Thommo report

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Ballantyne taking his 1 week kind of evens it out but i'm still a little cheesed off that we didn't fight it - would it not have been 1 week regardless?

Cloke takes a lot of grabs on the chest where Scotty round-armed him, wasn't too much of a stretch to have it downgraded or dismissed all together as a chest-mark spoil.

Oh well, Tippo to take his spot & do well.
 
muttley45 said:
Tom Hawkins sneaky FIST to the stomach of Langford, player is in obvious discomfort and has to leave the field to vomit, not cited by MRP dont know if has carryover pt's or not, but surely it would be rated deliberate, and medium/high impact, therefore 2 matches down to 1 with early plea
Click to expand...

In the real world precedent is used as a basis of decision making in law. Irrespective of whether we agree with it or not, the MRP has set a precedent in the Thompson decision that says that a (presumably intentional) whack to the guts in the course of play that leaves an opponent in apparent discomfort, but able to take his free kick, is worth 80 points. Hawkins whacked a bloke off the ball, leaving him in significant discomfort and rendering him unable to continue playing for a period of time. If that's not worth at least double Thompson's penalty then I don't know what is.
 
nicko74 said:
Don't get why they didn't appeal.
Click to expand...

Don't think there was anything we really could appeal to be honest.

It was graded reckless - next down is negligent and it was clearly a deliberate arm swing. It was also graded as low impact, which would have come from the medical report, so can't really argue it was insufficient force to constitute a report, unless we argue the medical report itself.

It's a rubbish suspension but there isn't really grounds to appeal, so may as well limit the carryover points.
 
nicko74 said:
Don't get why they didn't appeal. Oh well, Pavlich will be licking his lips
Click to expand...

Because it was late, it was forceful and wasn't necessary. He would have only got a reprimand for doing something silly like that but he has priors, when you have priors a reprimand is one week. What are we going to appeal on, that it wasn't worth a reprimand for being late and unnecessary? We would lose and he would cop 2 weeks instead.

Our leaders have to do better to think about the consequences of their actions when frustrated.
 
Thewlis Dish said:
Don't think there was anything we really could appeal to be honest.

It was graded reckless - next down is negligent and it was clearly a deliberate arm swing. It was also graded as low impact, which would have come from the medical report, so can't really argue it was insufficient force to constitute a report, unless we argue the medical report itself.

It's a rubbish suspension but there isn't really grounds to appeal, so may as well limit the carryover points.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He's now on only 5 carry over points leading into the second, and arguably more important, half of the year. Much rather have him sit out a game now than one later in the year or (dare I say) in the finals.
 
King Corey said:
FFS this is ridiculous

What does it take to stop North players always copping excessive penalties?

Does JB need to step up his public fellating of Gillion?
Click to expand...
Why should we risk more carryover points (the reason he's getting suspended in the first place) in a game that you yourself say you have zero faith in us winning? It's trash but you'd rather cop it than potentially lose him for a game later in the season that we'd have a better chance of winning.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Heaps of fun said:
Why should we risk more carryover points (the reason he's getting suspended in the first place) in a game that you yourself say you have zero faith in us winning? It's trash but you'd rather cop it than potentially lose him for a game later in the season that we'd have a better chance of winning.
Click to expand...

You misread me mate. I'm not angry with North for not challenging as I assume they've weighed up the risks.

I'm angry that we always seem to cop worse than 'market' penalties for our infringements while I see most of the league getting away with worse.
 
astrovic said:
I still can't figure out how that was deemed forceful enough to warrant a charge, let alone a suspension. Looks incredibly minor to me.

He was late and a 50 metre penalty applies, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

Going for the ball and being late would be a 50m penalty and that is it, being late and striking an opponent can be a report if there was sufficient force. It is why Buddy was reported for his late contact on Thompson but Thommo played up the extent of the contact, in reality it was probably karma for his embarrassing diving. He is an all australian defender, and was on track to be so again, he doesn't need to do that kind of s**t.
 
King Corey said:
You misread me mate. I'm not angry with North for not challenging as I assume they've weighed up the risks.

I'm angry that we always seem to cop worse than 'market' penalties for our infringements while I see most of the league getting away with worse.
Click to expand...
God, I'm sorry. I'm in bed with a headache and apparently can't read. I'm with you on this one. Going to be even more transparent when Hawkins's incident either doesn't come up or gets thrown away.
 
Harris 10 said:
Chubbs, are you happy that a players miss games of footy over incidents like the Thompson one?
Click to expand...
I'm not happy about it mate, I think its soft and maybe just a 50m penalty or free kick, but I can understand why he got cited, his head was looking more at the body and whacking nowhere near the ball. And Cloke went down looking short of breath, so that raises alarm bells with the MRP immediately.
I loved the old Arch make em earnt it days, but they're unfortunately long gone.
 
Kimbo said:
Look, copying and pasting this table is all well and good, but I was expecting video clips of said incident (from all relevant angles) by now, including any slo-mo options. :sternlook
Click to expand...

Keep Stern Looking :)

 
Tas said:
Going for the ball and being late would be a 50m penalty and that is it, being late and striking an opponent can be a report if there was sufficient force. It is why Buddy was reported for his late contact on Thompson but Thommo played up the extent of the contact, in reality it was probably karma for his embarrassing diving. He is an all australian defender, and was on track to be so again, he doesn't need to do that kind of s**t.
Click to expand...


Buddy's report was chucked out for insufficient force, wasn't it?

I thought Thommo's report was about as bad.

Agree he doesn't need to do that, and did his team no service whatsoever giving Cloke an easy goal at such a critical time.
 
Probably not a bad game to miss as we have probably little chance of beating Freo anyway. Rather him in for games we are expected to win.

In saying that though, match review panel can go * itself and to be honest, i'm genuinely starting to believe the AFL is run by absolute morons (Jacks last couple were obviously shocking, Fyfe suspension was an absolute disgrace etc etc).
 
reporting players from bigger clubs will cause a fuss, the people come to see the best players play. north players are the scapegoats and the examples of the other small teams of what not to do. its a system that sucks but thats corruption. its a campaigner for the little guy. when we win the premiership we can say * you afl.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

marklovesbeer
Training Training reports 2024
222 223 224 225 226
Replies
6K
Views
389K
BlueandWhiteinmyBlood
B
Flawed Genius
Player Watch #42: Kallan Dawson - Twomey reporting 1yr extension - Roo until end '24
59 60 61 62 63
Replies
2K
Views
100K
Nylex
Nylex

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top