AFL Player 27: Mason Redman 🐕 - Goes whack

[Lore]

Contract Status: Free Agent 2028
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 24, ghostdog

 

[Godzke]

can easily argue it was intentional contact to the chest / shoulder region (where he makes first contact), which glanced up into the face.

should get the charge downgraded from intentional to reckless

 

[ghostdog]

Yep. Looks like he just meant to shove him and he's missed the mark.

 

[yodellinhank]

He's just been struck in the chest, and then the player who struck him in the chest has come back at him to have another go. He tries pushing him away and accidentally gets him high. Week off?

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Challenge that shit. Sicily went full Cantona on Pidge, so deserves a week.

 

[BomberFan355]

That’s a week when you add in Essendon tax.

 

[TheUnicorn]

MRO are all over the place

 

[Blind Turn]

Can't argue that, dumb thing to do.

You sure as hell can argue inconsistency by the MRO. No way that shove to the chest/face is worse than the glancing right fisted jab by Hewett.

 

[bombreys]

View attachment 1930846View attachment 1930846

In other words, the AFL will pick and choose whichever best suits them.

Likely top 4 sides = all clear

Likely outside the top 8 sides = make an example

 

[joey_jo_jo]

Red dog seems to never cop the criticism that others do from our supporter base but for me he is one of our most ill disciplined players.
When he is on he is great to watch but he was very poor yesterday, loses his man, makes poor decisions with ball in hand and gives a way stupid frees.

 

[Phone]

gonna be hard to beat this. the afl charged the rules on striking over the off-season, so the intentional charge is likely going to stick, so we're left with trying to get it thrown out on impact, which is pretty pretty tough. dunno how george hewett didn't get graded as intentional last week though.

Red dog seems to never cop the criticism that others do from our supporter base but for me he is one of our most ill disciplined players.
When he is on he is great to watch but he was very poor yesterday, loses his man, makes poor decisions with ball in hand and gives a way stupid frees.

oh he's an absolute idiot. doesn't everyone know this? bless him though

 

[Foxx]

Newcombe threw one first.

Surely in this world you can still retaliate when punched in the jaw?
It's a form of self defence.

 

[Mercurial89]

gonna be hard to beat this. the afl charged the rules on striking over the off-season, so the intentional charge is likely going to stick, so we're left with trying to get it thrown out on impact, which is pretty pretty tough. dunno how george hewett didn't get graded as intentional last week though.


oh he's an absolute idiot. doesn't everyone know this? bless him though

I think this is the new on ball off ball distinction.
Why any strike isn't intentional is beyond me but here we are.

Redman was stupid, cops a week. Won't learn from it assuredly.

The Sicily suspension id be furious with if I was the hawks.

 

[bombreys]

I think this is the new on ball off ball distinction.
Why any strike isn't intentional is beyond me but here we are.

Redman was stupid, cops a week. Won't learn from it assuredly.

The Sicily suspension id be furious with if I was the hawks.

With you, the Sicily one is an absolute joke. I know it’s a new season, but imagine showing someone who’s never watched AFL before the Sicily footage and then the Maynard footage (on Brayshaw) from last year and asking them to guess which one got suspended and which one got off. Consistency is all most fans want.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

how in the **** do Redman and Sicily get suspended?

got to both be the easiest appeals ever surely?

 

[citizen-erased]

In other words, the AFL will pick and choose whichever best suits them.

Likely top 4 sides = all clear

Likely outside the top 8 sides = make an example

Zak baileys done the same thing in front of an ump
Lets see what comes of it

 

[JayJ20]

What annoys me about this is that George Hewett

29

George Hewett

Age

29

Ht

187cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.7

4star

K

7.4

3star

HB

10.3

5star

M

2.7

3star

T

4.1

5star

CL

3.3

5star

D

13.8

3star

K

4.8

2star

HB

9.0

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

2.8

4star

D

11.2

3star

K

7.8

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

3.4

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

0.4

3star

last week received a fine for hitting Neale so what's the difference?

 

[Happyskeret]

What annoys me about this is that George Hewett last week received a fine for hitting Neale so what's the difference?

He wasn’t wearing an Essendon jumper.

 

[ghostdog]

Redders can't help it if this is what he sees when he looks at Sicily.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

gonna be hard to beat this. the afl charged the rules on striking over the off-season, so the intentional charge is likely going to stick, so we're left with trying to get it thrown out on impact, which is pretty pretty tough. dunno how george hewett didn't get graded as intentional last week though.


oh he's an absolute idiot. doesn't everyone know this? bless him though

I still don't understand how they can determine someone's intent based on the effect.

 

[DallasCrane316]

I still don't understand how they can determine someone's intent based on the effect.

What confuses me is Neale’s charge was labelled as deliberate, Hewett’s response was careless. How?

 

[Phone]

Throwing these together coz I looked up why Hewett got off

I still don't understand how they can determine someone's intent based on the effect.

What annoys me about this is that George Hewett last week received a fine for hitting Neale so what's the difference?

