Hawkin's gooooone

[Strapping Young Lad]

It appears that in the finals the rules do change, and sufficiency of force becomes the determining factor. I don't write or interpret the rules.

Would you seriously want to see a player miss a final because of what Hawkins did? As its is Hawkins has a good record and probably wouldn't have copped a suspension.

BTW, your traffic police analogy is flawed. Firstly, did the umpire (policeman) award a free kick to Stratton? Secondly, if you run a red light you are gone. There are no degrees. Luckily strict liability does not apply to AFL or else clubs would not have enough players to field teams each week

That's the argument. When it comes to striking it should be black and white.

Did you strike out at a player? Yes? Did you make contact? Yes? Then you're going to be penalised.

People are suggesting that because Stratton didn't hit the deck it should be overlooked.

It's farcical thinking, especially on the basis that we suspend blokes every week for incidental or 'negligent' contact when they are actually contesting the ball, yet a deliberate punch to an opponents jaw and the perps fans are telling everyone that it shouldn't get looked at.

You'll excuse me if I think common sense has made way for blind support.

 

[Armadeo]

How do we fix this?

Intentional Strike, High Contact and ???? it appears that Low does not go low enough. There needs to be a minimal grading of points for this particular offence otherwise there will be Low v insufficient arguments all day long.

 

[PoppedCorn]

cool
i expect everyone to go toe to toe with jumper punches this week
just remember that if you land one and the guy looks a bit dazed keep hold of the jumper and slap him so he regains his balance and composure and doesnt hit the deck

what a joke the system is

 

[romeoh]

That's the argument. When it comes to striking it should be black and white.

Did you strike out at a player? Yes? Did you make contact? Yes? Then you're going to be penalised.

People are suggesting that because Stratton didn't hit the deck it should be overlooked.

It's farcical thinking, especially on the basis that we suspend blokes every week for incidental or 'negligent' contact when they are actually contesting the ball, yet a deliberate punch to an opponents jaw and the perps fans are telling everyone that it shouldn't get looked at.

You'll excuse me if I think common sense has made way for blind support.

Nope its common sense that there should be degrees- eg. if there is an assault charge in the wider community-is the consequence always the same? Nope-it depends on the circumstances, the nature of the incident, the damage inflicted, the offender's history and so forth. So it may result in different consequences -maybe its a fine, maybe its a gaol sentence.
How is this principle any different really?
Yep this incident had the potential to do damage-but people aren't really suspended for 'intention.'
Did this action result in any damage? Nope. Is it something we don't want in the game-yes. Should it be a suspension-nope-no damage, minor contact and force. Should it be a monetary fine-yep, needs to be discouraged.
I don't think the issue is whether Stratton hits the deck or not-that is just some people's interpretation of the how the MRP adjudicates( and is not necessary a correct interp)

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Why does it matter if he was injured? This is the argument I keep hearing, which makes no sense.

If I run a red light, does the cop who watches me do so excuse me on the basis that I didn't T-bone anyone on the way through?

that argument does make no sense but if you want players rubbed out for that, then I recommend a Vixens membership.

Face it that was soft and the MRP finally got one right.

Fwiw still pictures 'can' be misleading in certain contexts, like the Selwood elbow to roughy's neck. Based on that photo alone some Hawks and NM posters wanted him rubbed out for 3 weeks because Boomer and Lake were.

Then the video came out and it was much ado about nothing. Kinda like this incident really

 

[stoisle]

Has a jumper punch ever been penalized? If not then I don't get what all the fuss is about.

 

[Thaihawk]

You have to wonder what the outcome would be like if actors like Bartell or Johnson were on the receiving end of jumper punches with the same force!

 

[Art Vandelay_]

You have to wonder what the outcome would be like if actors like Bartell or Johnson were on the receiving end of jumper punches with the same force!

Hodge and Lewis say hi.

This has nothing to do with 'acting'. The 'force' was insufficient.

 

[romeoh]

This is what "Insufficient force" looks like. Reference that, people.

