View Full Version : Ryder suspended for some reason
:thumbsd:
Any idea what this is for? Only for a week I think
(Note: I'm getting this off FanFooty so it may be wrong...)
There was a hit on dangerfield i think on the 50 near the boundry line. Nothing in it really and even the commentators said the crows player should have had better awareness.
Only incident i can think of.
Skeeta Olly
8 Jun 2009, 16:11
Rough Conduct?
FF is bs though, although, Monty did say 2, 1 with an early plea.
boncer34
8 Jun 2009, 16:12
2 weeks for rough conduct. One with an early plea. Anyone know the exact incident? Please tell me it wasn't for the sheperd.
Strike Swiftly
8 Jun 2009, 16:12
Has to be bullshit. He doesn't have any carry overs. To be suspended would have to be serious. Hope it's bullshit anyway, otherwise we're stuffed.
GoldenboyHird_5
8 Jun 2009, 16:13
Ryder has been sanctioned for his hit on Patrick Dangerfield in the second term. He can accept a one-match ban with a guilty plea or can choose to challenge a 2-match ban.
ENTER THE BOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MarkJohnson#1
8 Jun 2009, 16:13
Triple M anounced 1 week with an early plea. If it's for the Dangerfield incident then that is an absolute joke!
Patrick Ryder, Essendon, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence against Patrick Dangerfield, Adelaide, during the third quarter of the Round 11 match between Essendon and Adelaide, played at Docklands on Sunday June 7, 2009.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/78447/default.aspx
Please me the razor someone.
Ben the Gooner
8 Jun 2009, 16:13
Absolute bullshit, there was nothing in that.
Patrick Ryder, Essendon, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence against Patrick Dangerfield, Adelaide, during the third quarter of the Round 11 match between Essendon and Adelaide, played at Docklands on Sunday June 7, 2009.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/78447/default.aspx
http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/krasensky/daddy-long-legs-spider-1767.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v41/Bahamunt/Blog/fffffffuuuuuuuuCustom.png
boncer34
8 Jun 2009, 16:14
Beat me to it Spikey. I heard it on 3AW. Disgraceful.
Bring-Back-Powell
8 Jun 2009, 16:14
WHo will ruck for Essendon next match if Ryder misses>
BTW you must be relieved you'll get a much needed win V Melbourne next match
If that was for the bump on Dangerfield then that is perhaps THE dumbest decision I have ever seen.
Appeal it and he will get off.
WHo will ruck for Essendon next match if Ryder misses>
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6440775,00.jpg
with
http://images.newsphotos.com.au/images5/Lores/91105676.jpg
helping out when Bock gets killed
you have got to be kidding me!!!
edit*: spikey, is he annorexic? :S
danzan22
8 Jun 2009, 16:15
If true Ess have to argue it, not head high, legitimate bump within 5m of the ball. Bullshit if he does get suspended.
inspectorman
8 Jun 2009, 16:17
If that was for the bump on Dangerfield then that is perhaps THE dumbest decision I have ever seen.
Appeal it and he will get off.
ryder wont get rubbed our for that bump that was a fair bump
Windas_Magic
8 Jun 2009, 16:18
Unless my memory is ****ed, it was just a normal bump, a shepherd. That is just soft.
AndyLesPaul
8 Jun 2009, 16:21
Amazingly stupid decision.
Ryders taller than Dangerfield. is that his fault that he got him in the head?
AndyLesPaul
8 Jun 2009, 16:23
Unless my memory is ****ed, it was just a normal bump, a shepherd. That is just soft.
Dangerfield got concussed because he's TOO SMALL.
Should be able to challenge this.
This is one of the most shambolic decisions ever by a shambolic system. A complete ****ing joke.
I hope you appeal and it is correctly reversed.
BomberAce7
8 Jun 2009, 16:26
Unless my memory is ****ed, it was just a normal bump, a shepherd. That is just soft.