I think this is the new on ball off ball distinction.
Why any strike isn't intentional is beyond me but here we are.

it's best to think of careless/intentional from the POV of "did they intend to commit a reportable action?". The easy example is a bump. Almost every bump is graded as careless, because it's legal to lay a bump. It's just if you stuff up and hit the head, you're in trouble. the exception is if the bump is off the ball, when bumps aren't legal, which led to Nathan Brown getting an intentional charge in 2018, because there was no doubt he intended to bump Saad, and it was an illegal action. I saw some people say Jimmy Webster should have been graded intentional, but it was perfectly legal for him to bump the player, but he had plenty of force behind him and got the head. I don't see a way to have Webster's bump to be a possible intentional act without it actually possibly banning the bump forever.

Anyway, it seems like what the AFL is trying to do with this new striking interpretation is to have a little bit of that "off the ball" dynamic apply. the ball had gone out of play way down the field when Redman/Newcombe got into it. when Hewett/Neale got into it, they were jostling around the ball-up contest that was about to start. and that difference is basically why Hewett didn't get intentional grading. (btw I do wonder if Redman may have been graded insufficient force if it was only one handed)

‘That’s semantics, surely?’ Great challenges AFL boss over strike verdict amid rule change hint

‘That’s semantics, surely?’ Great confronts AFL boss over strike verdict amid rule change hint

www.foxsports.com.au

“You’ve had a look at it and chosen to hand out a fine, which we’ve been handing out for a long, long period of time for these incidents. Why was he not given a week?,” Lyon posed on Fox Footy’s On the Couch on Monday night.

Kane however claimed the rule change was largely introduced to stamp out strikes behind play, whereas the Neale-Hewett clash was near a stoppage.

“We don’t like to see this and we don’t want this in the elite game. We don’t want it in community footy at all, hence why it was sanctioned through MRO,” Kane told On the Couch.

“The important shift we’ve been talking about in the off-season is that pushing for space or the striking action off the ball – not around the contest.

“That rule change was focused on when you’re trying to get space say 20 or 30 metres off the ball and you cause in injury, we would grade it as intentional, which would trigger the week.

“Around the stoppage and contest, there’s a careless nature to the contest that’s right in front of them.”

However, to Mercurial89's point, Hewett's action was just a ****ing punch! I don't see what it's got to do with the new interpretations at all. It's a punch and since punches are always illegal, it should have been intentional, just like Neale's gut punch 2 seconds later was graded intentional. Absolutely bemusing.

Sicily got done for the kick, right? I'm ok with that, there's no reason for kicks. But I feel like plenty of times Sicily would have been let off for insufficient force.

 

[Darealrath]

Just a dumb thing to do when they said they were cracking down on it over the off season. Sicily's suspension seems harsher.

 

[yodellinhank]

Just a dumb thing to do when they said they were cracking down on it over the off season. Sicily's suspension seems harsher.

To try to push a guy away who is rushing you again after just hitting you?

I'm sure the AFL need to send a message to stamp this sort of thing out of the game. Tell me, how does channel 7 promote every single game played between the two clubs?

 

[citizen-erased]

Throwing these together coz I looked up why Hewett got off







it's best to think of careless/intentional from the POV of "did they intend to commit a reportable action?". The easy example is a bump. Almost every bump is graded as careless, because it's legal to lay a bump. It's just if you stuff up and hit the head, you're in trouble. the exception is if the bump is off the ball, when bumps aren't legal, which led to Nathan Brown getting an intentional charge in 2018, because there was no doubt he intended to bump Saad, and it was an illegal action. I saw some people say Jimmy Webster should have been graded intentional, but it was perfectly legal for him to bump the player, but he had plenty of force behind him and got the head. I don't see a way to have Webster's bump to be a possible intentional act without it actually possibly banning the bump forever.

Anyway, it seems like what the AFL is trying to do with this new striking interpretation is to have a little bit of that "off the ball" dynamic apply. the ball had gone out of play way down the field when Redman/Newcombe got into it. when Hewett/Neale got into it, they were jostling around the ball-up contest that was about to start. and that difference is basically why Hewett didn't get intentional grading. (btw I do wonder if Redman may have been graded insufficient force if it was only one handed)

‘That’s semantics, surely?’ Great challenges AFL boss over strike verdict amid rule change hint

‘That’s semantics, surely?’ Great confronts AFL boss over strike verdict amid rule change hint

www.foxsports.com.au

However, to Mercurial89's point, Hewett's action was just a ****ing punch! I don't see what it's got to do with the new interpretations at all. It's a punch and since punches are always illegal, it should have been intentional, just like Neale's gut punch 2 seconds later was graded intentional. Absolutely bemusing.

Sicily got done for the kick, right? I'm ok with that, there's no reason for kicks. But I feel like plenty of times Sicily would have been let off for insufficient force.

the behind the play/in play justification was laughable.
Kane lost a few credit points on that one.
Idiotic comment.

 

[Seb78]

They've accepted the ban