Wines on Langdon

[ZingerB]

Read the Port fans explanations they're as clear as mud.

Is there any chance of you actually contributing something remotely intelligent or are you just going to ignore everything that is said, sprinkle in some hyperbole, have a whinge, and then pretend you won the argument. What was wrong with the decision? Do you think it was intentional instead of careless or medium impact instead of low?

 

[firefighter]

you won the argument

Too right I did, that's why I'm finished with you.

 

[DazalenkoUBewty]

Nothing in it. Fine is ok...just.

 

[ZingerB]

Too right I did, that's why I'm finished with you.

Sure you did mate. You posted a video that proved my point and have squibbed the chance to tell me specifically what you thought was wrong with the decision despite being offered multiple opportunities. You're finished with me because you lack the capacity to mount any sort of counter argument, you realise you have no idea what you're talking about and now that you're being called out on it you want to skulk away and pretend that your opinion has some sort of value, despite all evidence suggesting otherwise. So go crawl back to whatever rock you crawled out from.

 

[barrackers]

I'm so confused? HoW did he get off, But you get a week now for a little punch?

That was fairly dirty. Late, high obviously he is lucky that Langdon got up.

Either that or we don't exaggerate medical reports

 

[firefighter]

tl:dr

 

[ZingerB]

tl:dr

Why are you still here? The problem with the 'I'm an edgy teenager who doesn't care/ mocks everything' is it doesn't work when you keep posting here and demonstrate that you do care.

 

[Leigh Lowther]

Remember when leaving the ground, getting someone late and head high contact used to be a thing the mrp would use to justify suspensions?

 

[Skeppersap]

Either that or we don't exaggerate medical reports

Carlton doctors should take note. Hope they are proud that they did Dangerfield in with their report, so that he misses a Brownlow, when Kreuzer goes on to be best on ground the next week.

They must be so proud!

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Late, left the ground and head high.

But playing the dogs so let's him off.

 

[chickentendies]

Late, left the ground and head high.

But playing the dogs so let's him off.

Thought piece: Is there a group of supporters who don't think the AFL leads a grand conspiracy against their club?

 

[Mal12]

this is ridiculous - should have been a week. MRP needs to completely change from this results based system. Your literally never going to change behaviour this way. Now Wines and other players will think this is ok.... the next 5/10 times the guy is gonna get concussed. This is so ******ed in every sense. Surely their goal is to actually change behaviour.

 

[Checkered]

Horrible decision

 

[G0ther00s]

Not sure on all the things that come into the MRP's calculations, but surely intentional and late are enough to get him at least a week.

 

[Substance]

The MRP decision making process:

 

[Whiskers]

Is there any chance of you actually contributing something remotely intelligent or are you just going to ignore everything that is said, sprinkle in some hyperbole, have a whinge, and then pretend you won the argument. What was wrong with the decision? Do you think it was intentional instead of careless or medium impact instead of low?

Intentional. Reached out with the elbow and jumped.
I'm so baffled how they let this slide after all the discussion about the head being sacrosanct.
Does anyone remember the Varcoe incident in Round 1? Was the player he bumped concussed?

 

[ZingerB]

Intentional. Reached out with the elbow and jumped.
I'm so baffled how they let this slide after all the discussion about the head being sacrosanct.
Does anyone remember the Varcoe incident in Round 1? Was the player he bumped concussed?

They very rarely grade bumps intentional (Hodge on Wingard was graded reckless for instance) and the jumping used to be more important when there was 3 levels of classification now it is just a question as to whether it was intentional or not. That could have gone either way but I don't know how you can grade a bump medium impact when no one got hurt because then it becomes a measuring stick (i.e if someone is hurt it then has to be more than medium impact). I'm not going to pretend that the MRP has any idea of what it is doing or remains consistent (the bump was just as bad as Mumford's last week) but there has been a definite trend downward (until very recently) in penalties on the bump and a trend upward with intentional strikes, both of which I agree with. This was always going to be a fine-one weeker, and given the amount of people that have been let off in the past (Goodes/Franklin/Selwood/ Hodge/Mitchell) I frankly don't understand the extent of the reaction, especially when Green having got off as well for having his studs up at face height and he actually did some damage.

Edit - not sure about Varcoe didn't see it at the time.

 

[Damon_3388]

What are his Brownlow prospects?

Absolutely nowhere near it I would have thought. Hasn't even been the best player at his own club this season.

 

[HairyO]

Absolutely nowhere near it I would have thought. Hasn't even been the best player at his own club this season.

Which makes the decision baffling. Jumped in the air which surely means it has to be intentional and high contact. Low impact would mean a week.

MRP had been doing a good job lately. Maybe they got nervous at the expectation of continued good decisions. Needed a reset.

 

[danielnajdek]

It's ok to jump in the air and bump a guy in the head. But if you tackle someone and they accidentally hit their head on the ground it's a suspension.

 

[Whiskers]

They very rarely grade bumps intentional (Hodge on Wingard was graded reckless for instance) and the jumping used to be more important when there was 3 levels of classification now it is just a question as to whether it was intentional or not. That could have gone either way but I don't know how you can grade a bump medium impact when no one got hurt because then it becomes a measuring stick (i.e if someone is hurt it then has to be more than medium impact). I'm not going to pretend that the MRP has any idea of what it is doing or remains consistent (the bump was just as bad as Mumford's last week) but there has been a definite trend downward (until very recently) in penalties on the bump and a trend upward with intentional strikes, both of which I agree with. This was always going to be a fine-one weeker, and given the amount of people that have been let off in the past (Goodes/Franklin/Selwood/ Hodge/Mitchell) I frankly don't understand the extent of the reaction, especially when Green having got off as well for having his studs up at face height and he actually did some damage.

Edit - not sure about Varcoe didn't see it at the time.

Thanks for a more measured reply.

 

[sloppyjoespizza]

Remember when leaving the ground, getting someone late and head high contact used to be a thing the mrp would use to justify suspensions?

yep. I remember Paul Chapman missed a preliminary final against Hawthorn because he did exactly what Ollie Wines did. Chapman actually tried to pull up right at the last second of contact as well so go figure.

 

[Whiskers]

Which makes the decision baffling. Jumped in the air which surely means it has to be intentional and high contact. Low impact would mean a week.

MRP had been doing a good job lately. Maybe they got nervous at the expectation of continued good decisions. Needed a reset.

 

[HairyO]

The MRP enforced the 2017 tackling guidelines. The issue would lie with the creator of the guidelines.

 

[Contested Marx]

Ollie Wines good bloke status confirmed.

Hope he has a ripping game in Ballarat this Saturday.