Toby Greene boot to Luke Dahlhaus face.

[maddog37]

Actually it's clear that isn't the case. Nobody can look at what happened and make a credible case Toby struck anyone.

Poppycock. Of course they can.

 

[Sentinel]

Actually it's clear that isn't the case. Nobody can look at what happened and make a credible case Toby struck anyone.

Well actually the MRP did through a misconduct charge. They just didn't penalise it beyond a pointless fine, which won't discourage anyone.

 

[Bokonon_]

Well actually the MRP did through a misconduct charge. They just didn't penalise it beyond a pointless fine, which won't discourage anyone.

No they did not. He was not charged with striking.

 

[Sentinel]

No they did not. He was not charged with striking.

By definition there was no 'striking' charge per se, no, because by the tribunal that generally applies to someone's fist (except in Redpath's case). Mutt clearly was talking about his boot striking Dahlhaus' head.

I'd like to know what you think the misconduct charge was for, if not that.

 

[Bokonon_]

By definition there was no 'striking' charge per se, no, because by the tribunal that generally applies to someone's fist (except in Redpath's case). Mutt clearly was talking about his boot striking Dahlhaus' head.

I'd like to know what you think the misconduct charge was for, if not that.

Not just by definition, Toby struck no-one clearly. His eyes were always on the ball and he stuck out his leg to protect himself as players often do. At issue is whether that was reasonable in the circumstances. What he did contravened no rule but Dalhause did get hurt. The MRP fined him for "conduct unbecoming" which requires no evidence. The fine is ultimately trivial, we pay it and move on.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Well actually the MRP did through a misconduct charge. They just didn't penalise it beyond a pointless fine, which won't discourage anyone.

Think about it.
There is no rule in the rule book to say he gets suspended, i would say the MRP didn't like what they saw and that's where the misconduct come from.
But there is no way they could suspend him, well actually they could, but if he fought it, he would win easy.

 

[Patronus]

Think about it.
There is no rule in the rule book to say he gets suspended, i would say the MRP didn't like what they saw and that's where the misconduct come from.
But there is no way they could suspend him, well actually they could, but if he fought it, he would win easy.

There is a charge of both rough conduct and making unnessesary and unreasonable contact with the face. The boot to the face was neither reasonable nor nessesary but either of them are adiquate to charge him with instead of misconduct.

The misconduct charges are suppose to be for non violent offences like spitting, obseen gestures, abuse or touching an umpire. Things that are not a good look but someone is not going to be hurt doing. The closest to violence in that whole section is attempting to strike and pinching not placing your studs into the face of an opponent.

 

[WilloTree]

Since 1877 when footy first started, no one can seem to recall another incident when a player drives his boot into another player's face in order to receive a handball. It's completely unprecedented... and most certainly not accidental.

Good for Toby for getting off, but I get the feeling next time he appears before the MRP they'll square this one away.

 

[LoungeLizard]

There is a charge of both rough conduct and making unnessesary and unreasonable contact with the face. The boot to the face was neither reasonable nor nessesary but either of them are adiquate to charge him with instead of misconduct.

The misconduct charges are suppose to be for non violent offences like spitting, obseen gestures, abuse or touching an umpire. Things that are not a good look but someone is not going to be hurt doing. The closest to violence in that whole section is attempting to strike and pinching not placing your studs into the face of an opponent.

That's ok if they can prove he kicked him, but they wouldn't have a hope in hell.
Can you find me a rule where it says he can't stick his foot up?

 

[Patronus]

Waite and Daniher would beg the differ.
But thats just and example of outside your 175 years.
The MRP deemed it "in his own space" so as no deliberate action taken by Toby to hurt another player.
Most posters on here cant seem to understand that part of the equation.
Hopefully the Giants appeal the unjust and illegal fine handed down which muddied the outcome for all.

I did not know the AFL based their rules on the Simpsons. Players do not have the right to do whatever they like in their "own space" and be obsolved of the consequences of their actions.

 

[Patronus]

That's ok if they can prove he kicked him, but they wouldn't have a hope in hell.
Can you find me a rule where it says he can't stick his foot up?

They don't need to prove they kicked him they just need to prove he made contact to the face with his foot. Like redpath made the slightest amount of contact with the face he could not get off the charge no matter how slight it was.

 

[LoungeLizard]

They don't need to prove they kicked him they just need to prove he made contact to the face with his foot. Like redpath made the slightest amount of contact with the face he could not get off the charge no matter how slight it was.

Bullshit.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

It is not ok, and has never been ok, to strike a player head high with your boot and especially with your stops. In a marking contest you get more leeway and can use a bent knee, or even a straight leg which strikes another player below the shoulders. But it is not, and never has been acceptable to strike/kick another player above the shoulders with your boot, whether in a marking contest or not.

Well you and I have played under different rules.
I just can't see that in the rules (must have missed something) and not since I was 8 have ever played or expected as such under the rules.
Even in primary school speckies you expected a foot anywhere in the back, shoulder or head if caught out.

