MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[giantroo]

 

[Snake_Baker]

Gleeson says Jones had time to take the mark and pull the ball down before McDonald arrived at the contest. He says McDonald "could and should" have stopped.

Gleeson arguing the “lateness” of the spoil constitutes rough conduct. McDonald “could and should have stopped”. He says the front-on angle shows McDonald was “not actually trying to punch the ball”.

Gleeson says McDonald was no realistic prospect to spoil the ball.

JUST HANG ON A MINUTE GLEESON!!!!!!!

Surely Luke's defence is going to argue how Gleeson could be certain if Jones was going to mark the ball on the first grab?!

There goes Gleesons "lateness" and "resonable prospect" claims down the shitshoot straight away! Gleeson's evidence is proven to be based on a guess!

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Thats not evidence the hit was to the head, thats well after impact was made.

Pissweak MRP. Fully switched to punishing the outcome rather than the act itself.

 

[king rising]

Thanks MRO

 

[king rising]

Thanks Tribunal

 

[Snake_Baker]

This suspension is based upon an assumption!!!!!!!!!!

Appeal again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Go to the ****ing Supreme Court!!!!!!

 

[Snake_Baker]

Who represented him, Dominic Denuto?

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Thats not evidence the hit was to the head, thats well after impact was made.

Pissweak MRP. Fully switched to punishing the outcome rather than the act itself.

Take the blue and white glasses off mate.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Pissweak MRP. Fully switched to punishing the outcome rather than the act itself.

A half decent representative would have shown that they couldn't even make out the initial evidence.

 

[The Nostradamus]

Our lawyer sucked give him the boot

 

[shintemaster]

I don't think we really had a defence to counter a medical report showing concussion symptoms. I don't think anyone actually thinks Luke was making a legitimate spoiling attempt.

Agree with that. The real argument - unspoken - is that this is what players have been doing for decades and I can't recall any being suspended for something quite like this. Stiff to be suspended for an act that happens most games... not a great sign career wise long term if he received a concussion based on what appeared a relatively glancing blow to the head.

 

[Nate7]

Who represented him, Dominic Denuto?

It's the vibe, it's, it's Mabo, your honour!

 

[Devington]

I don't think we really had a defence to counter a medical report showing concussion symptoms. I don't think anyone actually thinks Luke was making a legitimate spoiling attempt.

Fist clearly didn't hit him (I still just can not see it). Arm barely touched him in the head if at all. Awkward landing, possibly hit head on Luke's knee. Either it was incidental contact from upper arm/knee (no charge) or it was simply whiplash (bad luck and still no charge). It was a late spoil attempt after a mark, and deserved the 50 and nothing else, and condolences to the kid because he was clearly hurt. Make it incredibly clear that WHERE the contact with the head occurred is very unclear, and that it's a dangerous path to go down if we penalise a bloke for something that we aren't even sure he directly caused. That's how you defend it.

 

[muttley45]

Disappointing, but not unexpected result after hearing the poor case the defense put up.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Fist clearly didn't hit him (I still just can not see it). Arm barely touched him in the head if at all. Awkward landing, possibly hit head on Luke's knee. Either it was incidental contact from upper arm/knee (no charge) or it was simply whiplash (bad luck and still no charge). It was a late spoil attempt after a mark, and deserved the 50 and nothing else, and condolences to the kid because he was clearly hurt. Make it incredibly clear that WHERE the contact with the head occurred is very unclear, and that it's a dangerous path to go down if we penalise a bloke for something that we aren't even sure he directly caused. That's how you defend it.

If a player commits an illegal act and the end result is a concussion, then I'm not sure you're going to have much luck with the "but prove he hit him in the head" defence. Especially when he clearly made a fair bit of high contact. It isn't relevant whether the first or the forearm actually caused the contact, it's still high and late.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Take the blue and white glasses off mate.

They're off.

If it had been Jones on McDonald I'd be questioning how on earth McDonald got concussed with such an innocuous hit.
Not wanting Jones rubbed out by an incorrect MRO ruling.

Theres about 40 of those incidents a week and the only reason that this particular one was even looked at was because Jones was injured.

