Bontempelli's hit on Haynes

[HairyO]

The issue is not necessarily the MRO decision - it's the fact, that when the MRO demonstrably get something wrong (as in the assessment of the impact) the initial penalty still stands. Why can't the tribunal reassess the case based on the latest medical evidence at hand? The diagnosis was made public on Tuesday which gives the AFL plenty of time to hand out an appropriate penalty.

How much time do you allow for a redo? A day? 2 days? What if a player suffers delayed concussion which isnt apparent until after teams are picked on Thursdays?

Does the MRO then have to go back through all the footage to see if he copped any other bumps?

In the dozen or more years of Monday reviews how often has it happened that the medical report wasnt able to be correctly submitted in the allowed timeframe ?

 

[HTT]

This is why the exact injury caused should never be a factor. Obviously when you hit someone in the throat, there is the risk of damage. In this case, it happened. But what would happen with the same hit 100 times with a range of players and a few cm error in the impact spot? Make the punishment based on that, not the medical report.
Great example of it last year too when two players had a head clash (can't remember exactly who - a North and a Hawthorn player I think), one was fine while the other was KO'd.
In this case, intent gets brought in and whatever, but simplify it to two similar but separate punches on each player.

Both are high impact to the head. If the player is fine, it might get a week. The player is KO'd? You're looking at a Gaff-type suspensipon.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

How much time do you allow for a redo? A day? 2 days? What if a player suffers delayed concussion which isnt apparent until after teams are picked on Thursdays?

Does the MRO then have to go back through all the footage to see if he copped any other bumps?

In the dozen or more years of Monday reviews how often has it happened that the medical report wasnt able to be correctly submitted in the allowed timeframe ?

Given what I've read on delayed concussion, 48 hours is the expected maximum for symptoms to appear. So two days would seem reasonable. Two days would also seem reasonable to diagnose anything that might not have been picked up in an initial examination by a doctor.

Given as you note, these are outliers it's not as though this would not be a big imposition on the MRO and/or the tribunal.

 

[HairyO]

Given what I've read on delayed concussion, 48 hours is the expected maximum for symptoms to appear. So two days would seem reasonable. Two days would also seem reasonable to diagnose anything that might not have been picked up in an initial examination by a doctor.

Given as you note, these are outliers it's not as though this would not be a big imposition on the MRO and/or the tribunal.

The problem is the arbitrary nature of it. Its bad enough the AFL has so many other grey area rules they can weasel through.

 

[Dogs till i die]

Anybody else feeling uncomfortable that a tribunal outcome should rely on medical evidence provided by paid employees of a club whose probable opponent in an elimination final in 3 weeks is the club the reported player plays for?

Particularly when those employees allowed their player to continue playing on the day.

Not ideal.

 

[FRUMPY]

Anybody else feeling uncomfortable that a tribunal outcome should rely on medical evidence provided by paid employees of a club whose probable opponent in an elimination final in 3 weeks is the club the reported player plays for?

Particularly when those employees allowed their player to continue playing on the day.

Not ideal.

Nope

 

[flyinghi64]

So long as this stupid MRO places more emphasis on the outcome than the actual action we will continue having these debates.

At the moment a player can do a legal football action bump but if the player bumped is unprepared, weak headed, already slightly concussed from another incident earlier or later in the game etc etc etc the player bumping will most likely miss games.
On the other hand you can run past someone, throw the elbow out and catch a player in the head, without the ball and not in play, yet if said player has hard head and just get's on with it then the penalty, if there even is one, will be a fine.

Football action with accidental unfortunate outcome = week(s)

Non football action thugery = possible fine.

Yep, that is the AFL ATM.

 

[conrad_437]

Nope

You wouldn't know what a final is

 

[Substance]

Bevo summed it up nicely in todays presser.

 

[FRUMPY]

You wouldn't know what a final is

Yeah played in September, my club has played alot more than your club.

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

 

[Iamspock]

Yeah played in September, my club has played alot more than your club.

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

Without cheating?

 

[conrad_437]

Yeah played in September, my club has played alot more than your club.

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

weheyy!!!! good comback!!! my club used to win lots of finals before I was born!!!

No idea whatsoever.

 

[RAPPA]

weheyy!!!! good comback!!! my club used to win lots of finals before I was born!!!

No idea whatsoever.

 

[kernelT]

The maribyrnong would be flooded with unprecedented levels of salt if you flipped this and bont was going to miss a final from an elbow to his throat.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Has anyone pondered the thought that Haynes has a larynx made of plastic just like his team?

Bit of a distasteful comment, that injury had the potential to be life threatening. I am glad Bont got off, but there is absolutely no need to act like a jerk over the issue.

 

[Bald]

Has anyone pondered the thought that Haynes has a larynx made of plastic just like his team?

Poor by you. Haynes is a terrific player but even if he wasn't, injury trolling is never on.

 

[Zgope1]

thread title calling it a "hit" is misleading. he practically stopped dead. was just unlucky that he got Haynes on a strange angle in a sensitive spot (which happens to be below head high contact).

That this has been discussion point shows how obsessed people can be with abstract principles in applications of rules, which ironically, leads to the subversion of common sense and actual logic. take a look at yourselves people who think he got lucky and reassess how you approach morality. If you're obsessed with principles you've got it all wrong. am i right blackcat

 

[Outback Footy]

Yep - and given the mark had already been taken off the Haynes kick, the “downfield” free we got in this case was pretty meaningless.

