MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[Passmore]

I'd be staggered if the AFL don't appeal this decision (Burton). It flies in the face of everything they have been telling us about selecting other options. Burton could have chose to tackle. Saying he couldn't because it would have been holding the man is ridiculous. He disposed of the ball a fraction of a second before being impacted and there would be 50 times a game that isn't paid holding the man as long as you don't hang on.

They are massively opening themselves up because this will encourage more bumping again and there will be incidental headclashes. Some of those players (particularly if they're "disliked") will get weeks for exactly the same behaviour.



That's a pretty fine shaving to go with though. He didn't choose to tackle and he ran into him at full tilt from 15-20m away. It's still a bump in my view if you run through someone.

He ran 20m and chose to lay a bump. Higgins knocked cold. Probably didn't intend to seriously injure him but he did. It was careless.

2 weeks and a session with Maj on how to lay a tackle.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[King Corey]

Righto, Cunnington misses a week last year for contesting a ball because of the "sanctity of the head" but Burton chose to bump but is cleared because.. ?

 

[koshari]

That's a pretty fine shaving to go with though. He didn't choose to tackle and he ran into him at full tilt from 15-20m away. It's still a bump in my view if you run through someone.

you never heard of a collision?

i dont mean to be an apoligist for burton but i would be ropable if one of our blokes missed a game for that,

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

I don't really want to see any of the three done (Burton, Mitchell or Zurhar), but it's mind boggling that Burton and Mitchell didn't get weeks based on precedence.

They're basically saying a) head clash's for the rest of 2018 are a-ok and b) striking behind play assuming the player doesn't come off is just a fine.

 

[shintemaster]

He ran 20m and chose to lay a bump. Higgins knocked cold. Probably didn't intend to seriously injure him but he did. It was careless.

2 weeks and a session with Maj on how to lay a tackle.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Well of course he meant to injure him, that's what football involves - hurting people within the rules. There was not intent to do anything other than hurt Higgins, the only question is to what extent. I don't think he wanted to concuss him because I doubt he wanted the potential to miss games but that's the difficulty with choosing this action in today's game. You can't control the action in its entirety, which is why most people now tackle. I'm just not sure why the AFL would choose to go back down a path that they've been edging down. We've had people suspended for - IMO - legal tackles in the last couple of years that went slightly wrong and concussed people to various degrees, I can't see how this is in line with that approach and it seems likely to contribute to more confusion and more incidents similar to Sunday.

you never heard of a collision?

i dont mean to be an apoligist for burton but i would be ropable if one of our blokes missed a game for that,

Sure but it's not like it was incidental to the play. It was a choice he made. I'm pretty comfortable with the concept that if you choose to "collide" with a player when it is not necessary to do so and it goes horribly wrong that you have to live with the consequences. ie. Two people running at each other at full tilt is a collision, one running into another who isn't looking is different IMO. This is the path we've been going down for 5+ years and it seems bizarre to me that they would now choose to backtrack.

 

[koshari]

I don't really want to see any of the three done (Burton, Mitchell or Zurhar), but it's mind boggling that Burton and Mitchell didn't get weeks based on precedence.

They're basically saying a) head clash's for the rest of 2018 are a-ok and b) striking behind play assuming the player doesn't come off is just a fine.

or maybe the precedences are mindboggling?

 

[koshari]

There was not intent to do anything other than hurt Higgins,

you honestly believe that? ever played the game?

 

[Zondor]

Righto, Cunnington misses a week last year for contesting a ball because of the "sanctity of the head" but Burton chose to bump but is cleared because.. ?

Because the Bump was executed correctly. That being shoulder to shoulder or shoulder to body if you like, and it was the "unforeseen" head clash that caused the Higgins' Concussion. Just like the LT bump on Reid back a few years. The rule was changed after the LT bump so that even if there was an accidental head clash, the guy bumping would be suspended. However it got changed back after Fyfe got two weeks for a similar bump on Rischitelli. As the rules sit the correct call was made by Christian. :stern look

 

[shintemaster]

you honestly believe that? ever played the game?

I find it staggering that you could believe there was any other intent. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a natural and accepted part of the game but to say he didn't want to hurt him seems naive. When Waite goes up for a mark and sticks his boot out he's trying to take the mark and he's trying to hurt his opponent or ensure his opponent gets out of his way to avoid hurt. That's the bonus for next time.

Running through players has always been about impacting their ability to make more contests and intimidating them for later ones. If anything that is more the case now that players can't as easily use it to protect their own space. Burton was trying to win the ball, hurt his opponent and turn the tide for his team. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with his thought process but it is fantasy to say he didn't want or intend to hurt him.

Because the Bump was executed correctly. That being shoulder to shoulder or shoulder to body if you like, and it was the "unforeseen" head clash that caused the Higgins' Concussion. Just like the LT bump on Reid back a few years. The rule was changed after the LT bump so that even if there was an accidental head clash, the guy bumping would be suspended. However it got changed back after Fyfe got two weeks for a similar bump on Rischitelli. As the rules sit the correct call was made by Christian. :stern look

And two weeks later we'll have someone suspended for the same thing again. I didn't like the introduction of the "LT Rule" because of how it came about but I can't see how the AFL aren't making a rod for their own back with this now.