Agree totally! The match review panel cant be serious surely? If any player can get rubbed out on a legitimate bump then the game is good as dead imo.
Dandy_GO
8 Jun 2009, 16:27
What an absolute joke.
The Match Review Panel is seriously the biggest pile of crap. It's a lottery.
It should have been a free kick, as with the fend off on Symes moments earlier, but a suspension is pretty bloody harsh.
Dangerfield got concussed because he's TOO SMALL.
Should be able to challenge this.
Dangerfield came back on shortly after. I agree, its soft as butter. How you can give that 1 week and Gardiner, who has history, gets a week for a deliberate elbow to the head!
hateitorlovett13
8 Jun 2009, 16:32
Absolute death of the hip and shoulder. ****ing bullshit AFL, do something about it Demetriou you joke of a man.
How do the AFL expect to infiltrate NRL grounds when they're eliminating the physicality that brings so many to watch AFL?
This shit really pisses me off. Wtf are we supposed to do now with the ruck?
**** YOU AFL, **** YOU TRIBUNAL, **** YOU ALL.
BomberAce7
8 Jun 2009, 16:33
Absolute death of the hip and shoulder. ****ing bullshit AFL, do something about it Demetriou you joke of a man.
How do the AFL expect to infiltrate NRL grounds when they're eliminating the physicality that brings so many to watch AFL?
This shit really pisses me off. Wtf are we supposed to do now with the ruck?
**** YOU AFL, **** YOU TRIBUNAL, **** YOU ALL.
:thumbsu:
This is one of the most shambolic decisions ever by a shambolic system. A complete ****ing joke.
I hope you appeal and it is correctly reversed.
Challenge and get off. He was right near the ball and should have expected contact.
Grundy2Reserves
8 Jun 2009, 16:39
Have him in my DT, I agree you should definately challenge. :p
But seriously, that's rediculous.
There was a greater risk that the Dangerfield 'headbut' on Ryder's write/elbow region could have broken Ryder's wrist.
Hopefully Dangerfield will be disciplined as well.
The match review panel/tribunal is always good for a laugh.
George Washington
8 Jun 2009, 16:46
http://charlesgoyette.com/uploaded_images/panic-705224.png
red+black
8 Jun 2009, 16:47
Relax guys, we have the bye next.
danielgb123
8 Jun 2009, 16:48
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6440775,00.jpg
Good to see he's put on some weight ;)
Btw, I heard Boots is going to be playing in the ruck.
Dangerfield came back on shortly after. I agree, its soft as butter. How you can give that 1 week and Gardiner, who has history, gets a week for a deliberate elbow to the head!
How about Mooney haymaking that defender in the head a few weeks ago, he only got one from memory. :p
Wow. Obviously will be challenged and get off, but that's just a laughable decision by the MRP.
From what I can remember, the bump was fair, it was just unintentionally a bit high on Dangerfield. Possible free kick, but definitely not reportable. I don't support Essendon, but this is just ridiculous.
Hopefully Ryder will get off and be all clear for next week and we can forget this hiccup by the tribunal. :thumbsu:
They have f***ed up the rules.
It is not about whether it is fair or not.
I can remember the furore around the Maxwell bump.
The rule works to deem any contact to the head as negligent. You can't argue that it was fair (which it was).
It then comes down to a question of the force of the contact and they have deemed it forceful contact on the basis that Dangerfield was concussed. In real time (these things should never be slowed down) Ryder barely seems to hit him. I think Dangerfield hit his head on the ground.
We really have to congratulate the people who have made rules penalising players for being taller than their opponents while at the same time rewarding the incompetence of a player (the player who is not able to adequately protect himself when common sense and footbal nouse demand that he protect himself - that is not to have too much of a go at Dangerfield, he is a gun, but if you don't protect yourself in a contact sport then you will get hurt).
Thought it was a pretty fair bump. Maybe a touch high but most of the damage to Dangerfield was caused by his head hitting the ground. Free kick at the most. The MRP are a joke. Ryder is a great (and fair) player and I hope he appeals and gets off.