Yep thats right, the free kick count wasnt 50/50 so therefore unfair. BS. I was there and Ive watched the replay. I was screaming for unpaid frees all day, taranto flat out dropping the ball in the first 2 minutes not paid. Arm chops, naughton getting slammed all day. Our bloke (cant think) dropping the ball in the third was one you should have got, and we shouldnt have got the free there. fair call on that one. I can name some we should have got but didnt and so can you. Can you name any we shouldnt have got (apart from that one in the third)?

Your blokes lost the plot and went the man. Stupid football. Heath Shaw directly cost you a goal with that stupid and typical late hit from him. Your fans were booing lots of legitimate stuff, lots of people there with no clue being sheep.

The "tough" football you blokes try to play distinguishes you from the Suns who have none, your football cultures way better than theirs, hence your success and player retention. That same "tough" football means youre susceptible to giving away frees when you play a team that doesnt have to do it to play well. Heath Shaw is a "leader at your club FFS. And Toby "Kung Fu" Green - Puhlease!

And we won by 61 points. How many of those are you gonna blame the umpiring for? It wasnt close and your blokes responded badly to playing like s**t.

Im really looking forward to playing you there again in 3 weeks time. WE OWN SPOTLESS!!

 

[romeohwho]

thread title calling it a "hit" is misleading. he practically stopped dead. was just unlucky that he got Haynes on a strange angle in a sensitive spot (which happens to be below head high contact).

That this has been discussion point shows how obsessed people can be with abstract principles in applications of rules, which ironically, leads to the subversion of common sense and actual logic. take a look at yourselves people who think he got lucky and reassess how you approach morality. If you're obsessed with principles you've got it all wrong. am i right blackcat

It was unlucky and certainly not malicious -Bont very clean player-but under the current system, was a week’s holiday. Afl got it wrong in going before the med report arrived Monday night.

 

[blackcat]

thread title calling it a "hit" is misleading. he practically stopped dead. was just unlucky that he got Haynes on a strange angle in a sensitive spot (which happens to be below head high contact).

That this has been discussion point shows how obsessed people can be with abstract principles in applications of rules, which ironically, leads to the subversion of common sense and actual logic. take a look at yourselves people who think he got lucky and reassess how you approach morality. If you're obsessed with principles you've got it all wrong. am i right blackcat

half-correct. I never saw highlights, but presume one cannot neutralise clubroom player room changing room loyalty and the A-type competitive tribalism which seeks to penalise and punish. Bereton would speak of the insider code, no one outside club rooms would know. Not the PC bs uttered which is more pronounced in today's climate. I know Bont and Bartel and even Cotchin* have a public perception like Hird as boy-next-door mothers would love their first born daughters to marry.

My intuition would be, like Cotch*** if you get the opportunity to punish, you hurt the opposition, p'raps not in sadistic/psychopathic act, but a punishing act nonetheless. That said, Cotch should have been suspended but without seeing Bont v Haynes, Bont is not reckless (i) so taking someone high would hypothetically make you liable to be suspended, you would be(should be*) suspended. However, (ii) insider-rule code, pushes Bont's automatic reaction needle to the more aggressive end of his reflex.

I am leaning to (ii) with my qualifier- I never saw footage. And I don't have a coherent p.o.v to the consequence determining sentencing and how the act is interpreted.

#GaryAblettsnrKristianBardsly

 

[blackcat]

It was unlucky and certainly not malicious -Bont very clean player-but under the current system, was a week’s holiday. Afl got it wrong in going before the med report arrived Monday night.

You do get an unspoken protection in the hunt for brownlows and premierships. Adelaide should have faced a different captain tossing the coin in 2017. It was not Cotch given a leg-up, but Adelaide getting disadvantaged.


*sentencing in the current climate

and Chris Judd just said so, all players are not even, stars are indeed protected, and in NBA terms, the Michael Jordan star-calls

 

[romeohwho]

You do get an unspoken protection in the hunt for brownlows and premierships. Adelaide should have faced a different captain tossing the coin in 2017. It was not Cotch given a leg-up, but Adelaide getting disadvantaged.


*sentencing in the current climate

and Chris Judd just said so, all players are not even, stars are indeed protected, and in NBA terms, the Michael Jordan star-calls

And Judd would know ( hullo Pavlich!)

 

[blackcat]

. If you're obsessed with principles you've got it all wrong. am i right blackcat

ZG1 what I think you propose, when one presumes full-information, but they lack full-information, no one can hold full information, when general law made by few (albeit elected or employed) yet the individual has a discrete ethic unique to them, this leaves interpretation open-ended... and no simple penalty offers a just solution yet it can be bow-tied and sold as perfect, when anything but because this ideal does not exist...

I posted a few time on the furore about seven years ago for leaving his feet and launching in air for a high contact which got him weeks suspension and the utter ignorance by all concerned in the tribunal hearing and presume some QCs were representing parties

Zgope1

 

[BF Tiger]

Anybody else feeling uncomfortable that a tribunal outcome should rely on medical evidence provided by paid employees of a club whose probable opponent in an elimination final in 3 weeks is the club the reported player plays for?

Particularly when those employees allowed their player to continue playing on the day.

Not ideal.

It's sort of like a coach who is scrambling to not miss the finals for the third consecutive year saying that his star player should get off to the media, yet one is a recognised professional and probably bound by law to not misrepresent medical evidence.

 

[Substance]

It's sort of like a coach who is scrambling to not miss the finals for the third consecutive year saying that his star player should get off to the media, yet one is a recognised professional and probably bound by law to not misrepresent medical evidence.

Nope it isn't like that at all.