Review Geelong defeats Hawks by 5 points

[cats_09]

Maybe next time it happens we should tell Hawkins to stay on the ground holding his head and milking the contact as long as he can - he was too quick to get back to his feet to go & kick his goal

 

[David the Cat]

Have to say it looked blatantly intentional to me..

 

[goyoucatters]

'Careless', eh, AFL?

 

[goyoucatters]

Have to say it looked blatantly intentional to me..

Probably because it was...

 

[winty]

The AFL says the head is sacrosanct, but can anyone remember the last time an opposition player was suspended for a high hit on a Geelong player? Can't say I can recall any.

 

[calder_daddy]

Do we know what smith actually did?

 

[cats_09]

Do we know what smith actually did?

Something the MRO didn't like

(C) MISCONDUCT

Misconduct has a wide meaning and generally is any conduct which would be reasonably regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike or where it had the effect or potential to prejudice the reputation of any person, club or the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.

Acts of Serious Misconduct will be referred directly to the Tribunal. However any other act of Misconduct will be subject to a fixed financial sanction to be determined by the MRO in his absolute discretion.

 

[goyoucatters]

That one still image of Toma marking the footy (showing Hartigan trailing in without even a hint of an arm up to spoil) screams 'intentional'. In case anyone is wondering, the AFL has made it abundantly clear again in 2021 that the head is 'sacrosanct'. Until, just two weeks later, it quite clearly isn't.

This mob is an entirely risible and transparently partisan collective of arrogant and unaccountable scoundrels, only rivalled for unconscionable conduct by the appalling chicanery of the likes of FIFA and the IOC. And the deafening silence from virtually all and sundry in the media about this reinforces everything we already know about where our club sits within the popular narrative.

If only Hartigan could muster the 'courage' to produce this kind of wistful reminder of the 'good old days' against someone like Daniher for the Lions. Then we'd still be hearing about it a season down the track.

Still, carry on, AFL, nothing to see here...

 

[calder_daddy]

Something the MRO didn't like

(C) MISCONDUCT

Misconduct has a wide meaning and generally is any conduct which would be reasonably regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike or where it had the effect or potential to prejudice the reputation of any person, club or the AFL or to bring the game of football into disrepute.

Acts of Serious Misconduct will be referred directly to the Tribunal. However any other act of Misconduct will be subject to a fixed financial sanction to be determined by the MRO in his absolute discretion.

Yeah I knew it was misconduct but have no idea what that even means to be honest

 

[catempire]

Astounding that it has been graded careless. Hawkins leaps, takes the mark at full stretch and lands before Hartigan swings his arm. Absolutely nothing about it was “in play”.

 

[goyoucatters]

Astounding that it has been graded careless. Hawkins leaps, takes the mark at full stretch and lands before Hartigan swings his arm. Absolutely nothing about it was “in play”.

View attachment 1096203

It's only astounding if you consider the AFL to be a fair and honest arbiter of the matters set before it on any given day. As it is, it is simply craven and duplicitous long before you could consider it 'astounding'.

 

[cats_09]

Yeah I knew it was misconduct but have no idea what that even means to be honest

Basically anything the MRO don't like but they don't know how else to categorise it - "you did something wrong, but we're not exactly sure what you did wrong, so we'll classify it as misconduct"

 

[Mad_Hatter]

MRO is blatantly bias, shouldn't expect anything different.

 

[BotsMaster]

Astounding that it has been graded careless. Hawkins leaps, takes the mark at full stretch and lands before Hartigan swings his arm. Absolutely nothing about it was “in play”.

View attachment 1096203

I recall the commentators said "he (Tom) was made to earn it". I don't see that all. Just someone who wasn't in the marking contest from the start.

 

[Ricketz]

While I think suspension might be a bit strong, a citation at least surely. Show that they have an awareness of the issue and its not just lip service.

Just can't see the difference between intent and impact to Rohan's hit on Neale, personally. Except he got him squarely in the head from behind, Hawkins didn't flop and pretend he had a broken jaw, and it wasn't a glancing blow off the shoulder.

I don't care if they don't cite him, but I'm getting a bit sick of the obvious double standards.

 

[Burro]

I big mistake by the AFL. Shows no integrity at all. Very dumb.

 

[Catman]

That one still image of Toma marking the footy (showing Hartigan trailing in without even a hint of an arm up to spoil) screams 'intentional'. In case anyone is wondering, the AFL has made it abundantly clear again in 2021 that the head is 'sacrosanct'. Until, just two weeks later, it quite clearly isn't.

This mob is an entirely risible and transparently partisan collective of arrogant and unaccountable scoundrels, only rivalled for unconscionable conduct by the appalling chicanery of the likes of FIFA and the IOC. And the deafening silence from virtually all and sundry in the media about this reinforces everything we already know about where our club sits within the popular narrative.

If only Hartigan could muster the 'courage' to produce this kind of wistful reminder of the 'good old days' against someone like Daniher for the Lions. Then we'd still be hearing about it a season down the track.

Still, carry on, AFL, nothing to see here...

No extensive media outcry means no pressure on Christian to make a statement.

Not that we needed any further proof that the media controls this league.

 

[Spearman]

Just can't see the difference between intent and impact to Rohan's hit on Neale, personally. Except he got him squarely in the head from behind, Hawkins didn't flop and pretend he had a broken jaw, and it wasn't a glancing blow off the shoulder.

I don't care if they don't cite him, but I'm getting a bit sick of the obvious double standards.

They can argue it was done during play, not well away from it.

 

[Ricketz]

They can argue it was done during play, not well away from it.

How? Where it happens isn't part of the determination.

 

[Ricketz]

They can argue it was done during play, not well away from it.

Here...

"An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another
Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark
has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact
which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as
much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness."

 

[Spearman]

How? Where it happens isn't part of the determination.

Whenever there are these situations, that seems to get trotted out as part of the argument. Called in play the scope of careless or reckless or whatever they want to call it widens.

Personally it was just another cheap shot that need to have heavy consequences.

 

[Ricketz]

Whenever there are these situations, that seems to get trotted out as part of the argument. Called in play the scope of careless or reckless or whatever they want to call it widens.

Personally it was just another cheap shot that need to have heavy consequences.

Yeah, I found it

 

[Spearman]

Here...

"An example of careless conduct would be where a Player collides with another
Player who has taken a mark and where contact occurs just after the mark
has been taken. The offending Player has a duty of care to avoid any contact
which would constitute a Reportable Offence by slowing his momentum as
much as he reasonably can and a failure to do so constitutes carelessness."

lots of room for interpretation there, how long is 'just' after? 'Examples' aren't exact, etc.
How many hits are let off due to the hitter being 'uncoordinated'?
Just illustrating how they could try to wiggle out their desired outcome.

BTW did you check for eraser smudges on that rule book. They use pencil you know

 

[Strange Cat]

Watch one of our players do it this week and then get 2 weeks for it

nothing more certain

 

[Cataholic]

There were some here who defended the AFL's interpretation of the Rohan incident.

I'd be interested in their opinion of the AFL's decision re: Hartigan.