If you think its good that the MRO is grading due to outcome and not what the act actually is, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Devington]

If a player commits an illegal act and the end result is a concussion, then I'm not sure you're going to have much luck with the "but prove he hit him in the head" defence. Especially when he clearly made a fair bit of high contact. It isn't relevant whether the first or the forearm actually caused the contact, it's still high and late.

I don't even see the forearm making contact. The closest thing I can see in regards to contact to the head is possibly his knee to head.

 

[Gasometer]

It looked poor, clumsy, and done in frustration. He was in trouble the instant it happened

Not much has changed my opinion since then

His demonstrative body language that occasionally appears needs to disappear from his game.

This spoil is an unnecessary example of frustration that he needs to get out of his game to avoid future suspensions

 

[Ball Dont Lie]

Let’s put the Lmac apathy aside. If that was Higgins we would all be storming the gates at AFL house. Worst decision since the ziebell bump on Joseph in 2012.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

They're off.

If it had been Jones on McDonald I'd be questioning how on earth McDonald got concussed with such an innocuous hit.
Not wanting Jones rubbed out by an incorrect MRO ruling.

Theres about 40 of those incidents a week and the only reason that this particular one was even looked at was because Jones was injured.

If you think its good that the MRO is grading due to outcome and not what the act actually is, then I don't know what to tell you.

I generally don't like when they penalise on the outcome rather than the action (this has happened for years) but when the head is involved I don't have as much of a problem with it because of the dangers. Luke knew what he was doing, took the risk and has paid a bigger price than he thought he would because he's got the guy in the wrong spot. That's 100% on him and being undisciplined.

Concussion isn't an exact science. You can belt someone and not concuss them, and you can glance someone and concuss them, depending on where the contact is.

There's surely more worthwhile hills to die on than being outraged that a cheap shot gets a week?

 

[Gasometer]

Let’s put the Lmac apathy aside. If that was Higgins we would all be storming the gates at AFL house. Worst decision since the ziebell bump on Joseph in 2012.

What would you be saying if it was JZ who went off concusses?

 

[Ball Dont Lie]

What would you be saying if it was JZ who went off concusses?

Yeah that’s a fair comment and I understand your perspective. I just don’t think Luke intended to hurt him. He went for the ball and was clumsy. It’s Luke McDonald he was born clumsy. It is after all a contact sport

 

[scottywiper]

So off the ball elbows to head draw same or lesser penalty than spoil gone wrong. Brilliant stuff.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I generally don't like when they penalise on the outcome rather than the action (this has happened for years) but when the head is involved I don't have as much of a problem with it because of the dangers. Luke knew what he was doing, took the risk and has paid a bigger price than he thought he would because he's got the guy in the wrong spot. That's 100% on him and being undisciplined.

Concussion isn't an exact science. You can belt someone and not concuss them, and you can glance someone and concuss them, depending on where the contact is.

There's surely more worthwhile hills to die on than being outraged that a cheap shot gets a week?

It's less about this one incident, more about the trend that is starting. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

The fact they put out these guidelines and then seemingly change them at whim is a load of s**t, and incredibly unprofessional for a supposedly professional sport.

Tarrant got hit in the face late earlier in the game and got incorrectly told off by the umpire rather than being awarded a clear 50.
That incident didn't get a week and there was more head contact.

Either punish based on the rules or throw them out entirely and just say "We are going to make it up as we go, deal with it".

I'm 100% behind protecting the head, but you can't keep rubbing players out for something that happens 40 times a week just because in that one instance on that one week the person on the receiving end got hurt randomly.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I generally don't like when they penalise on the outcome rather than the action (this has happened for years) but when the head is involved I don't have as much of a problem with it because of the dangers. Luke knew what he was doing, took the risk and has paid a bigger price than he thought he would because he's got the guy in the wrong spot. That's 100% on him and being undisciplined.

Concussion isn't an exact science. You can belt someone and not concuss them, and you can glance someone and concuss them, depending on where the contact is.

There's surely more worthwhile hills to die on than being outraged that a cheap shot gets a week?

The issue I have with concussion being treated this way, is the bullshit parallels drawn between our game and the NFL in regard to brain damage caused due to hits to the head.

Paul Roos has a lot to answer for.