Wahooti Fandango
8 Jun 2009, 17:13
We must challenge it and he should get off. Hooker's hit was worse than Ryder's hit.
Ben the Gooner
8 Jun 2009, 17:21
We must challenge it and he should get off. Hooker's hit was worse than Ryder's hit.
Maybe we should offer them Hooker in exchange for Ryder's freedom.
Daniher at full back is better than Jetta in the ruck.
Fair bump, may need to call the QC Collingwood used as it is totally differnet to Maxwell's bump.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf-qADsO3E
Maxwell wasn't looking at the ball in that contest where as Ryder was laying a legitmate bump and looking at the ball video footage would help
You're missing the point.
Fairness/legitimacy/intention are not relevant because contact was made to the head. This is why talk back on SEN went ballistic. Noone knew that head contact had this impact.
AndyLesPaul
8 Jun 2009, 17:32
You're missing the point.
Fairness and intention are not relevant.
Maxwell's intention was evident.
Ryder's wasn't.
Maxwell's the same height as McKinley,
Ryder's taller than Dangerfield.
I'm picturing one of those "same age, same income sort of things."
Bombertastic
8 Jun 2009, 17:39
This is tragic. Maybe just get Lucas and McPhee to alternate and try and make the opposition ruck man pay for it around the ground.
gdaytiger2001
8 Jun 2009, 17:40
So Ryder receives the same penalty as Gardiner, when Gardiner raises his elbow with what can only be described as a cheap shot to someones head!
The AFL is a joke!
No wonder people are leaving this game in droves, im so sick of this crap!
It seems these days you can pretty much do whatever you want to a player in this game as long as you don't bump your opponent!
We must challenge it and he should get off. Hooker's hit was worse than Ryder's hit.
I thought the same thing. When I saw Hooker's fend off I couldn't believe the umpire didn't pay a free against him, and I thought Paddy's bump was much cleaner than that one.
The AFL is a complete joke.
what a joke. the game is so soft these days it might as well be touch football. i dont like what football is becoming.
we might as well put no one in the ruck and have an extra rover in there to try to shark the opposition ruckmans taps. by the look of bock, he cant play afl.
thebirdman 24
8 Jun 2009, 17:49
Poor call by the MRP, bloody useless they are. Hopefully you guys appeal it because really it was not reportable and danger should have seen him coming. The inconsistencies with the MRP is really befuddling.
Windas_Magic
8 Jun 2009, 17:51
lexwXyJ84Fs
George Washington
8 Jun 2009, 17:54
I reckon we might cop the week, considering its Melbourne next round. There goes any hope of getting a % boost against Melbourne. Ryder has been playing some fantastic footy as well.
toddy104
8 Jun 2009, 17:56
WTF? how is that not a legal bump. What a disgrace to even be talking about it.
love the music by the way haha
Big Blow Hard
8 Jun 2009, 18:01
We have to appeal it. It is just a bad, bad decision.
If we tape Rhys Magin onto someones shoulders, will anyone notice? :p
Wahooti Fandango
8 Jun 2009, 18:01
That video should be submitted for the appeal and the music retained (that is priceless). :thumbsu:
Big Blow Hard
8 Jun 2009, 18:06
lexwXyJ84Fs
Only from one angle does it look like head contact. If anything he collected him front of the shoulder. If this is not appealed something is seriously wrong.
BringBackCransberg
8 Jun 2009, 18:09
They have f***ed up the rules.
It is not about whether it is fair or not.
I can remember the furore around the Maxwell bump.
The rule works to deem any contact to the head as negligent. You can't argue that it was fair (which it was).
It then comes down to a question of the force of the contact and they have deemed it forceful contact on the basis that Dangerfield was concussed. In real time (these things should never be slowed down) Ryder barely seems to hit him. I think Dangerfield hit his head on the ground.
