MRP / Trib. 2018 MRP - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[AceAndy]

Anyone else suprised Vince got off?
Was late and jumped

Not really, Thomas got straight up and clearly wasnt hurt. If he was stretchered off different story.

 

[Gethelred]

Anyone else suprised Vince got off?
Was late and jumped

Seeing it, I thought he'd get weeks, or if he didn't he should.

Punish the action, not the result. He does that to someone who isn't Daisy, and they don't spring back up immediately.

 

[Aphrodite]

Anyone got a clip of the "incident"?

Vince?

Scroll down for the vid
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-21/match-review-write-off-round-nine

Vince elected to run past the ball to bump Thomas midway through the first quarter of the Demons' 109-point victory, launching himself off the ground just before making impact with the Blues veteran's head.
Christian said Vince's action had been careless but not of sufficient force to warrant a charge.

"He elected to bump, but you must execute that bump fairly. He didn't, he jumped in the air and made contact to Thomas' head," Christian said.
"But there's also got to be an associated level of impact and Thomas was able to get up immediately, instantaneously, and contest the next football and then was able to play on without any problem."

 

[Curnivore]

Seeing it, I thought he'd get weeks, or if he didn't he should.

Punish the action, not the result. He does that to someone who isn't Daisy, and they don't spring back up immediately.

Thats what I was think. Shouldn't be a broken jaw to decide what is and isn't acceptable.

That being said I like watching Vince play and I'd rather have had him rubbed out against as

 

[Blue__Balls]

Vince?

Scroll down for the vid
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-21/match-review-write-off-round-nine

Nah, LOB.

Saw the Vince one at the time. Bullshit that the MRO says running past the ball, jumping, and collecting a bloke in the head us ok, provided he gets back up.

Especially considering the AFL wants to stamp out exaggerated contact. If you hit a bloke, and he does the right thing of getting back into the play, everything is forgiven.

 

[FRUMPY]

I loved the Vince bump, that's how footy use to be played. Miss that stuff (not the dirty stuff but that was a great hit straight down the middle)

Also loved daisy getting straight back up and going back for the ball

LOB unlucky. He got in the way of the melb player and the ball to block him. Not his fault the player still ran into him. $2000 a fair hit for first year player.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Jabba73]

I loved the Vince bump, that's how footy use to be played. Miss that stuff (not the dirty stuff but that was a great hit straight down the middle)

Also loved daisy getting straight back up and going back for the ball

LOB unlucky. He got in the way of the melb player and the ball to block him. Not his fault the player still ran into him. $2000 a fair hit for first year player.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Works out at nearly 4% of his wages for the year, purely for blocking a player. Would cost the likes of Buddy over $40k if it was a proportional fine.

Once again, hope we challenge both the finding and the level of the fine for a first offence

 

[Gethelred]

I loved the Vince bump, that's how footy use to be played. Miss that stuff (not the dirty stuff but that was a great hit straight down the middle)

Also loved daisy getting straight back up and going back for the ball

LOB unlucky. He got in the way of the melb player and the ball to block him. Not his fault the player still ran into him. $2000 a fair hit for first year player.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Not quite. He jumps before impact, to try and take him high.

If you can bump properly, your feet don't leave the ground. If you can bump properly and you choose to jump before impact, you can knock someone into next week. I'm going to leave to one side whether or not he was trying to do that, but the action he used was a dangerous one, and had Daisy been in a marginally less flexible position or marginally less aware, he'd have a broken jaw and a concussion.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Not quite. He jumps before impact, to try and take him high.

If you can bump properly, your feet don't leave the ground. If you can bump properly and you choose to jump before impact, you can knock someone into next week. I'm going to leave to one side whether or not he was trying to do that, but the action he used was a dangerous one, and had Daisy been in a marginally less flexible position or marginally less aware, he'd have a broken jaw and a concussion.

Should of at least received a harsh reprimand, he did everything in that bump that they have been suspending people for.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Thats not right at all, there is a clear difference in the May one that seperates it from the others.

He's clearly trying to demonstrate the play.

The decision not to appeal May was the correct one.

One of the opening statement from the prosecuting QC at the tribunal, mentioned intentional contact including "demonstrative purposes." These were being blogged live from the tribunal. I'm not sure how or if I can find it, but if I do I will post it here.

 

[Gethelred]

Thats what I was think. Shouldn't be a broken jaw to decide what is and isn't acceptable.

That being said I like watching Vince play and I'd rather have had him rubbed out against as

Agree completely with the first sentence; couldn't disagree more with the second.

I enjoy watching Buddy play. Do I think that his fendoffs - which were a thing before Dusty exploded - are illegal most of the time? Absolutely I do; they begin at neck height. The reason why this is relevant is because he's umpired inconsistently; sometimes, he'll get done every time he does it, others he's allowed to get away with murder. It visibly frustrates him.

