Oppo Camp General AFL Discussion - Opposition posters welcome

[Shadow89]

*Tiptoes around*

 

[Michaels]

*Tiptoes around*

no need to tip toe around if you are wanting to join in with proper discussion!

 

[_RT_]

Shadow89 I replied to you on the other thread but that is now no opposition so I've reposted in here if you want to respond.

The biggest issue I have with the Ablett non suspensions is that in neither case did Christian apply the potential to cause serious injury clause that was applied to Dusty. In Dustys incident Kennedy never even went to the ground and actually instigated contact by moving into Martins path add to that Dusty was barely out of a jog at the time as the ball was at the other end of the ground.

Meanwhile Ablett, was moving at speed in both incidents and instigated the contact in both incidents. How the potential to cause serious injury clause wasn't applied is what irks me the most about it, because it is the inconsistent application of the clauses that makes a difference. Had the potential to cause serious injury been added when Christian hands down his initial penalty Ablett cops the same 2 week ban that Martin got, appeals it and gets it knocked down to 1 and nobody would bat an eyelid, well except for angry Cats fans who insist he had no case to answer.

For mine the AFL/MRO need to change the rules on elbows to the head and make them a weeks suspension minimum where the players have their elbows braced like Ablett Martin Hipwood Grimes & Fyfe did. To do this all they need to do is apply the potential to cause serious injury clause to every case regardless of whether the player is able to get straight back up or in Kennedys case doesn't even go to ground.

By making it an automatic week, I have no doubt that players will stop doing things like what those 5 have done. Obviously you can still apply the no other means of contesting the contest when it's something like a marking contest or a disputed ground ball where players are coming from opposite directions and brace for contact, but where players deliberately change directions into an opposition player then that doesn't apply.

 

[Shadow89]

no need to tip toe around if you are wanting to join in with proper discussion!

Nah, was just being facetious, haha

 

[Shadow89]

Shadow89 I replied to you on the other thread but that is now no opposition so I've reposted in here if you want to respond.

The biggest issue I have with the Ablett non suspensions is that in neither case did Christian apply the potential to cause serious injury clause that was applied to Dusty. In Dustys incident Kennedy never even went to the ground and actually instigated contact by moving into Martins path add to that Dusty was barely out of a jog at the time as the ball was at the other end of the ground.

Meanwhile Ablett, was moving at speed in both incidents and instigated the contact in both incidents. How the potential to cause serious injury clause wasn't applied is what irks me the most about it, because it is the inconsistent application of the clauses that makes a difference. Had the potential to cause serious injury been added when Christian hands down his initial penalty Ablett cops the same 2 week ban that Martin got, appeals it and gets it knocked down to 1 and nobody would bat an eyelid, well except for angry Cats fans who insist he had no case to answer.

For mine the AFL/MRO need to change the rules on elbows to the head and make them a weeks suspension minimum where the players have their elbows braced like Ablett Martin Hipwood Grimes & Fyfe did. To do this all they need to do is apply the potential to cause serious injury clause to every case regardless of whether the player is able to get straight back up or in Kennedys case doesn't even go to ground.

By making it an automatic week, I have no doubt that players will stop doing things like what those 5 have done. Obviously you can still apply the no other means of contesting the contest when it's something like a marking contest or a disputed ground ball where players are coming from opposite directions and brace for contact, but where players deliberately change directions into an opposition player then that doesn't apply.

Completely agree with you re: the non Ablett suspension from last week, and the Fyfe non-suspension. I think I posted a reply in that thread earlier on that sums up my thoughts on that -

"For what it's worth, we think Ablett should have gotten a week this week too. Not last week, as that was in the play, but certainly this week. Christian had no choice though, as the tribunal already overruled him with their decision last week, and the force wasn't enough to warrant a low impact. The system is based on outcome, not incident, which is a big problem. Durdin should't have got anything, but Ablett should have gotten a week this time, but Rohan ended up concussed and the oppo player that Ablett bumped, got up straight away. Far too inconsistent. Fyfe should have been given a week too"

*********************************************************************

"Honestly, I don't think that either of them would have gotten off had they not had precedent from the previous week. That would have been the correct outcome. I think what you said re: the damage already being done with the MRO/Tribunal from the week before, is spot on. Christian was left in the unenviable position of having to let them off, as his own decision prior had been overruled. Had Ablett been let off with a fine without it going to the tribunal, then this week him and Fyfe would have gotten a week/two weeks, appealed it, and lost.

The biggest issue is that they never got sanctioned, so that's where it ended. Now we'll have players all season pulling the same sh*t and getting away with it. That I don't approve of.