We really have to congratulate the people who have made rules penalising players for being taller than their opponents while at the same time rewarding the incompetence of a player (the player who is not able to adequately protect himself when common sense and footbal nouse demand that he protect himself - that is not to have too much of a go at Dangerfield, he is a gun, but if you don't protect yourself in a contact sport then you will get hurt).
You're right, the rule's f*****. Now I'm especially confused as to how Coughlan got off his hit on Winderlich. But that's another barrel of fish.
My immediate reaction to seeing Ryder's bump is "Good bump - poor bastard on the end of it". Reaction on seeing it a few more times: "From that first angle, it looks bad." Third reaction: "But it's not bad. It's football."
AndyLesPaul
8 Jun 2009, 18:15
lexwXyJ84Fs
Your youtube channel?
If so, GREAT work.
Windas_Magic
8 Jun 2009, 18:17
Your youtube channel?
If so, GREAT work.
Nah, someone on BB posted it.
What other rucking options does Essendon have left with Ryder being suspended?
Both Bellchambers and Laycock are injured aren't they?
The_Young_Gun
8 Jun 2009, 18:20
The review panel need to grow some balls!
That was soft as butter!
OzBomber
8 Jun 2009, 18:23
Yeah, haven't seen the match but just watched the footage and it's an absolute joke. Surely they're doing it for laughs to see us panic because we'll have only 1 ruckman left.
He'll get off on the appeal easily.
bipolarbeaR
8 Jun 2009, 18:24
WHAT THE!!!! Is that the bump on Dangerfield??????? OMG that was nothing.
bitfootymad
8 Jun 2009, 18:25
I feel for Essendon! this team is my second side, i have followed them like Geelong for the last 25 years! cos of Bomber Thompson, you guys must of been pissed pissed in the end with what would have been a good game to WIN yesterday??? :confused: now loose Ryder????matty knights might have to play, doesn't look like you have anything at Bendigo !! time to get rid of Bendigo, put your own side in like the Pies! good luck....
Donakebab
8 Jun 2009, 18:26
Fair bump. No doubt we will appeal and get this overturned.
Great video btw!
OzBomber
8 Jun 2009, 18:28
What other rucking options does Essendon have left with Ryder being suspended?
Both Bellchambers and Laycock are injured aren't they?Spider Bock.
retroparty
8 Jun 2009, 18:32
IMO its time Knighter thought of a revolutionary tactic were we play 4 midfielders at the bounce instead 3 midfielders and a ruckman. Its worth having a try because we have Melbourne next week.
Lets see what happens. We could have 3 midfielders manning up and one (Watson or McVeigh, someone good at reading the play) to roam around and grab the ball from all the opposition ruckman's hitouts.:D
Seriously though, this decision is disgraceful. Surely we will contest and get off. It not fair if he gets suspended for something as innocent as that. I hate the MRP:mad:
The Dustbin
8 Jun 2009, 18:34
This is bull shit. :mad:
The footy gods have it in for us. Come on down Bock. Who mind you in today's Bendigo game was just ok.
bOmBeR_BoY1
8 Jun 2009, 18:35
If we appeal and the suspension still stands, I will...
Not worth going there.
Absolutely disgraceful. Great hit, sure. Free kick? Maybe, although I'd even question that. Suspension? You're having a laugh.
They'll successfully appeal it, surely.
AndyLesPaul
8 Jun 2009, 19:17
Absolutely disgraceful. Great hit, sure. Free kick? Maybe, although I'd even question that. Suspension? You're having a laugh.
They'll successfully appeal it, surely.
Agreed.
I love how it wasn't a free kick, and they just skipped that and made it a 2 match suspension.
Knights is smart, he should know how easy that would be to contest.
If we lose however, we are absolutely stuffed, and teams will make use of our ruck.
Boucks09
8 Jun 2009, 19:28
There is absolutely no point comparing this suspension to the Nick Maxwell bump on Patrick McGinnity because following the successful appeal of that ruling, the AFL changed the rules to provent the 'Collingwood' loophole from being used as a defense by other sides.
