no strength in standing upright...

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2007 12:39 pm**

Stocksy wrote:Most players bend at the knees to tackle Ross, no strength in standing upright...

Do most tackle with their arms pinned into their hip and drop downwards?

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2007 1:04 pm**

If he wanted to clean him up he would of done what Michael Long did in the 2000 Grandfinal, or had a crack at imitating Byron Pickett, he reacted to the fumble at full speed, had little time to react to it but by no means was it intentional contact to the head...

Just remember Ross you are watching it slowed down, and at that pace yeah he should have hurdled him, ran over to the boundary for a drink and then come back behind him and laid the perfect tackle, however at the speed he was travelling he did well to only make minimum contact...

Posted: **Wed May 23, 2007 2:25 pm**

I agree with Rosso.

If he wanted to avoid contact I'm sure he could have changed direction or maybe even jumped over Bruce.

He had plenty of time to change his mind and tackle and he paid the price.