MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[Mav]

Would have gone over well if he'd done that, Rohan got past and laid a tackle resulting in holding the ball.

Would have been less of a consequence than the method he chose. Scott can’t have a go at anyone electing not to bump, he sits on the Competition Committee the committee that suggests the rule changes to the AFL.

 

[Groin guru]

The logical outcome of this is that the shepherd will be outlawed.

No doubt. Like the forceful tackle. We saw Nic Nat penalised for making a smaller player earn it in the tackle. Something you're taught in juniors - you want to make your opponents second guess whether or not they want the ball...a few tough tackles will do that. If you are a big strong person in the AFL all of your attributes are slowly being taken away.

Christian said shoulder to shoulder - so what happens if the bump is fair but the player goes flying and their head bounces off the ground and is concussed - while that equal a suspension? We are going to have idiots running around like auskickers embellishing running past with their arms out to shepherd...
Go low you might take a knee and give a free that way. Players are going to need to launch themselves into players mid sections like idiots.

So if a big player like Daw, Nic Nat, and so forth can't use their strength to bump and tackle forcefully...should small quick players slow down and not use their speed? What if a player is chasing and pulls a hamstring. Seems like the risk of injury is there.

What a soft joke of a sport this has become.

 

[Boomerfan99]

 

[giantroo]

 

[hcd199]

Everyone has known for a long time that the match review process is ridiculously unfair, puts way too much emphasis on the consequences of an act, pays too little regard to whether something is actually reasonable within the context of a football match/contact sport, and clearly favours high-profile players of a certain kind through little more than blatant bias. Given this, it's no surprise whatsoever that Durdin gets suspended this week whilst Ablett gets off. However, the predictability of this outcome should in no way detract from just how appalling a set of circumstances it is.

Once again a player doing the right thing to help a teammate in a football match gets cited, and once again unnecessary off-the-ball contact is let off (we've obviously benefited from the latter this season re: Cunnington, but that hardly makes it right). Moreover, there's basically no way for us to successfully appeal this: forceful high contact to the head when bumping is deemed careless unless there was no "realistic alternative way to contest the ball" (given we were in possession, the argument - however idiotic it is in a team sport - would be that Durdin didn't have to do anything, or could have hung back to give a handball option). The whole thing is just the latest incidence of a long-term farcical undermining of the sport's basic contested fundamentals - from suspensions to rule changes and everything in between - where the only 'benefit' is the league's bottom line. Pathetic.

 

[SheezNuts]

Really eager to hear Robbo's opinion on 360 regarding Gaz's elbow. I recall last year that he was "sickened" by Tom Mitchell throwing an elbow at Goldstein.. virtually the same amount of force and action as Gaz.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

On this episode of what I learnt this week:

You ARE intentionally allowed to elbow an opponent in the head. As long as they don’t get concussed and play out the game.

You ARE intentionally allowed to forcefully and recklessly push a player into a fence as long as they don’t get concussed and play out the game.

But you ARE NOT allowed to shepherd. Ever. Even if it is a perfect hip & shoulder because their is a risk that their could be a clash of heads resulting in concussion.

The first two intentional acts can cause significantly more damage than durdin’s bump ever could. In the cases where there is a legitimate ACCIDENT with no INTENTION the outcome SHOULD never determine the result.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

On this episode of what I learnt this week:

You ARE intentionally allowed to elbow an opponent in the head. As long as they don’t get concussed and play out the game.

You ARE intentionally allowed to forcefully and recklessly push a player into a fence as long as they don’t get concussed and play out the game.

But you ARE NOT allowed to shepherd. Ever. Even if it is a perfect hip & shoulder because their is a risk that their could be a clash of heads resulting in concussion.

The first two intentional acts can cause significantly more damage than durdin’s bump ever could. In the cases where there is a legitimate ACCIDENT with no INTENTION the outcome SHOULD never determine the result.

Except when Zurhaar pushed Mirra into the fence, and then everyone here thought it was great.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

The logical outcome of this is that the shepherd will be outlawed.

Has to be.

But flinging an elbow to the neck or head of a bloke, even after he's clearly passed the ball is endorsed as OK.

So all good.

 

[kingcarey1]

Anyone listen to that sycophantic slug Whateley on 360?

Someone needs to elbow him in his beak.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

An arm outstretched against a speeding Rohan would not have impeded him at all. Seriously

Might have if it was an elbow aimed at the neck. Bonus. You can't be suspended for that. It's just a free against and not even 50. Well worth it.

 

[Zondor]

Anyone listen to that sycophantic slug Whateley on 360?

