Browne Cops Three

[phantom 309]

No what I'm saying is that Browne acted somewhere between negligently and recklessly.

And don't worry, the MRP system frustrates me to no end also.

so explane how is it negligent or reckless if there is no intent,
no malice = no guilt, and dont bring the he and other Carlton players were pushing and shoving him prior to the incident, if Brown had intent he would have hit him with his left shoulder, its that simple.

 

[OZBomb]

And clearly the contact was accidental making it ridiculous for anyone to argue that this was worthy of even being reportable let alone being suspended.

What he is saying is that they are correct to rule that Browne had intent which is an absolute joke and frustrates me to no end.

Well I think it was accidental contact for sure, but I can sort of understand why someone would think there's intent with the slow-mo from behind and the lead-up to the incident.

I think if you look at the incident in real time there's no time to do anything but brace slightly for contact and in that case it's accidental.

 

[XXX KINGS]

Out of interest when has this ever happened?

Knights on Kouta?

Regardless the sentiment remains and the Nathan Brown broken leg example still stands up.

And also if you read all my posts you'll find I agree and believe the major problem is with the MRP itself

.
I don't really care what your opinion on the MRP is.

Agree with most of this, however i do believe that Browne intended to bump Porplyzia which itself is in an eniterely natural reaction. He certainly did not intend to take his head

I can only assume you weren't at the game, because Browne deviated quite a long way to get Porplyzia in his line, although he certainly didn't intend for what eventuated.

I was at the game and if you honestly believe Browne deviated from his line you need to get your eyes checked. He didnt even lay a bump on him, they just collided, shit like that happens in contact sports all the time, purely accidental.

Agree, but under the current rules unfortunately there is no way around this

You treat it as being accidental contact of which there was no intention to cause bodily harm and then drop the charges?

Mods, surely this is infraction worthy?

I have shown Carlton and it's supporters nothing but respect and feel I have been reasonable in my views and posts. It is against bigfooty rules to make personal and agressive statements.

Tissue???

 

[XXX KINGS]

No what I'm saying is that Browne acted somewhere between negligently and recklessly.

And don't worry, the MRP system frustrates me to no end also.

How can you say he acted negligently and recklessly when you have admitted that contact was unavoidable and all that he did was brace for it?

 

[jo172]

so explane how is it negligent or reckless if there is no intent, .

Because when you bump a player 20 meters off the ball you are negligently or recklessly breaking the rules of AFL football.

Unfortunately for Browne this bump was of much higher impact than usual due to circumstances beyond his control.

However, by breaking the rule in the first place (which yes is broken 100 times a game) he opens himself up to being found to be acting negligently or recklessly.

Browne is just incredibly unlucky in that his was the 1 in a 1000 bump of these which caused real damage. However, bad luck is not a defence.

no malice = no guilt.

Unfortunately these are just not the rules which the Match Review Panel uses. Think, they allow for negligent behaviour to accumalate points. Negligence by definition does not carry malice but under the AFL rules it can cause guilt.

if Brown had intent he would have hit him with his left shoulder, its that simple.

Yes, but what I've been trying to make clear for a page now is that intent is only important in one of the three categories the MRP uses to asess incidents and of that 3 of the 4 intercategories of that still allow for points to be accumalated without intent.

 

[Rave Slave]

Blues fans are playing down the incident, Crows fans are overreacting. Nature of the beast.

FWIW the bump was clumsy but unavoidable. Deserved 1 or 2 for contact to the head but you take this element out of the game and next year everyone's wearing bibs.

 

[iRemember87]

Probably the best post I've read on BF about this so far.

For all the crying "He hit my boy" and "How soft is this game" the MRP can only adjudicate using the rules in place.

So without any bias in reality we can all agree that

a) The hit was high. - There is just no doubt about this, remember, intention does not come into this.

For it to be a hit it needs to have intent, otherwise its just contact, that is how our game is played.

But if you want to think it was a hit then thats up to you.

b) There was high to severe impact - Again bruising of the brain, has to mean a large amount of impact. Again, intention cannot be taken into account.

So we can't take into accoutn if there was intent or not, but we can take into account the doctors report??

Surely using your logic we need to look at the incident and nothing else??

This just leaves the MRP to decide whether it was intentional, reckless, negligent or accidental.

As the MRP thought the incident was Accidental then the MRP would not have laid the charge, so obviously they think it had intent, which just shows how stupid they are.

IMHO, depending on the mood of the MRP and the tribunal it could be called at any of the last three.

