MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

Bad boy Nick

 

[DarkPhoenix]

We can't NOT challenge it, absurd it was even looked at.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Pierce himself was pretty careless when he crashed down on Hall’s knee. I’d call it a draw and play on. No charges FFS.

 

[scottywiper]

So striking... Not a legal part of the game, is penalised less severely than tackling, which is part of the game. Gold.

 

[ozzyoslo]

Can that be a JLT match?

One could argue that him missing a JLT does hinder us in preparing a 2 ruckman strategy.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

So striking... Not a legal part of the game, is penalised less severely than tackling, which is part of the game. Gold.

Depends... Who did it?

AFL can't suspend Brownlow medalists or big name players.

 

[shintemaster]

Depends... Who did it?

AFL can't suspend Brownlow medalists or big name players.

100% spot on. No big name player would have received a ban for that tackle.

 

[Event Horizon]

One could argue that him missing a JLT does hinder us in preparing a 2 ruckman strategy.

You do realize that he will also miss round 1?
That does set him back unfortunately. Ridiculous decision by the MRP. It wasn't a swing tackle or a double action. Just unfortunate part of the game which simply can't be avoided.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Event Horizon]

Sounds silly, but should consider resting Goldy for this week. Given we have no other viable ruck options for round 1 with Campbell's suspension, we can't afford Goldy to pick up any sort of injury or suspension in a meaningless game.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Meek.

 

[benbanjo]

So any suspensions in the JLT need to be served during the H&A season? Bunch of BS.

 

[scooby1279]

why would the club accept? IT wasn't a sling, no 2 actions, both moving forward in the tackle.

 

[nicko74]

Disappointing

 

[Event Horizon]

why would the club accept? IT wasn't a sling, no 2 actions, both moving forward in the tackle.

The only logical explanation is that he wasn't part of the round 1 plans anyway, therefore didn't want to spend the money on the appeal.

 

[scooby1279]

The only logical explanation is that he wasn't part of the round 1 plans anyway, therefore didn't want to spend the money on the appeal.

I surely hope that wasn't the thinking. If Goldy goes down with an injury prior to round 1 we are stuffed.

 

[Event Horizon]

I surely hope that wasn't the thinking. If Goldy goes down with an injury prior to round 1 we are stuffed.

Agreed

 

[Mav]

The only logical explanation is that he wasn't part of the round 1 plans anyway, therefore didn't want to spend the money on the appeal.

the logical explanation is that when you tackle someone and they get concussed it's looked at. Any tackle that pins both arms and results in a concussion is going to result in a suspension. There is no way we could possibly win on appeal.

I'm not agreeing with it, I think it's fricking stupid but the AFL are covering their own arse. I don't understand why they don't just come out and ban tackling someone to the ground.

 

[Event Horizon]

the logical explanation is that when you tackle someone and they get concussed it's looked at. Any tackle that pins both arms and results in a concussion is going to result in a suspension. There is no way we could possibly win on appeal.

I'm not agreeing with it, I think it's fricking stupid but the AFL are covering their own arse. I don't understand why they don't just come out and ban tackling someone to the ground.

You may be right, but I am still of the opinion that when there is no sling or double action, you've got a good chance of winning the appeal. All you have to prove is that in real speed you had no viable alternative. When both players are carried forward during a tackle, I struggle to see how Campbell could have prevented the concussion.

 

[muttley45]

One could argue that him missing a JLT does hinder us in preparing a 2 ruckman strategy.

Think he can still play JLT ozzy, wasn't Gaff allowed to play last week with 2-3 weeks suspension still remaining ?

 

[Mav]

You may be right, but I am still of the opinion that when there is no sling or double action, you've got a good chance of winning the appeal. All you have to prove is that in real speed you had no viable alternative. When both players are carried forward during a tackle, I struggle to see how Campbell could have prevented the concussion.

Doesn't have to be a sling. The wording is "driving a player into the ground when his arms are pinned

The one that got over looked was the head clash on Wood after he took a mark. The Saints player that hit him had a duty of care, as he hit him after the mark, which is an example the AFL use! Impact was medium and high, 2 weeks!

 

[SMaturin]

Lol. Absolutely nothing wrong with that tackle.

 

[scottywiper]

Surely when you play Afl you accept there is a risk. You might get hurt. Don't like it, take up lawn bowls.

 

[juss]

We can't NOT challenge it, absurd it was even looked at.

that's one of the worst I've seen. Ever. There was no slinging motion. If he doesn't pin the arm he gets the handball away, what is even the point of tackling him then?