I think players have just been lucky re: the elbows, as each incident could have been a lot worse. Fyfe's was worse than Ablett's, as his was a genuine elbow to the side of the head that deserved at least 2 weeks. Ablett's was more front on and should have gotten 1"

**********************************************************************

"I don't like players appealing things for things that they probably deserve, just because the system allows it. Agreed, intent should always be the deciding factor, as it speaks to what the player planned on doing. That's why manslaughter/murder are divided by intent (extreme I know, but same concept).

The worst part about Durdin, is that he legitimately had no other option. I watched that a few times, and he pretty much just 'braced' and their heads clashed. Rohan came off worse, but they still both had a clash of heads. I don't think I'd be trying to tackle a full-steam Gary Rohan either, as it would be a fair whack.

The interesting question, would be, if both of them had of gone off with concussion, would Durdin still be rubbed out? Would it then be 'incidental contact' and then neither player can be sanctioned? So many grey areas, and it's really not helped by the stringent rules and criteria that Christian has to follow. I honestly don't blame him, as it must be damn tough trying to adjudicate using the criteria he has before him"

********************************************************************

I genuinely believe the first incident with Shiel was incidental, as it was clumsy as hell, and it did look like he was trying to turn away which was why his hands were flailing wildly. I do also agree, that the incident with Dusty hasn't been replicated since, which is problematic. The second instance with Ablett probably isn't comparable as it was front on, but the instance with Fyfe with an elbow to the side of the head, was. It's the same issue that we had with Hawkins where he got done for jumper punches, umpire contact and other ridiculous things, that applied to no-one else. I think the only thing that separates the incidents, are the fact that the ball was in play with Ablett and Fyfe, while Dusty's was from behind and off the ball. The force was still the same, but the 'look' was bad. Which in hindsight, I think probably is a tad ridiculous when outcome dictated there was no injury. He deserved a week, just like Ablett and Fyfe, but probably shouldn't have got 2 initially.

The system is far, far too sporadic, and as a result, every player, supporter and team is left offside as a result

 

[Muddiemoose]

Nah, was just being facetious, haha

Mods can we get this guy outta here he was being facetious

But seriously props to you shadow you have been great despite the s**t storm on the other thread

 

[Michaels]

Shadow89 I replied to you on the other thread but that is now no opposition so I've reposted in here if you want to respond.

The biggest issue I have with the Ablett non suspensions is that in neither case did Christian apply the potential to cause serious injury clause that was applied to Dusty. In Dustys incident Kennedy never even went to the ground and actually instigated contact by moving into Martins path add to that Dusty was barely out of a jog at the time as the ball was at the other end of the ground.

Meanwhile Ablett, was moving at speed in both incidents and instigated the contact in both incidents. How the potential to cause serious injury clause wasn't applied is what irks me the most about it, because it is the inconsistent application of the clauses that makes a difference. Had the potential to cause serious injury been added when Christian hands down his initial penalty Ablett cops the same 2 week ban that Martin got, appeals it and gets it knocked down to 1 and nobody would bat an eyelid, well except for angry Cats fans who insist he had no case to answer.

For mine the AFL/MRO need to change the rules on elbows to the head and make them a weeks suspension minimum where the players have their elbows braced like Ablett Martin Hipwood Grimes & Fyfe did. To do this all they need to do is apply the potential to cause serious injury clause to every case regardless of whether the player is able to get straight back up or in Kennedys case doesn't even go to ground.

By making it an automatic week, I have no doubt that players will stop doing things like what those 5 have done. Obviously you can still apply the no other means of contesting the contest when it's something like a marking contest or a disputed ground ball where players are coming from opposite directions and brace for contact, but where players deliberately change directions into an opposition player then that doesn't apply.

with regards to the bolded bit, I might be wrong but I think that part of his ruling is what the tribunal actually discredited and threw out which reduced Dusty down a week.

that could be why he hasn't since used that famous line for any other incidents.

 

[joelsyt]

The interesting thing for me is that the larger fine (10k) was for how he spoke to the umpire
When players have cracks at umps all the time but never get cited
What he said wasn’t even that bad imo

Exactly, name me one female that found offence with that comment.

I know I didn’t. I find the fine more offensive. The AFL made it a derogatory comment by fining Rampe.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Not sure how he can be influenced by the media when it’s his own decisions that drives the media reporting.

The minute he starts rubbing out Ablett and Fyfe is when he gets the hard word from city hall. My theory is we’re fair game because how powerful we are. The minnow clubs apart from north get preferential treatment.