View attachment 78938

Oh Charlie, that really hurt. Have you got the next photo in this sequence? The one where he grabs his jaw and falls to the ground?
Nope-what is the next one in the sequence then? Is it the one where Stratton, doesn't miss a beat in moving on, because there wasn't any force behind it?

 

[romeoh]

MRP showing their true colours yet again. Accidental head contact is a two week holiday while striking to the head is play on... Depending which team you play for of course.

I don't think Fyfe should have missed anytime for that bump.

 

[pazza]

The problem Geelong people have is this.

They are defending a system that has cleared a player under questionable circumstances.

 

[Thaihawk]

Hodge and Lewis say hi.

This has nothing to do with 'acting'. The 'force' was insufficient.

Acting has played its part in suspensions over the years, so it has plenty to do with it

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Acting has played its part in suspensions over the years, so it has plenty to do with it

Not in this instance. Force was negligible at worst.

Did Petrie act to play a part in the Lake suspension?. No, the force was severe and was punished accordingly. Hawkins force was insufficient and was let off accordingly.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Not in this instance. Force was negligible at worst.

Did Petrie act to play a part in the Lake suspension?. No, the force was severe and was punished accordingly. Hawkins force was insufficient and was let off accordingly.

Firstly, I disagree that force was insufficient, that was a good hit. Stratton just took it well.

Secondly, the bloke would be gone had he not had a bit of jumper in his hand. This is the stupidest part about it, you can whack a bloke as long as you are holding his jumper. Bizarre.

Anyway, happy he got off. Finals are better with the best players playing

 

[Thaihawk]

Not in this instance. Force was negligible at worst.

Did Petrie act to play a part in the Lake suspension?. No, the force was severe and was punished accordingly. Hawkins force was insufficient and was let off accordingly.

Do you think you would be still standing after a punch in the head with the same force? You are condoning players to attach each other in the head, provided they do it with not too much force. That seems to contradict the AFL's protect the head policy. You don't have an argument.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Nope its common sense that there should be degrees- eg. if there is an assault charge in the wider community-is the consequence always the same? Nope-it depends on the circumstances, the nature of the incident, the damage inflicted, the offender's history and so forth. So it may result in different consequences -maybe its a fine, maybe its a gaol sentence.
How is this principle any different really?
Yep this incident had the potential to do damage-but people aren't really suspended for 'intention.'
Did this action result in any damage? Nope. Is it something we don't want in the game-yes. Should it be a suspension-nope-no damage, minor contact and force. Should it be a monetary fine-yep, needs to be discouraged.
I don't think the issue is whether Stratton hits the deck or not-that is just some people's interpretation of the how the MRP adjudicates( and is not necessary a correct interp)

Silly comparison.

There's not a "head is sacrosanct" theme running through society that governs 'assault' and law. There certainly is in the AFL.

You are saying that a player striking another in the jaw is ok, as long as there's no damage caused. I simply can't and never will agree with that.

 

[Furn2]

95% of power shots landed in a boxing match don't knock anyone over or cause any injury! or result in the victim holding their face.

I guess the worlds top pro boxers throw almost all of their punches with Insufficent force.

 

[romeoh]

Silly comparison.

There's not a "head is sacrosanct" theme running through society that governs 'assault' and law. There certainly is in the AFL.

You are saying that a player striking another in the jaw is ok, as long as there's no damage caused. I simply can't and never will agree with that.

Its not a silly comparison-I was comparing the principle that there are degrees to an offence, not the actual offence.
I am saying if the 'hit' is of such limited impact, there was no likelihood of damage occurring, then yep-free kick, play on.
Fyfe shouldn't have missed any time. One week would have been fair for Lake. A fine would have been good in Hawkins case. Conca should have gotten 4 weeks. The Mrp is flawed -get over it.
Anyway can we just lighten up a bit dudes. So serious about everything.

 

[JoseMourinho]

I hope the loading goes next season otherwise Fyfe will get a week for breathing on someone at this rate.

 

[AM]

The problem Geelong people have is this.

They are defending a system that has cleared a player under questionable circumstances.

Questionable MRP decisions are something Geelong people have endured for some time. So we're not unfamiliar with them.

One of the issues when 'force' is at the centre of the matter is the lack of an explicit definition as to what that entails. Not easy to do btw.

