AFL Player #27: Mason Redman 🐕

[Lore]

Contract Status: Free Agent 2028
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 24, ghostdog

 

[citizen-erased]

Throwing these together coz I looked up why Hewett got off







it's best to think of careless/intentional from the POV of "did they intend to commit a reportable action?". The easy example is a bump. Almost every bump is graded as careless, because it's legal to lay a bump. It's just if you stuff up and hit the head, you're in trouble. the exception is if the bump is off the ball, when bumps aren't legal, which led to Nathan Brown getting an intentional charge in 2018, because there was no doubt he intended to bump Saad, and it was an illegal action. I saw some people say Jimmy Webster should have been graded intentional, but it was perfectly legal for him to bump the player, but he had plenty of force behind him and got the head. I don't see a way to have Webster's bump to be a possible intentional act without it actually possibly banning the bump forever.

Anyway, it seems like what the AFL is trying to do with this new striking interpretation is to have a little bit of that "off the ball" dynamic apply. the ball had gone out of play way down the field when Redman/Newcombe got into it. when Hewett/Neale got into it, they were jostling around the ball-up contest that was about to start. and that difference is basically why Hewett didn't get intentional grading. (btw I do wonder if Redman may have been graded insufficient force if it was only one handed)

‘That’s semantics, surely?’ Great challenges AFL boss over strike verdict amid rule change hint

‘That’s semantics, surely?’ Great confronts AFL boss over strike verdict amid rule change hint

www.foxsports.com.au

However, to Mercurial89's point, Hewett's action was just a ****ing punch! I don't see what it's got to do with the new interpretations at all. It's a punch and since punches are always illegal, it should have been intentional, just like Neale's gut punch 2 seconds later was graded intentional. Absolutely bemusing.

Sicily got done for the kick, right? I'm ok with that, there's no reason for kicks. But I feel like plenty of times Sicily would have been let off for insufficient force.

the behind the play/in play justification was laughable.
Kane lost a few credit points on that one.
Idiotic comment.

 

[Seb78]

They've accepted the ban

 

[Milanista28]

how in the * do Redman and Sicily get suspended?

got to both be the easiest appeals ever surely?

Especially Sicily, not sure he even makes contact?

 

[VelvetSledge]

They've accepted the ban

Disappointing.

 

[Pweter]

In a season where we're not going to challenge I'm ok with not appealing to (try) teach Mason a lesson in his own stupidity. There's no reason to go near the head when shoving someone.

 

[Zach Package]

Absolutely ****ing wild that Hawthorn can be challenging Sicily clearly making a kicking action and making some kind of contact with McGrath and we elect not to challenge an open handed knuckle scrape that left Newcombe openly laughing, especially in the wake of last week.

Are we stupid?

 

[VelvetSledge]

Absolutely ****ing wild that Hawthorn can be challenging Sicily clearly making a kicking action and making some kind of contact with McGrath and we elect not to challenge an open handed knuckle scrape that left Newcombe openly laughing, especially in the wake of last week.

Are we stupid?

Surely after all this time you know the answer to this

 

[Snake Charmer]

Weak as piss suspension and a weak as piss decision to accept. Hewitt punched someone in the jaw a week ago and there was no case at all

 

[BomberFan355]

Carlton players have been getting off with fines or on appeals for awhile now if you've been watching.

I don't mind us accepting if it's to teach Mason a lesson on stupidity.

 

[eighties_bomber]

gutless cuck of a club, no wonder we've been an embarrassment for 20 years and our players roll over when it all gets too hard! This footy club finds new levels to embarrass its itself! people should vote with their wallets and their feet!

 

[Snake Charmer]

Carlton players have been getting off with fines or on appeals for awhile now if you've been watching.

I don't mind us accepting if it's to teach Mason a lesson on stupidity.

Redman plays with a beautiful amount of campaigner. And gets into the oppo a lot. Which is great to see. I think an appeal and a fine and someone at the club saying we have your back just don’t go the head would be enough.

 

[Godzke]

Gobsmacked
Easy decision to challenge

 

[citizen-erased]

They've accepted the ban

....
zero words

maybe we should offer the hawks the 4pts while we're at it for the anguish we caused Newc.

we are so s**t scared of city hall these days

 

[brain taylor]

guys shove each other like that a zillion times a game, it really wasn’t that stupid

 

[mcgrath_truther]

daft to think that we didn't challenge it

 

[Beerfish]

gutless cuck of a club, no wonder we've been an embarrassment for 20 years and our players roll over when it all gets too hard! This footy club finds new levels to embarrass its itself! people should vote with their wallets and their feet!

And yet you keep coming back.

 

[eth-dog]

Everyone is saying it's dumb or weak. Let me ask, what's the argument that gets it downgraded to a fine? It was low impact. Can't get lower. It was graded intentional. Hard to argue against that. It's hard to see how we win, which is the issue.

 

[citizen-erased]

Everyone is saying it's dumb or weak. Let me ask, what's the argument that gets it downgraded to a fine? It was low impact. Can't get lower. It was graded intentional. Hard to argue against that. It's hard to see how we win, which is the issue.

careless/reckless in catching his head. it was pushes to the chests both were engaged in

all else fails, it was a clumsy attempt to spoil

 

[The Prosecutor]

Everyone is saying it's dumb or weak. Let me ask, what's the argument that gets it downgraded to a fine? It was low impact. Can't get lower. It was graded intentional. Hard to argue against that. It's hard to see how we win, which is the issue.

What’s the downside to appealing?

 

[Snake Charmer]

Everyone is saying it's dumb or weak. Let me ask, what's the argument that gets it downgraded to a fine? It was low impact. Can't get lower. It was graded intentional. Hard to argue against that. It's hard to see how we win, which is the issue.

Why did Hewitt get off the week before

 

[citizen-erased]

Why did Hewitt get off the week before

they called it reckless instead of intentional
And AFL made some justification that it was "in play" v "outside play"

 

[Snake Charmer]

they called it reckless instead of intentional
And AFL made some justification that it was "in play" v "outside play"

That’s hilarious.

 

[BomberFan355]

they called it reckless instead of intentional
And AFL made some justification that it was "in play" v "outside play"

Which is complete BS, reckless in play would be going to tackle and getting them in the head with an arm or swinging your arm around trying to break a tag and getting them in the head. Not standing flat footed, looking at the bloke and throwing your arm, that is intentional. But there is no use fighting city hall, the just make their own rules as they see fit.

 

[boncer34]

What’s the downside to appealing?

What's the upside?

 

[P Money]

Everyone is saying it's dumb or weak. Let me ask, what's the argument that gets it downgraded to a fine? It was low impact. Can't get lower. It was graded intentional. Hard to argue against that. It's hard to see how we win, which is the issue.

Surely there is 'insufficient impact'. Which this clearly was. *ing joke.