 

[captain blood 17]

Every time i say the AFL is ****ed and corrupt and i am just gonna follow the tigers and ignore everything else, the MRP and other non sensical decisions (like the Rampe fine but not worth a free kick) etc just suck me back in.
If Fyfe had of hit George with the same force in the same way he hit a 200cm goliath, do you reckon George would have got up?

 

[TJASTA]

*Tiptoes around*

 

[_RT_]

with regards to the bolded bit, I might be wrong but I think that part of his ruling is what the tribunal actually discredited and threw out which reduced Dusty down a week.

that could be why he hasn't since used that famous line for any other incidents.

As I posted in the other thread he should still apply it and issue 2 game suspensions which on appeal get reduced to 1 week. That way there is a consistency in applying the rules and a chance the player can get off.

Taking it out once then claiming that it is still applied to each case but not included in the charge just smacks of Christian covering his backside.

 

[Michaels]

As I posted in the other thread he should still apply it and issue 2 game suspensions which on appeal get reduced to 1 week. That way there is a consistency in applying the rules and a chance the player can get off.

Taking it out once then claiming that it is still applied to each case but not included in the charge just smacks of Christian covering his backside.

yeah thats a fair call. he has dug himself a hole!

 

[Meli]

So apparently the AFLPA have issue with Rampe’s fine, it’s too excessive apparently, (I agree with that by the way) however they have players getting away with elbowing other players in the head, why aren’t they talking about that? I figured that would be more important than a bloody fine for a stupid act?

I guess they’re more concerned with protecting a players wallet instead of a players health and well-being.

AFLPA is run by GAJ's team mate.....

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

So apparently the AFLPA have issue with Rampe’s fine, it’s too excessive apparently, (I agree with that by the way) however they have players getting away with elbowing other players in the head, why aren’t they talking about that? I figured that would be more important than a bloody fine for a stupid act?

I guess they’re more concerned with protecting a players wallet instead of a players health and well-being.

Good point and totally agree with you!
Not enough independent voices in the AFL for me...
Umpires, AFLPA, MRO, etc...

 

[Wooden Robot]

The AFL is a basket case and is driving people away from the game. The organisation is always chasing its tail and obviously believes in t5he mantra that ypou can have your cake and eat it too.
I mean the Rampe call was obviously wrong on-field (and I say that knowing no one hates Essendon more than I and they would have won) and the free-kick in the square should have applied. The AFL first backs its umpires, as it sees that as the right thing to do, but then must act to the backlash. so it fines the player. But hang on, the player did nothing wrong, otherwise he would have been penalised. It's conflicted with what's right and what's wrong.
Same with the tanking debate. Melbourne didn't tank, says Gill. Fine. But why are you suspending Bailey etc. He didn't tank you just said. They tiptoe around conflict, but are conflicted. Basket case!

 

[Michaels]

The AFL is a basket case and is driving people away from the game. The organisation is always chasing its tail and obviously believes in t5he mantra that ypou can have your cake and eat it too.
I mean the Rampe call was obviously wrong on-field (and I say that knowing no one hates Essendon more than I and they would have won) and the free-kick in the square should have applied. The AFL first backs its umpires, as it sees that as the right thing to do, but then must act to the backlash. so it fines the player. But hang on, the player did nothing wrong, otherwise he would have been penalised. It's conflicted with what's right and what's wrong.
Same with the tanking debate. Melbourne didn't tank, says Gill. Fine. But why are you suspending Bailey etc. He didn't tank you just said. They tiptoe around conflict, but are conflicted. Basket case!

I'm not sure that they realise how much more respect people would have for them if they come out and said 'look we got the Rampe one wrong. it's a rule in the game that has hardly ever come up and in the heat of the moment we failed to apply the rule. We will go back and provide more training in these areas for our umpires'

I know it doesn't change the result and maybe it would open up a can of worms from an Essendon perspective, but at least come out and own up to a mistake.


And your first line is absolutley on point about driving people away from the game.

we spoke about this last night off air but I used to watch as many games of football each weekend as possible, no matter the team.

But now I'm really selective on what games i'll watch and often I wont even watch a game from start to finish (unless it's richmond). It's just not the same anymore.

I feel like I don't know the rules to the game anymore, which is frustrating.

 

[smasha]

Every time i say the AFL is ****** and corrupt and i am just gonna follow the tigers and ignore everything else, the MRP and other non sensical decisions (like the Rampe fine but not worth a free kick) etc just suck me back in.
If Fyfe had of hit George with the same force in the same way he hit a 200cm goliath, do you reckon George would have got up?