If you break the rules, you should get done, regardless of how well you play the game.

 

[ShanDog]

I loved the Vince bump, that's how footy use to be played. Miss that stuff (not the dirty stuff but that was a great hit straight down the middle)

Also loved daisy getting straight back up and going back for the ball

LOB unlucky. He got in the way of the melb player and the ball to block him. Not his fault the player still ran into him. $2000 a fair hit for first year player.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

When you run past the ball and leave the ground to bump someone high, that's dirty. If he kept his feet and stayed low I'd agree with you. It's only dumb luck that he didn't cause serious damage to Thomas. If he has any sense, Vince would know he's gotten away with a very dumb move.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

How did the SPP umpire contact not even attract a fine?
New ruling seems to be that you can do whatever you want to someone, as long as they aren't injured, get straight back up again, or you apologise.

 

[Gethelred]

How did the SPP umpire contact not even attract a fine?
New ruling seems to be that you can do whatever you want to someone, as long as they aren't injured, get straight back up again, or you apologise.

... or the media's gotten their pound of flesh, and have no further need to get players suspended on the very issue they judged to be of world shattering importance a week ago.

Exactly as I said; the lack of a response from Michael Christian/the AFL to SPP's contact displays that they cared more about positive optics than they do about umpire safety around the country.

 

[El Topo]

What about consistency? Won't somebody think of the children? Somebody call Dangerscab, the (Geelong) players need their advocate!!

 

[norway blue]

Totally inconsistent . Look at buddy’s face after the elbow. Hand in the lolly jar look . Buddy lucky .


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Just Kreuzing]

How did the SPP umpire contact not even attract a fine?
New ruling seems to be that you can do whatever you want to someone, as long as they aren't injured, get straight back up again, or you apologise.

Was considered accidental contact during live play I think, the previous 4 scenario's were all deemed to have happened during dead ball scenario's or when the live play had ceased or paused.

 

[Blue__Balls]

How did the SPP umpire contact not even attract a fine?
New ruling seems to be that you can do whatever you want to someone, as long as they aren't injured, get straight back up again, or you apologise.

Because the media were quick to point out how good a bloke he was for apologising. There was no need for the AFL to punish him, the story was about how respectful a young man he is.

It's disgusting how easily the AFL is influenced by media spin.

For the record, I don't think SPP should have been fined.
I don't think Charlie should have been fined.
I think May should have received a moderate fine.
I think Ed should have received a heavy fine.
I think Hawkins should have got a week.

Completely accidental contact - give them a warning and move on.
Unnecessary contact without malicious intent - give them an appropriate fine.
Demonstrative or aggressive contact - suspend.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Was considered accidental contact during live play I think, the previous 4 scenario's were all deemed to have happened during dead ball scenario's or when the live play had ceased or paused.

Don't recall hearing any of that mentioned during the discussions of the past week. As far as I'm aware, that wasn't a consideration. Plenty of others copped fines for accidental contact. Still very careless given the umpire was looking away at the direction of play and couldn't see SPP, but SPP would have had the ump in his line of sight and made no effort to avoid him.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

Don't recall hearing any of that mentioned during the discussions of the past week. As far as I'm aware, that wasn't a consideration. Plenty of others copped fines for accidental contact. Still very careless given the umpire was looking away at the direction of play and couldn't see SPP, but SPP would have had the ump in his line of sight and made no effort to avoid him.

I heard it mentioned somewhere cant recall where though.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

AFL360 don’t conclude their match reviews ‘til Tuesday night, sometimes Wednesday.

Pretty sure.

 

[Jamie007]

So hang on. Was Joel Selwood not even sighted or mentioned in the MRP this week for running into the umpire against essendon. He clearly ran straight into the ump up near the goals as he was running back to the centre. Cant believe he wasnt fined let alone even mentioned. Oh wait. Yes i can.

 

[norway blue]

It is blind donkey at best. At worst mmmm


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Aphrodite]

So hang on. Was Joel Selwood not even sighted or mentioned in the MRP this week for running into the umpire against essendon. He clearly ran straight into the ump up near the goals as he was running back to the centre. Cant believe he wasnt fined let alone even mentioned. Oh wait. Yes i can.

Good bloke discount.

All clear!

 

[Dadda Dave]

So hang on. Was Joel Selwood not even sighted or mentioned in the MRP this week for running into the umpire against essendon. He clearly ran straight into the ump up near the goals as he was running back to the centre. Cant believe he wasnt fined let alone even mentioned. Oh wait. Yes i can.

Seriously their taking the piss ! I don't know how they can sleep at night those cheating w***ers. Sellwood might of ducked his head just in time and missed him.