 

[koshari]

Running through players has always been about impacting their ability to make more contests and intimidating them for later ones.

i agree on your premise but i simply dont believe from watching the footage that this was the case,

heres your classic example of this being being carried out,

 

[shintemaster]

i agree on your premise but i simply dont believe from watching the footage that this was the case,

heres your classic example of this being being carried out,

Fair enough, I don't agree but I doubt we're going to on this. FWIW I don't have a huge issue with Burton's actions, I just don't see how this does anything other than make for more confusion down the track. Reality is that while the AFL's rules apparently now say a "good" bump is fine we all know that a player will execute a perfect bump on the wrong person who won't recover and it will go the other way. I think a blanket rule was simpler where essentially players were encouraged to not bump unless they were willing to take the risk on themselves.

 

[Horace]

Did burton really chose to bump. Looked like he simply ran into higgo. Didnt even seem to brace and the impaxt looked from front of his head.

Absolutely he chose to bump. The photos in yesterdays Age show him running straight at Higgins who is in the process of handballing. Burtons eyes are not on the ball but on Higgins, he actually runs past the ball ,braces for contact and turns at the last moment to protect himself. It is clearly a bump and a bump that has hit another players head, irrespective of whether it was accidental or otherwise and has knocked someone else out.

From where I sat, it is one of the worst head clashes I've seen. Higgins was unconscious before he hit the ground. He may well miss more than one game and in fact probably should because the long term ramifications of these sorts of injuries are very scary. He may never be the same player again, as another poster has already stated here. It was a terrible look for the game.

 

[Horace]

you never heard of a collision?

i dont mean to be an apoligist for burton but i would be ropable if one of our blokes missed a game for that,

Have a proper look of the vision mate. He runs straight at Higgins and braces for contact. It is exactly what the AFL has been saying shouldn't happen.

 

[Waynesworld]

If this has already been posted I apologize in advance, but what pisses me off the most is that Zurhaar bumps a guy inside the field of play, sure Mirra ends up in the fence but plays out the game. Zurhaar is found guilty and fined.
Higgins is bumped inside the field of play, is knocked out and goes to hospital in an ambulance for plastic surgery. Ryan Burton has no case to answer.

And they wonder why we are all confused...

Also why is it that North have always been at the centre of all of these MRP controversies (and always on the wrong end of the decisions)? Ziebell, Thomas, Waite, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Ocha905]

Replace Brand with Ziebell- 4 weeks.

Replace Brand with Thomas- Death penalty.

MRP is a joke.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Burton?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Rooboys Rool]

Cameron Zurhaar, North Melbourne, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against David Mirra, Hawthorn, during the second quarter of the Round Five match between North Melbourne and Hawthorn, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday April 22, 2018.

In summary, he can accept a $2000 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Hawthorn Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a $3000 sanction. The player can accept a $2000 sanction with an early plea.

Not the most perplexing decision from the MRP this weekend, yet I'm still perplexed by the charge on Zurhaar. Rough conduct, which was careless and low impact to the head? Zurhaar was nowhere near his head in the bump. Are they saying he was responsible for Mirra hitting his head on the fence? Not sure that is even a thing, and it seemed he was only holding his shoulder anyway.

If they were going to charge him with anything it should have been the catch-all misconduct charge. As written, if we were to challenge the charge I would think we'd be successful.

 

[Mav]

Not the most perplexing decision from the MRP this weekend, yet I'm still perplexed by the charge on Zurhaar. Rough conduct, which was careless and low impact to the head? Zurhaar was nowhere near his head in the bump. Are they saying he was responsible for Mirra hitting his head on the fence? Not sure that is even a thing, and it seemed he was only holding his shoulder anyway.

If they were going to charge him with anything it should have been the catch-all misconduct charge. As written, if we were to challenge the charge I would think we'd be successful.

it is a thing.

Contact shall be classified as High or to the Groin where a Player's head or groin makes contact with another Player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending Player. By way of example, should a Player tackle another Player around the waist and as a result of the tackle, the tackled Player's head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would be classified as High, even though the tackle was to the body

 

[MagicDaw]

So why doesn't Burton have a case to answer if that's a thing?
If AFL doesn't appeal this it sets a bad precedent!!!
Totally miffed by this!

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

So why doesn't Burton have a case to answer if that's a thing?
If AFL doesn't appeal this it sets a bad precedent!!!
Totally miffed by this!

They don't allow precedent to be used.

It's why s**t like this keeps happening.

 

[Mav]

So why doesn't Burton have a case to answer if that's a thing?
If AFL doesn't appeal this it sets a bad precedent!!!
Totally miffed by this!

because Higgo didn't hit his head against a fence or the ground.

 

[JD-Roo]

because Higgo didn't hit his head against a fence or the ground.

Well.............. he did eventually............

 

[dus]

They don't allow precedent to be used.

It's why s**t like this keeps happening.

Imagine the nations judicial system ran without precedent.

MRP is a joke.

 

[Rooboys Rool]

it is a thing.

Contact shall be classified as High or to the Groin where a Player's head or groin makes contact with another Player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending Player. By way of example, should a Player tackle another Player around the waist and as a result of the tackle, the tackled Player's head made forceful contact with the fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would be classified as High, even though the tackle was to the body

Thanks.

But I just took another look at the incident and it doesn't look like Mirra's head comes into contact with the fence.

Anyway, probably doesn't matter as we have a history of not challenging.

 

[MagicDaw]

Contact shall be classified as High or to the Groin where a Player's head or groin makes contact with another Player

Doesn't need to hit fence or ground first!!