Someone needs to elbow him in his beak.

Did he have his nose up Gilligan's Crack whilst talking? :stern look

 

[giantroo]

 

[roos_fanatic08]

Except when Zurhaar pushed Mirra into the fence, and then everyone here thought it was great.

I was as surprised as anyone when he didn’t get suspended for that.

 

[tazaa]

They changed the rules, if you choose to bump and make high contact you’re responsible for the outcome.
It’s crap but that’s the rules.

The rule needed to be changed. Agreed on that aspect.
However as per usual the AFL messed up the interpretation.

This is what the rule should read.
i) A player who is IN POSSESSION of the ball and is bumped legally causing an accidental head clash should deem the perpetrator answerable to the MRO. The alternative view is the player without the ball had the option to tackle.

ii) A player who is NOT IN POSSESSION of the ball but within 5 metres of play and is bumped legally causing an accidental head clash should deem the perpetrator clear of answering to the MRO. The alternative view is the player who chose to bump the opponent without the ball had no other option.

That’s it.

The AFL changed the law following Lindsay Thomas’ hit on Ben Reid in 2013 which occurred frighteningly similar and in the same part of the ground as Durdins bump on Rohan.
(Frighteningly unrelated Rohan was the bloke Lindsay slid into in 2012 to bring in the contact below the knees rule).
They again changed the law in 2017 to rule accidental head clashes after any bump LEGAL as it was unforeseen that a clash of heads could occur.
And again after Burton’s hit on Higgins last year the law was changed.
What a ****ed up organisation.

 

[Sideburns Ahern]

The AFL changed the law following Lindsay Thomas’ hit on Ben Reid in 2013 which occurred frighteningly similar and in the same part of the ground as Durdins bump on Rohan.
(Frighteningly unrelated Rohan was the bloke Lindsay slid into in 2012 to bring in the contact below the knees rule).
They again changed the law in 2017 to rule accidental head clashes after any bump LEGAL as it was unforeseen that a clash of heads could occur.
And again after Burton’s hit on Higgins last year the law was changed.
What a ****** up organisation.

They change these rules quietly in December when no-one is paying attention so that they don't have to admit they were wrong the previous time they changed the same rule.

PS. You're right about the position on the ground where Lindsay Thomas bumped Ben Reid being very close to the same spot Sam Durdin bumped Gary Rohan. The Reid bump was just to the left of my reserved seat and Rohan was just to my right. I would say they were about 10 metres, or a legal Geelong short pass apart.

 

[Le Grille]

Tell me. When you were sentenced for time in gaol did consequences play a part in your sentence or was it just your action? Who’s the idiot? Just break your bail conditions so this forum doesn’t have to put up with your bullshyte.

The issue here there was nothing careless, reckless or intentional about the bump. I’d say if he hit Rohan’s head with the shoulder yep it’s careless/reckless but a bump to the body could be argued that Sam took all due care.

To use your car accident analogy the impact should only take affect on a judgement if negligence or impairment could be proven. No fault rulings can and do exist

 

[Snake_Baker]

That is brilliant!

 

[Liam Boy]

If this suspension is upheld, the AFL needs to consider legalising holding the man if it's within 5 metres of the ball. Otherwise what can players do but stand and watch their opponents?

 

[Snake_Baker]

There's a $10,000 fine heading his way

 

[Mav]

That is brilliant!

No it’s not. I’ve just seen another angle on AFL 360 and Sam could have easily turned his back and got in the way.

giantroo can you put up that footage?

 

[Mav]

The issue here there was nothing careless, reckless or intentional about the bump. I’d say if he hit Rohan’s head with the shoulder yep it’s careless/reckless but a bump to the body could be argued that Sam took all due care.

To use your car accident analogy the impact should only take affect on a judgement if negligence or impairment could be proven. No fault rulings can and do exist

Sure, but the rule clearly states accident head clashes will be penanlised.

 

[Sideburns Ahern]

No it’s not. I’ve just seen another angle on AFL 360 and Sam could have easily turned his back and got in the way.

giantroo can you put up that footage?

Wow, you don't even have a sense of humour, do you?

 

[Le Grille]

There's a $10,000 fine heading his way

Well actually Mitch could do that. No contact was made

 

[longlivenmfc]

Sure, but the rule clearly states accident head clashes will be penanlised.

correct. The rule (changed for this year, so comparisons to Higgo are meaningless) applies whether the bump is reasonable or unreasonable and now locks in that a resultant clash of heads will be taken to have been foreseeable. There's nothing available to challenge on this one, as much as we might want to.