Chapman gone

[MinerBoy]

Common-sense decision with Chapman, was what most astute observers thought of Franklin, but the Swans "Bone Bruising" report put him in.

Still haven't seen the Richards incident, which is strange seeing as Franklin's was shown 1000 times before the night was through, and Chapman at least a few dozen.

I think the MRP are running about 90% this year, a massive improvement over previous years. Perhaps removing Gieschen and Anderson (formally or informally) from the process has helped in that regard.

Just seen the Richards one for the first time and am staggered he got off (well - reprimand with early plea) after what the other 2 received. Just like Buddy he didn't jump but just like Buddy he lined him up from a distance and dare I say it, probably caught him the hardest in terms of impact out of all 3. Absolutely nailed him.

Should have been adjudged exactly like Buddy's. High contact - negligent - medium impact.

 

[mollyfud]

Just seen the Richards one for the first time and am staggered he got off (well - reprimand with early plea) after what the other 2 received. Just like Buddy he didn't jump but just like Buddy he lined him up from a distance and dare I say it, probably caught him the hardest in terms of impact out of all 3. Absolutely nailed him.

Should have been adjudged exactly like Buddy's. High contact - negligent - medium impact.

Nah, guy wasn't as hurt apparently as the Bearded Malcho! They can only tick the boxes put in front of them!

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Just seen the Richards one for the first time and am staggered he got off (well - reprimand with early plea) after what the other 2 received. Just like Buddy he didn't jump but just like Buddy he lined him up from a distance and dare I say it, probably caught him the hardest in terms of impact out of all 3. Absolutely nailed him.

Should have been adjudged exactly like Buddy's. High contact - negligent - medium impact.

MinerBoy, you have to remember the MRP take into accont the damage that was inflicted. Don't you know Malceski had to LEAVE THE GROUND (5 minutes later as part of his normal rotation), and was SUBBED OUT (for an unrelated ankle injury), and was SENT FOR FACIAL SCANS FOR SUSPECTED BONE BRUISING (which showed no damage).

 

[rdhopkins2]

Chapman had to get atleast a week to prevent a riot. Just look at the Buddy penalty a couple of weeks ago.
That's just the way footy is going- choose to bump and hit high, then cop a holiday.
Negligence /duty of care in a litigious society means bumping has to be taken seriously, lest we cop an AFL paraplegic or even worse, fatality.

I love the bump and hate what the game is becoming but can see the reasons why we are going down this path.

 

[MinerBoy]

Nah, guy wasn't as hurt apparently as the Bearded Malcho! They can only tick the boxes put in front of them!

MinerBoy, you have to remember the MRP take into accont the damage that was inflicted. Don't you know Malceski had to LEAVE THE GROUND (5 minutes later as part of his normal rotation), and was SUBBED OUT (for an unrelated ankle injury), and was SENT FOR FACIAL SCANS FOR SUSPECTED BONE BRUISING (which showed no damage).

It was quite obvious from watching that Richards impact was at the very least the equal of Buddy's, regardless of how Malceski went off the field and had his facial scans etc. Anyway, makes no difference to us this weekend but still leaves you shaking your head.

 

[pavilion103]

Leaving the ground is perfectly fine. Next players won't be able to jump for marks. Have to take them with both feet on the ground.

Poor decision. Chapman should appeal, will be certain to get off with how poor the original decision was. Nothing to worry about.

 

[mollyfud]

Leaving the ground is perfectly fine. Next players won't be able to jump for marks. Have to take them with both feet on the ground.

Poor decision. Chapman should appeal, will be certain to get off with how poor the original decision was. Nothing to worry about.

I hope for Paul's sake you are not part of the Cats legal team! But if they agree with you, they should challenge and if they don't they lose the moral right to complain it was the wrong decision!

 

[tazhawk]

Leaving the ground is perfectly fine.



Poor decision. Chapman should appeal, will be certain to get off with how poor the original decision was. Nothing to worry about.

The MRP have stated that in fact it is not fine to leave the ground and hit someone in the head.

 

[Badesumofu]

Leaving the ground is perfectly fine. Next players won't be able to jump for marks. Have to take them with both feet on the ground.

Poor decision. Chapman should appeal, will be certain to get off with how poor the original decision was. Nothing to worry about.

However, when you jump at someone you're about to bump, you significantly increase the chance for head-high contact, thus making you more culpable if said contact occurs. MRP have been very consistent this year that if you jump to bump, you'll be bumped to reckless.

The fact that a number of posters in this thread were able to correctly asses the likely gradings (with sound explanations to justify their assessments) prior to the report being released should give you some clue that MRP's decision makes perfect sense.

The relevant differences from the Buddy bump were that Chapman's was of a lower impact, but that he was more culpable for the head-high contact on account of having jump at the player he hit. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Maddo11]

MinerBoy, you have to remember the MRP take into accont the damage that was inflicted. Don't you know Malceski had to LEAVE THE GROUND (5 minutes later as part of his normal rotation), and was SUBBED OUT (for an unrelated ankle injury), and was SENT FOR FACIAL SCANS FOR SUSPECTED BONE BRUISING (which showed no damage).

Yes, the MRP is a joke. I hope you aren't implying that the swans medical staff exaggerated his injuries..

 

[pavilion103]

The fact that the review panel needs to (and is going to be) reviewed sums it all up.

It's gotten to the point that it is just way too obvious now. Glad the AFL are taking action.

 

[Purple Suit]

Leaving the ground is perfectly fine. Next players won't be able to jump for marks. Have to take them with both feet on the ground.

Poor decision. Chapman should appeal, will be certain to get off with how poor the original decision was. Nothing to worry about.

