Analysis 2017 Non-Crows Discussion Thread - Part V for Vendetta

[MarcusP2]

Because the umpires are blindsided / looking elsewhere / misjudged?

Are you saying there shouldn't have been a free against Ellis despite the fact he got Whitfield right in the jaw?

 

[subaru]

And if you choose to bump and make contact with the head, there will be consequences.

Except in Grand Final week

If it's not intentional why should he get a match ?

 

[dogs105]

If it's not intentional why should he get a match ?

Because it was reckless or careless. They are the rules.

It's actually probably the first one they have got right for several years, but doesn't fit with every other decision following their rules.

 

[jo172]

"I shot (ex-Adelaide teammates) a text earlier in the week, but they've got a game to focus on, so I'll let them focus on that, because there are some pretty special stories."

I'm sure they appreciated it

"friends 4 lyf"

 

[subaru]

Because the umpires are blindsided / looking elsewhere / misjudged?

Are you saying there shouldn't have been a free against Ellis despite the fact he got Whitfield right in the jaw?

No
Let's just talk about this one

Sloane hit Danger in the head.
Knocked him out.
Football collision
No free
No report

Cotchin hit Shiel in the head
Didn't knock him out - In fact it looked like it was his shoulder that got injured
Football collision
No free
No report


Common sense - for once .

 

[MarcusP2]

If it's not intentional why should he get a match ?

Because he's stacked up a lot of offences indicating he's a careless player that constantly attracts the intention of the MRP by injuring his opponents or punching them. That's what this system is intended to stamp out.

Edit:
If you are trying to equate the Sloane and Cotchin incidents (Danger wasn't even knocked out at all anyway), we can't discuss this. Sloane's was the definition of incidental contact, he didn't do anything except run at the ball carrier. Equivalent of a head clash.

 

[DJ75]

Then why no free
It was always going to be a penalty that copped a fine - except for his record ( which having seen those incidents were pretty soft) - I am astounded people think he should have been suspended.



Sloane hit Dangers head.


Knighter went at Selwood's everything !

For once , finally , the MRP show common sense and we're all way wahing it!

Not one of you have said what if it was one of our players ?

Because Victorian V non-Victorian team?? You watch what happens this week. The discrepancy between what is holding the ball and what isn't will be staggering.
How many goals did Geelong get directly from dubious umpire decisions last week? I counted at least 5. They didn't look like scoring until the umpires stepped in.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And if you choose to bump and make contact with the head, there will be consequences.

Except in Grand Final week

This decision has saved the AFL some headaches this week but will create further much worse problems down the track.

As it stands, you can now clean up an opponent who has his head over the ball and make high contact, as long as you make some show of reaching for the ball yourself.

 

[subaru]

Because it was reckless or careless. They are the rules.

It's actually probably the first one they have got right for several years, but doesn't fit with every other decision following their rules.

And it would have only been a fine apart from his 2 previous incidents

Are you seriously saying he deserved to sit out a Grand Final for an incident that at worst was only going to attract a fine?

 

[subaru]

Because Victorian V non-Victorian team?? You watch what happens this week. The discrepancy between what is holding the ball and what isn't will be staggering.
How many goals did Geelong get directly from dubious umpire decisions last week? I counted at least 5. They didn't look like scoring until the umpires stepped in.

Sloane is not playing for a Vic team

Not sure what you're trying to say

 

[dogs105]

And it would have only been a fine apart from his 2 previous incidents

Are you seriously saying he deserved to sit out a Grand Final for an incident that at worst was only going to attract a fine?

No. He deserved to miss because of this incident and the 2 punches he was previously fined for. That's how a 3 strikes rule works.

 

[subaru]

This decision has saved the AFL some headaches this week but will create further much worse problems down the track.

As it stands, you can now clean up an opponent who has his head over the ball and make high contact, as long as you make some show of reaching for the ball yourself.

I still maintain his objective was the ball but ...
Yes
And hopefully they'll amend the rules.

Do you really see it as that deliberate ?


Ok
With your comment in mind, how does that equate with the Sloane decision ?

 

[subaru]

No. He deserved to miss because of this incident and the 2 punches he was previously fined for. That's how a 3 strikes rule works.

Have you seen those 2 incidents ?
Soft as.
That's why I think Bicks idea is the go.

Well.
I for one am glad they looked at it in the context of a grand final and an incident that without any prior record would have been no more than a fine.

Can see players opting to take a match after 2 of these type things rather than run the gauntlet of accidental high contact costing them a GF.

 

[SugarShane]

Chocco also went full Lindy at the Melbourne media saying they have a crack at the new and interstate clubs and all slap themselves on the back because they know nobody will argue back.

Also pointed out 3 Richmond high hits that weren't paid as frees.

Did us a massive favour.

Good on him. Would've copped the same shit as us while he was Port coach, just now has a platform to speak without it affecting his job.