In regards to the rule I actually support it. It is fairly straight forward.
If you decide not to make the ball your first priority and instead decide to go the man (in this case lay a shepard) then you are required to act in a manner which does not result in head high contact. You are leaving yourself at the mercy of the rules. That is fairly simple to understand. The person playing the ball should always be protected from head high contact. The fact that Ryder is taller than Dangerfield is irrelevant, he has a duty of care to not make head high contact.
If for example Ryder was going for the ball and made the same contact, then it is a different situation but as he was not attacking the ball, this rule comes into play.
As the charge currently stands it is deemed to be medium level contact (in terms of force) and high contact which is why it is a 2 match ban rather than one. I think if we are going to challenge (which we will) we can argue that the contact was only low level (in force) and not high (with Ryder hitting the shoulder) which may end up in a reprimand.
For all of those calling decisions like this the 'end of the bump' and so forth, it is worth noting that it has always been wrong to hit a bloke in the head. You can still run through somebody and not be suspended if you execute a bump correctly. David Hille is a prime example of a how a big man should execute a hip and shoulder. He gets low and tucks in his arms and we have seen how damaging his bumps can be (watch Simon Black last year).
It will be very interesting to see how this goes. I feel we may get off but he will have something like 80 carry over points AT BEST. This is not as clear cut as a lot of you may think.
AndyLesPaul
8 Jun 2009, 19:34
David Hille is a prime example of a how a big man should execute a hip and shoulder. He gets low and tucks in his arms and we have seen how damaging his bumps can be (watch Simon Black last year).
Is there a youtube vid Boucks?
Completely agree btw.
OzBomber
8 Jun 2009, 19:38
There is absolutely no point comparing this suspension to the Nick Maxwell bump on Patrick McGinnity because following the successful appeal of that ruling...
...This is not as clear cut as a lot of you may think.I think it's called shepherding.
So here's a crazy idea:
Have no ruckman. Play an extra midfielder
When the ball is bounced the extra midfielder runs in but doesn't jump...:rolleyes:
Boucks09
8 Jun 2009, 20:28
I think it's called shepherding.
And the rule doesn't stop any player from bumping a player as a shepherd. The fact is though that if you decide to do that then you can't hit a bloke in the head.
People need to stop getting up in arms everytime something like this happens and actually look at the rule and why it is in place. Now does this apply to Ryder? Well it's hard to tell given that one angle shows him hitting Dangerfield in the shoulder, whilst the other makes it appear that Dangerfield gets head high contact.
Steven King got 6 (4 with an early plea) today for a bump which was head high but off the ball. The precedent is there and players know this. It is simple.
If you decide not to play the ball and bump an opponent you MUST NOT hit him in the head. If you are not able to get low enough to lay the bump correctly you should not do it anyway as you will be giving away a free kick.
P.S Andy I don't know if there is a David Hille video on You Tube. I saw it on BomberTV.
james_omahoney
8 Jun 2009, 21:07
As the charge currently stands it is deemed to be medium level contact (in terms of force) and high contact which is why it is a 2 match ban rather than one. I think if we are going to challenge (which we will) we can argue that the contact was only low level (in force) and not high (with Ryder hitting the shoulder) which may end up in a reprimand.
For all of those calling decisions like this the 'end of the bump' and so forth, it is worth noting that it has always been wrong to hit a bloke in the head. You can still run through somebody and not be suspended if you execute a bump correctly. David Hille is a prime example of a how a big man should execute a hip and shoulder. He gets low and tucks in his arms and we have seen how damaging his bumps can be (watch Simon Black last year).
It will be very interesting to see how this goes. I feel we may get off but he will have something like 80 carry over points AT BEST. This is not as clear cut as a lot of you may think.
Firstly Boucks I agree with what you're saying in regards to the rule. I have a question: If EFC argued the contact was not head-high, and the panel agreed, then how would it still be a reprimand? If you're innocent then you get off completely, right? No carrover points. Just an apology from the MRP ;).