But as you can see from points a and b under the current rules Browne just cannot walk scott free.

So be angry at the rules, hardly the MRP's fault.

The rules DOES allow them not to lay a charge if contact was unavoidable and no intent, which it was.

 

[jo172]

Look, I've said my bit, others have said their bit and it seems we're all pretty entrenched in their positisions.

The problem with this argument is that I'm using a different perspective from most of BF, i'm using a normative perspective examining what is, which by definition I am correct as the MRP agreed with me, however the majority of Carlton and Adelaide supporters are using positive arguments examining what they think should be.

Due to this, we're never going to agree.

To conclude I hope Porplyzia comes back better than ever, and that Browne does not get hung out to dry due to this and this has no lasting career damage.

 

[iRemember87]

Blues fans are playing down the incident, Crows fans are overreacting. Nature of the beast.

FWIW the bump was clumsy but unavoidable. Deserved 1 or 2 for contact to the head but you take this element out of the game and next year everyone's wearing bibs.

Are you kidding, your going to suspend a guy because contact was made even when it was unavoidable??

So taking your logic, there was an incident in the Crows forward line, Kreuzer went up for a mark was in front, an Adelaide player came from behind and cause a clash of heads, Kreuzer went down in pain.

Contact was unavoidable but high, does that Crows player need to cop 1 or 2??

 

[iRemember87]

No what I'm saying is that Browne acted somewhere between negligently and recklessly.

And don't worry, the MRP system frustrates me to no end also.

For running in a straight line and a player falling into him.

How is this reckless or negligent??

All players should now be care that when running they don't make contact with anybody as it could be deemed reckless or negligent.

 

[Revenge I Seek]

Absolute horse shit. Adding insult to injury after a dubious and narrow loss.

Get ****ed MRP!

 

[BluesMan]

This is a Load of dogshit... unaviodable contact+protecting himself.. stiff shit if he gets injured thats how the game is. you dont know whats gunna happen.

 

[iRemember87]

Look, I've said my bit, others have said their bit and it seems we're all pretty entrenched in their positisions.

The problem with this argument is that I'm using a different perspective from most of BF, i'm using a normative perspective examining what is, which by definition I am correct as the MRP agreed with me, however the majority of Carlton and Adelaide supporters are using positive arguments examining what they think should be.

Due to this, we're never going to agree.

To conclude I hope Porplyzia comes back better than ever, and that Browne does not get hung out to dry due to this and this has no lasting career damage.

Seriously jo172 you need to stop posting.

Now you are claiming you are right because the MRP agreed with you, i think its the other way around, you agree with the MRP and now need to defend the decision becuase you believe it, but of course you do you support the crows.

At the end of the day i would think that all carlton supports and some crows supports think it was just footy, no charge needed, but its people like you who are turning our game into netball.

Don't blame the rules, cause the rules would not have a charge laid in this situation, plain and simple.

If Browne really wanted to he could have round house Porps and really taken him out, instead he had no choice but to make contact and Porp fell across him.

Now back to your boring Adelaide board and stop trolling!!

 

[jamesclean]

Are you kidding, your going to suspend a guy because contact was made even when it was unavoidable??

So taking your logic, there was an incident in the Crows forward line, Kreuzer went up for a mark was in front, an Adelaide player came from behind and cause a clash of heads, Kreuzer went down in pain.

Contact was unavoidable but high, does that Crows player need to cop 1 or 2??

the ball

was

within

600 miles

 

[phantom 309]

Are you kidding, your going to suspend a guy because contact was made even when it was unavoidable??

So taking your logic, there was an incident in the Crows forward line, Kreuzer went up for a mark was in front, an Adelaide player came from behind and cause a clash of heads, Kreuzer went down in pain.

Contact was unavoidable but high, does that Crows player need to cop 1 or 2??

your piont is correct.
using the Loyde and Judd incident a few games back by the definitian used by the MRC one of them has to be guilty of something ( and we know who )

 

[serenityNow]

According to most crows fans the 2 boys planned that incident. I wonder if they allowed for the wind factor so Porps fell at the exact degree, at the exact micro nano second to make the contact to cause the brain bruising /swelling.... .

Perhaps they should be writing Hollywood scripts.......i mean if that was the plan all week.

 

[Beloved]

The club stated that they'd make an appeal - definately the smart thing to do.

 

[Blueinblood]

where did u see/hear this EBIAC

 

[Rave Slave]

Are you kidding, your going to suspend a guy because contact was made even when it was unavoidable??

