Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 1:57 pm  

The Reason wrote:

Why? So a player that commits foul play and receives a red card warrants the player the offence was against to have a head assesment ?

It was a bad one , the intent was there .

If a player has meant to have committed a foul to the head so bad that it warrants a red card, surely that player would need a head assessment to make sure he's safe to play? Player safety and all that?

Or, in the real world, he went for a big hit, got it slightly wrong in the the whiplash brought the head forward (wasn't direct contact) and wasn't quick enough to hit him before he passed it.

It was risky. But it wasn't intentional because if it was, he'd have actually smashed his face in and he definitely would have needed to go off.

I wouldn't even say the one Patton did on him a few weeks back was intentional and that was far far worse.

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:00 pm  

If a player is not concussed why would they need a concussion test? For me the tackle was poorly executed and the fact his feet are off the floor will also go against him.
It is not a shoulder charge as he has arms around the player but his shoulder does make contact with the head so I think a red was the right decision in the end (at the time I thought it was a terrible decision as you usually do when it is against your team.)
Was there intent, I doubt Faraimo went out to intentionally attack Atkins head.
Be interesting to see what Faraimo gets at the disciplinary this week, I would expect 2-3 games.

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:10 pm  

Not sure about it being a deliberate attempt to injure an opponent, but its a red card everyday of the week.

Wouldnt be at all surprised if he got 4-6 games.

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:37 pm  

hullbg wrote:

If a player is not concussed why would they need a concussion test?

How do you know if he's concussed or not without the test? You can't just take a player's word for it. If he was hit in the head that hard that he stayed down and if the challenge was that bad it was deemed a red card, then that player should definitely have been checked.

At the end of the day, if it was an attack to the head and he was unable to get back up, you should always check the player properly.

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:46 pm  

Chester Wednesday wrote:

Not sure about it being a deliberate attempt to injure an opponent, but its a red card everyday of the week.

Wouldnt be at all surprised if he got 4-6 games.

He got 1 match (nearly 2 with the 71 minutes from yesterday)

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:00 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

If a player has meant to have committed a foul to the head so bad that it warrants a red card, surely that player would need a head assessment to make sure he's safe to play? Player safety and all that?

Or, in the real world, he went for a big hit, got it slightly wrong in the the whiplash brought the head forward (wasn't direct contact) and wasn't quick enough to hit him before he passed it.

It was risky. But it wasn't intentional because if it was, he'd have actually smashed his face in and he definitely would have needed to go off.

I wouldn't even say the one Patton did on him a few weeks back was intentional and that was far far worse.

What is a “ foul to the head “?

Your post doesn’t make much sense .

What was risky ?

Who said it was “a foul to the head “ ?

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:07 pm  

Wellsy13 wrote:

If a player has meant to have committed a foul to the head so bad that it warrants a red card, surely that player would need a head assessment to make sure he's safe to play? Player safety and all that?

Or, in the real world, he went for a big hit, got it slightly wrong in the the whiplash brought the head forward (wasn't direct contact) and wasn't quick enough to hit him before he passed it.

It was risky. But it wasn't intentional because if it was, he'd have actually smashed his face in and he definitely would have needed to go off.

I wouldn't even say the one Patton did on him a few weeks back was intentional and that was far far worse.

“It was risky. But it wasn't intentional because if it was, he'd have actually smashed his face in and he definitely would have needed to go off “

Wow !



“

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:40 pm  

The Reason wrote:

Watched the game back this morning and that shoulder charge was shocking . A clear attempt to injure Atkin.
Red card was deserved , I think he will get a two match ban . I don’t think their coaches comments after the game will go in Faraimos favour either.

Which coaches?

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:12 pm  

I thought the technique was perfect, not late, not a shoulder not high.. If you hit someone that had in the chin/head they are going to be spark out, he wasn't so it proves he hit him in the chest. I'd be staggered if he even got a 1 match ban for it. Seems he got sent off for a tackle that could have been bad, but wasn't..

Re: Faraimo : Sat Mar 31, 2018 10:14 pm  

Edenmain wrote:

I thought the technique was perfect, not late, not a shoulder not high.. If you hit someone that had in the chin/head they are going to be spark out, he wasn't so it proves he hit him in the chest. I'd be staggered if he even got a 1 match ban for it. Seems he got sent off for a tackle that could have been bad, but wasn't..

Your right except the technique wasn't right it was late it was high so apart from them mistakes your spot on