The frontal shot looks bad but I think Ryder's body obscures what happens with his arm, as it appears there's some head-high contact there. However, when view from behind, to me it doesn't look like head-high contact at all.
I think most agree with the rule and its application, but it's whether or not the rule was actually breached which is in contention.
IMO should get off.
The response is disroportionate when you consider that there was no malice in Ryder's bump. As far as I am concerned the camera angles don't even prove that Ryder hit Dangerfield in the head. Knocking you head on the ground can give you concussion.
Dangerfield played so either the Adelaide medical staff got it wrong or Dangerfield was not seriously injured. I am going to back the Adelaide medical staff because I think they almost have a betterr track record than Sydney.
So now we look at the reasoning behind a decision like this (the rule). They are trying to stop the bump and this is a way to phase it out. If you are over 6'4 there is no logical argument to ever place a bumb. The hysterical response to contact to the head means that you will be suspended. You can't rely on the nouse of your opponent to protect himself at all so there is a high likelihood that a bump will end up going wrong and you will get suspended.
It is indirectly killing parts of the game. It is completely naieve to say otherwise. Will Kinghts tell Ryder to make the same choice if he is presented with the same situation next time? I would like to think not, Ryder is going to tower over most AFL players and there is a good chance that he wll be suspended because there are too many uncontrollable variables when executing a bump on someone you are taller than.
All this shit about going for the ball vs not going for the ball is also disturbing. Somewhere in the last 10 years football people forgot that there are many situations during a game when it is more imortant not to play the ball.
The reality is that these rule changes are brought in, and supported, by Helen Lovejoy 'wont somebody think of the children' types who either don't really understand the game (those who are so concerned about head high contact when the % of collissions resulting in serious damage can barly be seen on paper), need to comment on something (journalists like Caro who say that mothers won't let their children play - whose mum ever stopped them playing football if their father was OK with it?) or are tied into suporting the AFL in any move they make (media personalities like Kevin Bartlett).
The Taylor Walker Show
8 Jun 2009, 21:38
lol, what a joke!
thought it was a very good bump.
if it was my player i'd be fuming.
bombersno1
8 Jun 2009, 21:48
Thing is, I'd rather cop a week, than have him out for 2. It is soft, but no softer than the Burgoyne decision and he was unsuccessful in his challenge at the tribunal.
I actually think we'll go for a downgrade rather than a "not guilty" verdict
james_omahoney
8 Jun 2009, 22:01
Thing is, I'd rather cop a week, than have him out for 2. It is soft, but no softer than the Burgoyne decision and he was unsuccessful in his challenge at the tribunal.
I actually think we'll go for a downgrade rather than a "not guilty" verdict
I would be very surprised if we didn't contest it. Extremely.
Boucks09
8 Jun 2009, 22:14
Firstly Boucks I agree with what you're saying in regards to the rule. I have a question: If EFC argued the contact was not head-high, and the panel agreed, then how would it still be a reprimand? If you're innocent then you get off completely, right? No carrover points. Just an apology from the MRP ;).
The frontal shot looks bad but I think Ryder's body obscures what happens with his arm, as it appears there's some head-high contact there. However, when view from behind, to me it doesn't look like head-high contact at all.
I think most agree with the rule and its application, but it's whether or not the rule was actually breached which is in contention.
IMO should get off.
You raise a fair point. I'm not 100% sure on how the system works in regards to downgrading points, so you may very well be correct. Lets hope so.
The response is disroportionate when you consider that there was no malice in Ryder's bump. As far as I am concerned the camera angles don't even prove that Ryder hit Dangerfield in the head. Knocking you head on the ground can give you concussion.
Dangerfield played so either the Adelaide medical staff got it wrong or Dangerfield was not seriously injured. I am going to back the Adelaide medical staff because I think they almost have a betterr track record than Sydney.