And playing senior footy, I've had my own teammates and opposition plant their foot right into the back of my head/ neck but I wasn't foolish enough to face it head on if I was the one running or backing back...as its not unexpected thing to happen.

But if it wasn't a marking contest then I would run front on as I'm not expecting a raised foot at me and am entitled to enter the contest without facing any boot.

 

[Patronus]

Bullshit.

So you think is someone put their fist out to "protect their space" and it happened to hit another player in the face the AFL would say that's ok he did not mean It and it was not a strike and let them off?

 

[LoungeLizard]

So you think is someone put their fist out to "protect their space" and it happened to hit another player in the face the AFL would say that's ok he did not mean It and it was not a strike and let them off?

You have to clench your hand to make a fist, bit more intent there i think.
Why don't they just report all head knocks then?
we might as well suspend anyone who fends off high hey?

 

[Nickoo]

It is not ok, and has never been ok, to strike a player head high with your boot and especially with your stops. In a marking contest you get more leeway and can use a bent knee, or even a straight leg which strikes another player below the shoulders. But it is not, and never has been acceptable to strike/kick another player above the shoulders with your boot, whether in a marking contest or not.

Why Toby Greene's actions were virtually unheard of in the past is that the players enforced their own code of conduct. Toby would have been dealt with on the field and he soon would have learned that kicking another player in the head brought consequences that were too severe to contemplate ever doing it again. Those days when players self-regulated certain unacceptable behaviour are long gone, and the game is better for it.

Now we expect the umpires and the Tribunal/MRP to protect players and discourage unacceptable behaviour by meting out severe penalties to ensure players don't infringe. The AFL needs to take a stand to eliminate this kicking action - but once again the AFL has failed to protect the players in the contest and so Toby, and perhaps others, will continue to strike opponents in the face with their boots until someone is seriously injured. Then of course the AFL will over-correct and make an example of someone who was merely doing what the AFL had previously been soft on.

Well explained!! Exactly. It has never been acceptable to put boot studs up into someone's face. Never. It was not accident and would never be expected by the Dahlhaus which is why he does it; he can, he has the leap and he likes to hurt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mutt]

Not just by definition, Toby struck no-one clearly. His eyes were always on the ball and he stuck out his leg to protect himself as players often do. At issue is whether that was reasonable in the circumstances. What he did contravened no rule but Dalhause did get hurt. The MRP fined him for "conduct unbecoming" which requires no evidence. The fine is ultimately trivial, we pay it and move on.

If Toby's action were completely ok, then why was he both reported by the field umpire and sanctioned by the MRP? Toby clearly did strike Luke in the face with his boot and did so with sufficient force to cause lacerations and bleeding, which forced Luke from the field. Dress it up any way you like, it was unacceptable behaviour from Greene and he was penalised as a result.

 

[Mutt]

Well you and I have played under different rules.
I just can't see that in the rules (must have missed something) and not since I was 8 have ever played or expected as such under the rules.
Even in primary school speckies you expected a foot anywhere in the back, shoulder or head if caught out.

And playing senior footy, I've had my own teammates and opposition plant their foot right into the back of my head/ neck but I wasn't foolish enough to face it head on if I was the one running or backing back...as its not unexpected thing to happen.

But if it wasn't a marking contest then I would run front on as I'm not expecting a raised foot at me and am entitled to enter the contest without facing any boot.

The Rules don't permit a player to strike another above the shoulder with his/her boot. Please show me where it allows that?

 

[LoungeLizard]

The Rules don't permit a player to strike another above the shoulder with his/her boot. Please show me where it allows that?

See this is where you can't get why the MRP didn't suspend him, you think it was a strike with his foot, it wasn't.

 

[Mutt]

See this is where you can't get why the MRP didn't suspend him, you think it was a strike with his foot, it wasn't.

OK - he made contact with his foot. The issue is that Greene caused his foot to make contact with Dahlhaus' face, was reported and subsequently sanctioned for it. Whether the penalty was appropriate is another argument...but the Umpire and the MRP both considered the action unacceptable... as they should have.

 

[Bokonon_]

If Toby's action were completely ok, then why was he both reported by the field umpire and sanctioned by the MRP? Toby clearly did strike Luke in the face with his boot and did so with sufficient force to cause lacerations and bleeding, which forced Luke from the field. Dress it up any way you like, it was unacceptable behaviour from Greene and he was penalised as a result.

He clearly did not.

 

[Mutt]

He clearly did not.

He clearly did not what? Greene's actions caused the lacerations to Dahlhaus and both the Umpire and the MRP found that he caused the injury and that the action was unacceptable. Again, say what you will, try to deflect with semantics, it doesn't change the fact that Greene was reported, found guilty and sanctioned for his act.

 

[LoungeLizard]

OK - he made contact with his foot. The issue is that Greene caused his foot to make contact with Dahlhaus' face, was reported and subsequently sanctioned for it. Whether the penalty was appropriate is another argument...but the Umpire and the MRP both considered the action unacceptable... as they should have.

well why are you arguing at all?

 

[Mutt]

well why are you arguing at all?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Maybe that should have been your first post.