I hope Chappy appeals. He'll definitely miss the GF then, regardless of the prelim result.

 

[mollyfud]

The fact that the review panel needs to (and is going to be) reviewed sums it all up.

It's gotten to the point that it is just way too obvious now. Glad the AFL are taking action.

Every footy department (all of them) review themselves after the season. Does that mean they're all hopeless too?

 

[pavilion103]

Very footy department (all of them) review themselves after the season. Does that mean they're all hopeless too?

You're not too bright with reading between the lines are you?

 

[RegHickeyStand]

I don't understand because he got 2 weeks down to 1 .... it's almost like you guys have no idea what you're talking about.

We get to celebrate after the prelim. I'll let you do a victory dance for now.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Leaving the ground is perfectly fine. Next players won't be able to jump for marks. Have to take them with both feet on the ground.

Poor decision. Chapman should appeal, will be certain to get off with how poor the original decision was. Nothing to worry about.

Jumping is fine if you're going for a mark - but if your only intention is to bump and you jump off the ground then you're pretty much guaranteeing a head high hit. I think everyone knows that's not allowed.

 

[mollyfud]

You're not too bright with reading between the lines are you?

I can read between lines! Its just my spelling that sucks! ;-)

 

[Cosmic Energy]

Was hoping for negligent, low impact. There's probably a glimmer of hope with the 'reckless' ruling, but I don't think it'd be worth challenging. We don't have a great track record on challenges, and for the sake of supporter harmony, maybe it's best that Chapman gets a week where Buddy got one also so we remove ourselves from the conspiracy. The AFL don't love us after all.....

 

[seysearles]

We get to celebrate after the prelim. I'll let you do a victory dance for now.

Not doing a victory dance, i'm just confused why so many people were mouthing off with certainty that he would get off (you being one of them) then he didn't. Was just wondering what you had to say about looking stupid. I guess now i know, you just defect to the next baseless claim.

 

[Liger]

The MRP have stated that in fact it is not fine to leave the ground and hit someone in the head.

They leave out in this little explanation that Dawsons 'attempt' caused him to hit Selwood directly in the head with his hips while missing the smother completely. Apparently Dawson's only option was to jump into Selwoods head at full pace and it wasn't unnecessary according to the MRP because Selwood was 'wanting' to handball.

Contact between ​

Fremantle's Zac Dawson ​

and ​

Geelong's Joel Selwood​

from the fourth quarter of Saturday's match was assessed. Selwood had the ball and was wanting to handball to a teammate down the ground as Dawson was coming towards him. As Selwood disposed of the ball, Dawson jumped in the air in a bid to smother the hand pass and made contact with his Geelong opponent. It was the view of the panel that Dawson's actions were not unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and no further action was taken.​

 

[maryjames]

Soft. Hawthorn supporters are throwing a party.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

Yes, uneccessary act - was in trouble from the get go the way this is adjudicated. But roger me, it must be difficult to counter that natural instinct in a knock out final when the side is up and about and adrenaline is surging. But I guess that's why they're professionals.

Would be disappointing to see that being his last game. Equally disappointing the comments directed from Hawks fans suggesting they'd like him to play only to rub his nose in it if it were to be his last game. Perhaps someone can clarify what exactly Chappy has done to justify the hate from Hawk fans? Does this date back to the alleged 'pact'?

If so, I can't understand the hate for a player allegedly determined never to lose to a team that beat them in a GF. That resolve is something that has made him a champion and no doubt had some small part in his heroics in the 09 GF. Or is the hate because he has played well against the hawks? I can't recall him being suspended (but happy to be corrected).

Genuinely curious.

Agree disappointing could be his last game for something that is ingrained in any footballer who was born prior to 2000.
In regards to Hawks fans suggesting they'd like Chappy to play so that could be his last game, I don't see it as hate just a begrudging respect and competitive desire for their team to beat a guy who has caused angst bc he's been so good and beaten us so many times.
Surely sport is all about challenging the best and redeeming past failures or taking on a rival who has had your measure. Chappy has been a champion footballer who has beaten us more times than we care to remember, i'd prefer for him to be out there so if we do finally knock your blokes over so there are minimal excuses and we can all say thank **** we finally beat them and him!

Who seriously wouldn't have wanted Chappy in their team for the last few years?

 

[HawkMongrel]

The fact that the review panel needs to (and is going to be) reviewed sums it all up.

It's gotten to the point that it is just way too obvious now. Glad the AFL are taking action.

The reason this got out of control in the first place with technicalities is because the AFL appointed a legal dickhead as it's Operations Manager. Of course it was going to all hit the fan considering who Anderson was and what he did.

Mark Evans is a football person, so he's looking at this from a football perspective and not from the perspective of "how can we minimise our risk to lawsuits", etc.

Under the rules that Anderson played a direct role in implementing, Chapman was gone in an instant. It was very easy to read. The problem with the rules is that they're so effing technical that it leaves no place for "spirit of the game" type arguments. As a result the game goes soft, no matter how much the sold-out flogs in the media will tell you otherwise.

I'm praying that Evans will correct this nightmare. I haven't a clue how I'd expect him to do that, I'm just praying is all.

 

[Kummerspeck]

It was quite obvious from watching that Richards impact was at the very least the equal of Buddy's

At what point did the pressure gauge pop up on screen for you? Or was there a speedo somewhere? How exactly did you determine the impact force of each incident?

 

[Liger]

At what point did the pressure gauge pop up on screen for you? Or was there a speedo somewhere? How exactly did you determine the impact force of each incident?

Someone should ask Mark Fraser these questions.