Whether the recipient was injured seems one measure. The severity of any injury then seems to come into play. It appears the MRP look at such matters as the distress the recipient was in. Whether he left the ground for treatment. How extensive any treatment was. Whether there are long term consequences for the recipient and what they are - et al.

They appear to rely heavily on the opposition medicos report for much of that information

In Hawkins case, there was no obvious distress shown by the recipient. He didn't leave the field of play due to the incident. The Hawthorn medical report must have indicated no injury was sustained. So, under the remit given the MRP their finding is on balance not unreasonable. Particularly in view of the good record of the offender.

Keep in mind Mark Evans now has the power to send any finding by the MRP that is in his view unreasonable to the Tribunal. He didn't.

 

[MagpieJo]

What we actually need are field umpires who have the cojones to stop the cheap shots that precede what is often frustration. Weak umpires who fail to assert control early in games are often more the problem.

Nothing in it and it was adjudicated by the MRP correctly.

You'd have no players left after the first five minutes

 

[AM]

You'd have no players left after the first five minutes

Well that's clearly nonsense.

The reason cheap shots have become accepted practice is largely due to nuffies in the commentariat allowing cheap shot merchants to get away with weak acts by characterising them as 'part of the game'. And weak umpiring for not penalising those weak acts.They so often escalate and lead to ball players being caught for retaliatory action.

Players read weak umpiring like a book. If they get away with a swift elbow in the guts they'll take advantage of it all day.

The classic illustration of weak umpiring was the Baker/Johnson matter. Before the ball was bounced Baker was sinking the elbows into Johnson, whacking his previously broken hand. No interest in anything else. While that was occurring a gutless umpire was standing 10 metres away and did nothing. His inaction was directly responsible for the matter escalating to the point where Baker finished with a nine week suspension and Johnnson a three week suspension. Would never have got to that point had the umpire asserted control from the get-go.

Jeff Crouch often said umpires set the tone for the day by taking control early in a game. Coaches soon address issues that are costing the team in penalties.

There's nothing courageous in whacking players off the ball. It's the opposite. Courage is putting your head over the pill, something most of the commentariat would have no idea about.

 

[G0ther00s]

What a ******* joke, just hold onto someone's jumper and punch them in the face, that's ok. Glad that the AFL is on board with the whole 'one punch can change a life' message that Danny Green is promoting.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Unfortunately there has been considerable consistency with the interpretations.

If you accidentally hurt someone in the act of playing the ball - you are penalised.

If you deliberately attempt to hurt someone away from the ball - you are ignored.

I'd have been happy for Hawkins to cop 2 weeks for that. Completely unnecessary, and NOTHING to do with football.

Especially as Hawkins has history. Stratton this time, Langford earlier in the year (again deserved MRP treatment then), and IIRC also got into another Hawk the year before as well. Always 'unprovoked' attacks off the ball.

Compare that to Roughead, who has missed five weeks and now carries a 'bad' record for incidents which all involved genuine attempts to win the contest.

Which one is really the 'dirty' player? Which style of player should the AFL be encouraging?

They have it backwards IMO.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Questionable MRP decisions are something Geelong people have endured for some time. So we're not unfamiliar with them.

One of the issues when 'force' is at the centre of the matter is the lack of an explicit definition as to what that entails. Not easy to do btw.

Whether the recipient was injured seems one measure. The severity of any injury then seems to come into play. It appears the MRP look at such matters as the distress the recipient was in. Whether he left the ground for treatment. How extensive any treatment was. Whether there are long term consequences for the recipient and what they are - et al.

They appear to rely heavily on the opposition medicos report for much of that information

In Hawkins case, there was no obvious distress shown by the recipient. He didn't leave the field of play due to the incident. The Hawthorn medical report must have indicated no injury was sustained. So, under the remit given the MRP their finding is on balance not unreasonable. Particularly in view of the good record of the offender.

Keep in mind Mark Evans now has the power to send any finding by the MRP that is in his view unreasonable to the Tribunal. He didn't.

The only reason Hawkins is out there this weekend is because it's finals. Don't kid yourself.