So now we look at the reasoning behind a decision like this (the rule). They are trying to stop the bump and this is a way to phase it out. If you are over 6'4 there is no logical argument to ever place a bumb. The hysterical response to contact to the head means that you will be suspended. You can't rely on the nouse of your opponent to protect himself at all so there is a high likelihood that a bump will end up going wrong and you will get suspended.
It is indirectly killing parts of the game. It is completely naieve to say otherwise. Will Kinghts tell Ryder to make the same choice if he is presented with the same situation next time? I would like to think not, Ryder is going to tower over most AFL players and there is a good chance that he wll be suspended because there are too many uncontrollable variables when executing a bump on someone you are taller than.
All this shit about going for the ball vs not going for the ball is also disturbing. Somewhere in the last 10 years football people forgot that there are many situations during a game when it is more imortant not to play the ball.
The reality is that these rule changes are brought in, and supported, by Helen Lovejoy 'wont somebody think of the children' types who either don't really understand the game (those who are so concerned about head high contact when the % of collissions resulting in serious damage can barly be seen on paper), need to comment on something (journalists like Caro who say that mothers won't let their children play - whose mum ever stopped them playing football if their father was OK with it?) or are tied into suporting the AFL in any move they make (media personalities like Kevin Bartlett).
The concept of malice is completely irrevelant in this situation due to the new rule and I agree with it. Once you make the decision to go for the man rather than the ball that is all that matters. It is clear cut and much easier to understand as to whether a player is showing 'malice' which is objective at the best of times. You could be Christian Bock, Barry Hall or even Caroline Wilson, it does not matter - if you go the man and have the intention of bumping him and must do so within the rules.
The point regarding the severity of the injury is the one area of the MRP that I have serious concerns about - even outside of this situation. It is obvious that the panel is now basing much of their punishments on the severity of the injury caused by the action. This is completey wrong.
If Jamar had gone down and been concussed with the Gardner hit last week, the penalty would've increased even though Gardner's actions were exactly the same. If Dangerfield had gotten up or was a bigger player and handled the bump easily, Ryder's penalty would've been less. This is an area which needs to be addressed but should be addressed seperately to the interpretation of specific AFL laws (e.g. this bump).
In regards to 'phasing out the bump' this is complete and utter nonsense. The players in the AFL now HIT HARDER than ever before. The game is TOUGHER than ever before. The AFL are attempting to phase out hits to the head (and consequent injuries). If a player was NOT sanctioned for a bump which was head high and a player were to suffer serious head or neck injuries there would be an outcry and rightly so. The 'nous' of an opponent has nothing to do with it in this situation with Ryder. Ofcourse he would expect contact, but not to the head. Why would he? In ANY situation in an AFL game, head high contact is against the rules.
The only time an opponents actions can directly influence whether you bump a player high is when there is front on contact. We saw with the Coughlan vs Winderlich incident that Coughlan got as low as possible and thus was not suspended because it was Winderlich's actions which put him in danger - not Coughlan's. If Coughlan had not gotten low and hit Winderlich he would've gone, but he did everything he could in the situation and was thus not punished.
There is a massive reason for a 6'4 bloke to lay a bump. Because it ****en hurts and is an effective blocking strategy. That doesn't mean he needs to hit him in the head and get suspended. We saw when Nick Maxwell got suspended that he openly said in public that if he was confronted with the same situation again that he would lay the bump. I argue most other AFL players and coaches would say the same - the will just make sure that they don't hit the head.
So your concerns about players not going the man when required is unfounded - it is and will continue to be a big part of our game. These decisions are not going to stop players from being physical, it is going to make them become better at executing the skill of bumping and remove the chance of injury through head high contact.
In regards to KB and Caro - people don't understand that EVERYONE ENJOYS THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF OUR GAME - KB and Caro included. Nobody is out to wreck it, nobody (e.g. KB) has a hidden agenda. The only reason there is hysteria is because ill-informed people in the public and media DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RULES AND WHY THEY WERE MADE and thus carry on like pork chops rather than actually reading the rules.
bombersno1
8 Jun 2009, 22:23
I would be very surprised if we didn't contest it. Extremely.