So taking your logic, there was an incident in the Crows forward line, Kreuzer went up for a mark was in front, an Adelaide player came from behind and cause a clash of heads, Kreuzer went down in pain.

Contact was unavoidable but high, does that Crows player need to cop 1 or 2??

No I'm not kidding. The AFL is huge on protecting the head. Browne made the hit as forceful as possible (as he should have). Regardless of how many times you say 'he was protecting himself' or 'he didn't intend to hit Porplyzia' it's simply not true. Browne was handed a bump on a platter and he took it, and he should have. I'd be disappointed if Chris Judd was pushed into the path of one of my players and he didn't cop exactly the same thing. Browne intended to lay as heavy a bump as possible and good on him. Unfortunately due to Porplyzia slipping it resulted in contact to the head and due to the nature of modern day AFL head contact = weeks. I agree with your summation that contact was unavoidable in some form it's just that Browne made sure the contact counted. The severity and aftermath is incidental and unfortunate.

The only person with any intent here is Thornton and you don't suspend a bloke for a little shove.

 

[dc king]

Just reading some of the Adelaide supporters comments on the issue is really worth a lol.

There's a few smart members who talk common sense, but some of the others....

"Oh, my poor baby Porps got whacked real bad...we demand blood from the kid who happened to run into him which must have been deliberate because it was an opposition player from oppressive Victoria and it makes me feel better saying it!"

Okay, not a direct quote, just the gist of it.

Bad luck to the guy and I wish him well, but it's amazing how they are taking it.

yeah reading over some of their crap really shows how flipping stupid they all are..

just makes me want us to beat them next year even more...

 

[KingsCrow]

According to most crows fans the 2 boys planned that incident. I wonder if they allowed for the wind factor so Porps fell at the exact degree, at the exact micro nano second to make the contact to cause the brain bruising /swelling.... .

Perhaps they should be writing Hollywood scripts.......i mean if that was the plan all week.

jesus christ you have got to be kidding mate.


Your club set out to injure Porps. Your purposely tried to hurt an already injured player.

Thornton saw the opportunity, and he exploited it. He knew what he was intending, and that was to ruin Porps shoulder. It went wrong and he got knocked out as well as dislocating his shoulder. Its akin to pushing someone in front of a car.

Pathetic act on Thorntons behalf, and pathetic tactics on Carltons behalf.

 

[iRemember87]

jesus christ you have got to be kidding mate.


Your club set out to injure Porps. Your purposely tried to hurt an already injured player.

Thornton saw the opportunity, and he exploited it. He knew what he was intending, and that was to ruin Porps shoulder. It went wrong and he got knocked out as well as dislocating his shoulder. Its akin to pushing someone in front of a car.

Pathetic act on Thorntons behalf, and pathetic tactics on Carltons behalf.

You have no idea, the poster was kidding about it being planned

 

[KingsCrow]

You have no idea, the poster was kidding about it being planned

read his post again pinnochio.


'According to Crows fans it was planned'. Ofcourse the outcome wasn't planned, nor the execution. But the tactic of trying to hurt Porps was certainly planned.

 

[mediumsizered]

I would be interested to know which vision of the incident the MRP were relying on. Channel 10 showed 3 angles of the incident during the game & then again at half time. One of the side-on views only showed the aftermath ie Porps lying on the ground. The other side-on view was totally inconclusive & the front-on view showed the Thornton push, but gave no clue as to how the contact was made, or with which part of the body contact was made.

I can only guess the MRP have made some assumptions based on the injuries ultimately found to have been suffered by Porps. The club should have little trouble overturning the decision at the tribunal should they challenge this decision in the right way. The inconclusive nature of the vision should be the main point of challenge, along with the fact that Browne had to brace himself to protect himself from the off-balance & falling Porps. It could easily be argued that bracing the shoulder is a reflex action in this situation.

 

[Fotia2]

Out of interest when has this ever happened?

And also if you read all my posts you'll find I agree and believe the major problem is with the MRP itself.



Agree with most of this, however i do believe that Browne intended to bump Porplyzia which itself is in an eniterely natural reaction. He certainly did not intend to take his head.



I can only assume you weren't at the game, because Browne deviated quite a long way to get Porplyzia in his line, although he certainly didn't intend for what eventuated.



Agree, but under the current rules unfortunately there is no way around this.



Mods, surely this is infraction worthy?

I have shown Carlton and it's supporters nothing but respect and feel I have been reasonable in my views and posts. It is against bigfooty rules to make personal and agressive statements.