 

[SugarShane]

The danger with fining players with a 3 strikes and your out policy is that you end up with a Cotchin situation that has now left the AFL world shaking their head. The fact is, Cotchin didn't deserve to get suspended for his hit alone, but neither did Dangerfield on Kruezer. Had it been the regular season he would have copped a fine or a suspension. You can't not give the 3rd fine because it results in a suspension. The fine system is supposed to serve as a warning to players to get their shit together or get suspended. Cotchin is a serial repeat offender who chose to be reckless time and time again. It's not the AFL's responsibility to appease players wants and desires about playing in a grand final by having a punishment of missing the grand final doesn't fit the crime. In this case it does and the AFL were too gutless to make a decision. I genuinly think the AFL should appeal the decision based on the simple fact the MRP have to abide by the rules and not make them up.

This is what every single person who whinges that "it wasn't worth a week" is forgetting. No, it wasn't worth a week, but that plus punching two blokes? Yes, worth a week.

If he did all 3 in a game should he miss a game? Absolutely. They had a chance to set a strong precedent, instead the precedent now is "as long as you're Victorian, take out the opposition's best player in a prelim and you're protected." It's Shiel's own stupid fault for putting his head over the ball. What an idiot.

 

[dogs105]

Have you seen those 2 incidents ?
Soft as.
That's why I think Bicks idea is the go.

Well.
I for one am glad they looked at it in the context of a grand final and an incident that without any prior record would have been no more than a fine.

Can see players opting to take a match after 2 of these type things rather than run the gauntlet of accidental high contact costing them a GF.

I'm happy that punching is being targeted. Not part of football.

 

[Lawrst]

This decision has saved the AFL some headaches this week but will create further much worse problems down the track.

As it stands, you can now clean up an opponent who has his head over the ball and make high contact, as long as you make some show of reaching for the ball yourself.

Exactly
They have gone against their own rules here.

Cotchin chose to bump.
He tucked his shoulder in to bump.
He take a movement away from the ball towards the player to bump him off the ball.
Hit the player high.
The player was concussed and missed 3 quarters of a prelim (and the brownlow).

If that's not worth at least a fine... what is?

Now if cotchin had missed the grand final, he would only have his jumper punches from earlier in the year to blame.

 

[beartoo]

Because Victorian V non-Victorian team?? You watch what happens this week. The discrepancy between what is holding the ball and what isn't will be staggering.
How many goals did Geelong get directly from dubious umpire decisions last week? I counted at least 5. They didn't look like scoring until the umpires stepped in.

Same happened V Cats at the home and away match. At least 3 goals from BS frees in that one.

 

[SugarShane]

Yes, definitely. The "missing a GF" thing is completely irrelevant. The main point is that the penalties should be completely consistent at any time during the year. I must agree that the AFL is corrupt. Compare the "football action" of Sloane on Ebert last year (no concussion, penalty), and the corresponding Cotchin case (concussion, no penalty). They had to stretch hard to make out that Cotchin was going for the ball, with his right hand tucked in to charge Cotchin with his shoulder. His sole intention was to take Shiel out, then "go for the ball". A large joke.

Round 1 next year, we''l see something similar: then a week's penalty. Let's have some consistency!

How is anyone meant to know what's worth a penalty when the AFL doesn't even know. Just add it to the large list of inconsistencies in the entire organisation.
Concussion in Rd 19? Suspension.
Expansion club might lose a star? He's now an ambassador, double his money for free.
10m kick in attack? Mark.
20m kick in defence? Play on.
Run 15.01m as Rory Atkins? Ran too far.
Run 30m as Buddy Franklin? GOTY contender.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Their obsession is becoming unhealthy now.

Only now? The Danger interviews before, during and after (when the losing team normally never gets interviewed) our minor round game vs Geelong at AO didn't indicate it was unhealthy back then?

 

[SugarShane]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-09-25/pain-of-prelim-loss-may-keep-danger-from-gf

Good to see the AFL website focusing on the important stories, like whether Dangerfield will be at the GF.

Hope we have Dangerwatch on Saturday.

 

[Geoffa32]

Is Danger doing the GF Sprint?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

That tweet from Swan seems needlessly harsh - are they mates or has that just come out of nowhere?

Maybe he doesn't like divers. Or maybe he's just had a few too many and is drunk tweeting.

 

[feenix67]

He's allowed to bump

And initially the contact seemed to be Shiels shoulder that was causing him the problem
It's a thing of centimeters at full throttle

Yes, but having chosen to bump, he carries the duty of care.

As the MRP deemed he was contesting the ball (not choosing to bump) he doesn't carry the same duty of care.

Your sentiment is right but your facts are wrong

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

No
Let's just talk about this one

Sloane hit Danger in the head.
Knocked him out.
Football collision
No free
No report

Cotchin hit Shiel in the head
Didn't knock him out - In fact it looked like it was his shoulder that got injured
Football collision
No free
No report


Common sense - for once .

Except that if it was during the minor round both would have got a fine (which would have seen Cotchin suspended for 1 game).

Ellis not getting a fine was even worse. He clipped the guy in the head while attempting to bump.

Basically the AFL didn't want this to get any more airplay than it already had, so they chose to let all 3 incidents go.