<blockquote>Quote from Jason on July 9, 2012, 20:05 There was a point during the passage of play that Wellingham was going for the mark and then there was also a point at which this changes when he realises that there will be a collision. Split second stuff, not a premeditated deliberate or intentional act, but a decision nonetheless.</blockquote> ...Spot on. Maybe a bit reckless on Wellingham's behalf but the Collingwood haters are just gonna have to move on.
I fail to see how being rookie listed but not playing in 2007 counts towards a five-year clean record. He has only played for four years (counting part thereof for 2008 when he debuted).
I agree that it is unfair but this is a contact sport we are talking about, injuries happen. There will be too many grey areas for this type of proposal to get up. I think the MRP and tribunal should just get their sentences right. Blind Freddy can see that the system doesn't work. Good records should not be taken into account for intential acts, only negligible. Wellingham's sentence should have stayed at 5 weeks and then no one would have been talking about it.
Jason, this was in the Herald Sun a couple of days ago: "For the purposes of the tribunal record, both good and bad, the rookie list, scholarship list etc are counted because they're eligible to play in the AFL if you're upgraded," AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said. "As it turned out Wellingham was upgraded in 2007 to be eligible for the senior list, but didn't play that year. "In 2008 he was upgraded and played, so the fact that he's available for selection and continues to play in the VFL in that period means he's eligible to gather a good record or a bad record."
He admitted on Channel Seven's Game Day it "wasn't intentional to hurt him that much". talk about pot calling kettle, Collingwood supporters forget he said this did they