Fyfe’s hit “potential to cause serious injury” just like Ablett’s two hits.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

The AFL is a basket case and is driving people away from the game. The organisation is always chasing its tail and obviously believes in t5he mantra that ypou can have your cake and eat it too.
I mean the Rampe call was obviously wrong on-field (and I say that knowing no one hates Essendon more than I and they would have won) and the free-kick in the square should have applied. The AFL first backs its umpires, as it sees that as the right thing to do, but then must act to the backlash. so it fines the player. But hang on, the player did nothing wrong, otherwise he would have been penalised. It's conflicted with what's right and what's wrong.
Same with the tanking debate. Melbourne didn't tank, says Gill. Fine. But why are you suspending Bailey etc. He didn't tank you just said. They tiptoe around conflict, but are conflicted. Basket case!

 

[magpie_marty]

Wow some great comments from all in regards to the Tribunal and Match Review.
Unfortunately the Media play's a huge part in my opinion and i can see why re $.
But if player nobody did what Ablett did and copped 2 weeks we would not hear a thing.

 

[Wooden Robot]

I'm not sure that they realise how much more respect people would have for them if they come out and said 'look we got the Rampe one wrong. it's a rule in the game that has hardly ever come up and in the heat of the moment we failed to apply the rule. We will go back and provide more training in these areas for our umpires'

I know it doesn't change the result and maybe it would open up a can of worms from an Essendon perspective, but at least come out and own up to a mistake.


And your first line is absolutley on point about driving people away from the game.

we spoke about this last night off air but I used to watch as many games of football each weekend as possible, no matter the team.

But now I'm really selective on what games i'll watch and often I wont even watch a game from start to finish (unless it's richmond). It's just not the same anymore.

I feel like I don't know the rules to the game anymore, which is frustrating.

Exactly right, it was the wrong call - own it. It ends then and there, except they try and defend the indefensible and it spirals out of control. And control is their game, so then they are forced to deal with it a second, third and fourth time.
The football public is, or was, very forgiving. Rightly or wrongly (not for me to judge), but we quickly forgive players who racially offend, or take drugs, or sleep with a bloke's Mrs , we'll get over a bad call costing a game, but the AFL has it's head in the sand.
I liken the AFL to that political party that's been in government for a while but is headed for a crushing defeat. They have just lost touch with reality and the people, which staggers, as there are obviously some pretty intelligent people employed there.
Gill can be summed as this … his words, 'It's a ll about the optics.' It's not about optics, it's about getting it right and throwing your hand up when you do get it wrong.
When I was in Melbourne I watched three games live a week - I haven't seen one this year. I don't likje what it's become or how the game is governed. The AFL treats us as fools.

 

[joelsyt]

Wow some great comments from all in regards to the Tribunal and Match Review.
Unfortunately the Media play's a huge part in my opinion and i can see why re $.
But if player nobody did what Ablett did and copped 2 weeks we would not hear a thing.

The MRO/Tribunal is literally trial by media.

It’s an absolute joke, it’s been mentioned on Michaels podcast a few times.

The media has way too much to say about the MRO/Tribunal.

 

[Wooden Robot]

The MRO/Tribunal is literally trial by media.

It’s an absolute joke, it’s been mentioned on Michaels podcast a few times.

The media has way too much to say about the MRO/Tribunal.

Remember the old days of when, once a guy was reported, the incident was never replayed until after Monday/Tuesday night til the hearing was done.
Now it's sensationalised, replayed 3000 times, commented on by everyone from media people to Joe the Cameraman and supporters, rehashed, regurgitated, re-whatever. Should be blacklisted until dealt with, if only to stop media blokes and girls from going into bat for their favourites.

 

[joelsyt]

Remember the old days of when, once a guy was reported, the incident was never replayed until after Monday/Tuesday night til the hearing was done.
Now it's sensationalised, replayed 3000 times, commented on by everyone from media people to Joe the Cameraman and supporters, rehashed, regurgitated, re-whatever. Should be blacklisted until dealt with, if only to stop media blokes and girls from going into bat for their favourites.

Something has got to be done.

Remember when the first season of that crime show aired about the Melbourne Gang Wars and it was banned in Victoria because they were afraid it would prejudice the case that was just getting started in the courts?

The media literally prejudice the matter every time they replay an incident. But how do you stop them from playing it until after the matter is assessed by the MRO?

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Something has got to be done.

Remember when the first season of that crime show aired about the Melbourne Gang Wars and it was banned in Victoria because they were afraid it would prejudice the case that was just getting started in the courts?

The media literally prejudice the matter every time they replay an incident. But how do you stop them from playing it until after the matter is assessed by the MRO?

Do the MRO the same day...