We will contest it, I don't like our chances getting him off. I like our chances of getting a downgrade though- it is a Level 2 offence, a downgrade would see a reprimand.
Sorry but I didn't mention toughness once.
My point is that change is made that has a number of unintended consequences (give them the credit of really trying to keep the bump) because these rules are not thought through.
My other point is that chage is often made with very little justification. Too often change is made to appease the vocal minority.
I can't see how you can say that a tall player can continue to lay heavy shepherds (which are the advantages as you put them) when the player cannot control the outcome. Giving away a free kick I can live with but you have the suspension cloud hanging over you every time you go in for a bump. The footbal community on this forum will tell you that this bump was basically perfectly executed (again there is no concrete proof that Ryder actually hit Dangerfield in the head). If the bump is viewed as being soo good and soo fair and soo within the spirit of the game and costs a player two weeks how on earth can a coach let players bump?
It wasn't so long ago that the onu was place on the players to protect themselves...ducking anyone?
Boucks09
8 Jun 2009, 22:38
Sorry but I didn't mention toughness once.
My point is that change is made that has a number of unintended consequences (give them the credit of really trying to keep the bump) because these rules are not thought through.
My other point is that chage is often made with very little justification. Too often change is made to appease the vocal minority.
I can't see how you can say that a tall player can continue to lay heavy shepherds (which are the advantages as you put them) when the player cannot control the outcome. Giving away a free kick I can live with but you have the suspension cloud hanging over you every time you go in for a bump. The footbal community on this forum will tell you that this bump was basically perfectly executed (again there is no concrete proof that Ryder actually hit Dangerfield in the head). If the bump is viewed as being soo good and soo fair and soo within the spirit of the game and costs a player two weeks how on earth can a coach let players bump?
It wasn't so long ago that the onu was place on the players to protect themselves...ducking anyone?
That's the point. We have two contrasting video angles which tell two completely different stories. The MRP have not given Ryder the benefit of the doubt and decided to offer him a suspension. That is why the tribunal is there so that a case can be answered if more evidence is provided.
I would say that Essendon will look at using Dangerfield as a witness to argue that the contact was not head high and that his injuries were a consequence of his head hitting the ground. If that happens as you say the bump was brilliant and we all move on.
I'm not 100% convinced it was a great bump going off the front-on angle - and I want Ryder to play as much as anybody - so I can understand why the MRP ruled against him.
In regards to rule changes - that's a whole different argument.
sen entertainment bloke
9 Jun 2009, 07:18
Was not negligent from what I saw. Anyway see what happens.
The bigger worry I see is how it will affect Paddy's approach to the game henceforth.
bipolarbeaR
9 Jun 2009, 11:02
It's ok, the media will talk up how stupid the call was hopefully!
AlwaysRight
9 Jun 2009, 14:18
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6440775,00.jpg
I've seen kids in World Vision ads fatter then him.
No joke.
AndyLesPaul
9 Jun 2009, 16:59
I've seen kids in World Vision ads fatter then him.
No joke.
I'd say thats because their not as tall, and do eat food.
The_Young_Gun
9 Jun 2009, 17:26
We should do what collingwood did..
If Nick Maxwell can get off for breaking someones jaw.. Then I'm certain Paddy Ryder can get off for "Sheppeding!"...
Crumpler83
9 Jun 2009, 19:09
Ryder's case thrown out, sanity prevails. Just heard it on SEN...
George Washington
9 Jun 2009, 19:13
Thank god, now i hope to god this debacle doesnt affect the fantatic footy ryder has been playing.
Skeeta Olly
9 Jun 2009, 19:17
Win.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/78526/default.aspx
james_omahoney
9 Jun 2009, 19:21
We will contest it, I don't like our chances getting him off. I like our chances of getting a downgrade though- it is a Level 2 offence, a downgrade would see a reprimand.
:thumbsu: