Toby Greene boot to Luke Dahlhaus face.

[HarryZLA]

I actually hope every player going for a mark or handball receive goes at it with a flying side kick from now on, who cares if you collect somebody in the face and they need stitches.

 

[Eliteflyboy]

Many. Had them.
I;ve also seen broken cheekbones and eye sockets from collecting a hip.
Also seen blokes pissing blood for weeks after knees from a bloke going a hanger. I;ve seen just about everything i suppose. The average ruckman expects stud marks down his legs every game as well. They cop boots all the time also. I guess you could say i should have a rough idea what its like.

Why do i care what a red card in soccer is ? If i had to guess i reckon a knee square into someones back might also be a "red card"....and i can do that to you in the next marking contest no problem. I can cork you in the hip with a raised knee in a marking contest no problem. I can stomp on the instep of your foot accidentally as well. Being quite proficient at it, the chances if your head connecting with my elbow or forearm when i punch the ball away is also pretty damn good. You get hit on the back of the head its lights out quicker than from the front. All these things u may need to experience for yourself.

If i was Tony Lockett and you were sitting in the hole where i like to lead i reckon you might have stud marks all over you like a doormat within 10 minutes.

If i jump to receive that handball and turn my body you can go straight into my hip...you are out cold and possibly out for 8 weeks with a busted eye socket as well.

I dont need to exaggerate what Greene has done. It just looked ordinary but many things do on the footy field.

Greene had his eyes on the ball protecting his space. Dahlhous ran into his boot.

Studs to the leg or body is quite different to studs to the face and around the eyes. You only have 2 good working eyes (which can't fully repair themselves) and I would be pissed if I lost 1 to an avoidable incident. Maybe I just like my eyes too much.

The others you mentioned are expected, after all this is a contact sport. I don't think any player crosses the white line every game expecting studs to the face and possibly losing an eye (a stray knee or elbow to the head maybe).

The jumping and turning the body and knocking someone out happens simultaneously when 2 people are contesting the ball, and you and I both know Dahlhaus' intention was not to contest the ball but to lay a tackle.

 

[van peebles]

People keep saying this. Please show us the rule that deals with protecting space.

Seems the tribunal follow the same script as i.
Toby Greene had every right to protect his space .
Maybe you should write to them and ask the same question.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Probably lucky not to get a week. It's one of those slightly dodgy areas. If we saw that move more often, there's no doubt it would be stamped out of the game.

 

[RandB]

Accidental my arse.

Nigh on impossible proving it though.

 

[Ozil]

Accidental my arse.

Nigh on impossible proving it though.

Well, he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Knew from the moment Robbo hijacked the agenda that he'd get off, but listening to this "protecting the space" wank for three days has been a laugh. The rules don't accomodate that for receiving a handball.

 

[DemonTim]

I for 1 applaud the MRP on finally getting it right.

Lots of people on here seem to be mind readers (or whinging dogs fans)

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Haven't you been spending days saying he didn't do anything wrong?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Seems the tribunal follow the same script as i.
Toby Greene had every right to protect his space .
Maybe you should write to them and ask the same question.

So you mean you don't know.....

I assume neither do they.


Absolutely farcical.

Typical AFL.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

I hope players go for kicking the heads of players in the future
It is now fair game as the mrp have indicated.

 

[chickentendies]

I feel the right decision was made based on the current rulebook. Could understand why the AFL want to stamp this kind of thing out, don't blame them if they tweak some rules.

I still love Toby Greene though. Kind of pumped to see GWS vs Doggies in the finals for this story arc.

 

[_Mike_]

There's a lot of posters in here who simply cannot deal with varying opinions.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

There's a lot of posters in here who simply cannot deal with varying opinions.

I don't mind the varying opinions. What I don't understand is the way the MRP basically deals with a rough conduct report from an umpire and changes it to "misconduct". As an astute poster questioned, what would have happened if Dahlhaus was concussed? Does it still remain as misconduct? If so, then the way of thinking of the MRP / tribunal has suddenly had a quantum shift. The "you can choose to do this action but if it causes injury" goes out the window. If not, then it should have been graded......

 

[_Mike_]

As an astute poster questioned, what would have happened if Dahlhaus was concussed? Does it still remain as misconduct? If so, then the way of thinking of the MRP / tribunal has suddenly had a quantum shift. The "you can choose to do this action but if it causes injury" goes out the window. If not, then it should have been graded

Opinions are good, what a boring world it would be if we unilaterally agreed on everything. Unfortunately a number of posters don't seem to grasp the concept of a discussion without sinking to the levels of trolling/attacking another posters view.

For good or bad, the MRP system is what it is and answers to the AFL. If enough of the supporter base is not satisfied with the application of the rules for the decisions that have been handed out - supporters need to lobby the AFL for a change. I do agree that there are too many grey areas and inconsistencies through the application of the rules by the MRP, but it will never be a perfect system either way.

 

[Armchair Critic]

He got ripped off getting a fine but right result that he does not miss a game

 

[_STREET_]

The AFL has opened the door now for players to kick others in the face now. Good job idiots.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Seems the tribunal follow the same script as i.
Toby Greene had every right to protect his space .
Maybe you should write to them and ask the same question.

If he hadn't done anything wrong he would have got off scot-free. MRP makes up a misconduct charge because they don't have the stones to make a hard call (of either suspending him or letting him off). Gone the each way bet because they are weak

 

[LasagnaCastagna]

Nothing in it surely? Looked like the contact was accidential.

new here at bigfooty! and yes totally agree mate.

 

[Nickoo]

Why are misconduct fines separate from other ones?

Previous record doesn't come into penalty so they chose that in order that Toby keeps playing coz he's that important. No one else would get that. Expect him to do worse, just now not with his fists. He'll be kicking in danger a lot from now on. He likes to hurt people does toby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nickoo]

Seems the tribunal follow the same script as i.
Toby Greene had every right to protect his space .
Maybe you should write to them and ask the same question.

The normal practice for the last 175 years is to raise your knee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nickoo]

The AFL has opened the door now for players to kick others in the face now. Good job idiots.

No only if it suits the AFL. If Dahlhaus had been concussed would they just indicate incidental contact? I can't imagine it as it was deliberate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spectore]

The normal practice for the last 175 years is to raise your knee.

In a marking contest where, after completing the mark, one cannot be tackled. Even then you occasionally see it when players have to reach back for the ball.

 

[bobby2]

Can anyone enlighten me as to what differentiates misconduct from a suspendable offence? Can they just choose to use it whenever they don't want someone suspended?

It would be one thing for the MRP to come out and say "yes, Toby is allowed to do this" and therefore not suspend him. Most people arguing for no suspension say he didn't do anything wrong. However, to call it misconduct (by definition, unacceptable or improper behaviour) says he has done something wrong.

Surely any suspendable offence is a type of misconduct. What allows some of them to be classed as misconduct while others are given weeks?

Is it the level of impact? Surely not, as the redpath suspension was clearly lower impact.

Is it the potential danger? Surely not, as studs are clearly more dangerous than redpath's open hand.

Is it a question of intention? Surely not, as Dangerfield and Grundy would not have intended to concuss in their tackles.

I would've thought the misconduct charge was there for things like hair pulling, pinching, staging or genital fondling (negligible impact, not dangerous, but clearly inappropriate on a footy field).

The MRP really can't have it both ways here. Either he is in the wrong and he should be suspended based on their own rules, or he is not in the wrong and he should be cleared completely. Calling it misconduct without suspending him is blatant kangaroo court business.

 

[swoop42]

So let me get this straight.

The head is sacrosanct if you elect to bump, it's sacrosanct if you lay a tackle and pin the arms but if you stick your foot up to an extent the boot stops smash into your opponents head this is okay?

Honestly what Greene did was the worst and most deliberate incident from the weekend yet he escapes with a fine.

 

[bobby2]

So let me get this straight.

The head is sacrosanct if you elect to bump, it's sacrosanct if you lay a tackle and pin the arms but if you stick your foot up to an extent the boot stops smash into your opponents head this is okay?

Honestly what Greene did was the worst and most deliberate incident from the weekend yet he escapes with a fine.

If it was ok, it would only be questionable. It's been called misconduct, which means they're saying it's not ok. If it's not ok, they have to put it through their system. Instead, they've just said "it's not ok, but we won't apply the rules because we don't want to suspend him".

The misconduct tag is there for incidents that are too low impact to be picked up by the system, but still not ok. This is clearly not one of those cases.

 

[bobby2]

Can anyone enlighten me as to what differentiates misconduct from a suspendable offence? Can they just choose to use it whenever they don't want someone suspended?

It would be one thing for the MRP to come out and say "yes, Toby is allowed to do this" and therefore not suspend him. Most people arguing for no suspension say he didn't do anything wrong. However, to call it misconduct (by definition, unacceptable or improper behaviour) says he has done something wrong.

Surely any suspendable offence is a type of misconduct. What allows some of them to be classed as misconduct while others are given weeks?

Is it the level of impact? Surely not, as the redpath suspension was clearly lower impact.

Is it the potential danger? Surely not, as studs are clearly more dangerous than redpath's open hand.

Is it a question of intention? Surely not, as Dangerfield and Grundy would not have intended to concuss in their tackles.

I would've thought the misconduct charge was there for things like hair pulling, pinching, staging or genital fondling (negligible impact, not dangerous, but clearly inappropriate on a footy field).

The MRP really can't have it both ways here. Either he is in the wrong and he should be suspended based on their own rules, or he is not in the wrong and he should be cleared completely. Calling it misconduct without suspending him is blatant kangaroo court business.

Just as a follow up, misconduct fines can only be given if the act is not a "classifiable offence" or a "direct tribunal offence". "Classifiable offences" include kicking, rough conduct and unreasonable or unnecessary contact to the face. Classifiable offences must be adjudged using the table used for all the other offences. If Greene's boot wasn't any of those options, then there's no way it was misconduct. The MRP have completely misapplied their own rules here.