Chapman gone

[Kummerspeck]

What is frustrating for Hawk fans is he grabbed the left side of his forehead, nowhere near the impact point,

Yeah, between saying this and that a player who is moving forward kicking the ball is all but stationary, I think we can dismiss any of your recollections about the Malceski incident. As soon as he hit the deck he grabbed the right side of his face, where he was hit.

 

[Sttew]

What amazes me is Mark Fraser saying that if your feet are off the ground that is tantamount to reckless behavior. To some that's fine, if the MRP upholds that view on a consistent basis (I believe a legal challenge to that stupid ruling has to happen at some stage as it is legally flawed).

Yet a week ago Zac Dawson's feet were more than a metre off the ground when he collected Joel Selwood. Yet the MRP had no concern about that incident.

 

[MinerBoy]

No idea, he said the impact was based on the fact that Malceski immediately clutched at his face and had to be taken off.

Though you never actually mentioned how it was obvious through observation that the impact of a 103kg, 196cm player on an opponent 17kg lighter and 8cm shorter was less than the impact of Richards on Casboult, who was taller and heavier than Richards. I'm still all ears.

The degree of impact isn't a product of the weight of the person receiving it - it is a product of the weight and speed built up of the person delivering it. Richards had the weight, momentum and force easily as comparable as Franklin. I'm not suggesting I think Richards should have been suspended by the way, just that there is no reason that his should have been graded differently to Franklin's. For all intents and purposes, they were exactly the same.

There is also this false perception that Malceski was injured. He was taken off and checked and sent back out there uninjured. He had scans during the week which also showed no injury and played the next week. He missed absolutely zero football in the game of incident or the next week. It is a massive falsehood (or perhaps injustice is a better word) that Franklin got stung with medium impact because of Malceski's injury. He got checked for injury - and was found to have none and be fine to continue playing.

Being sore isn't an injury.

 

[Kummerspeck]

There is also this false perception that Malceski was injured. He was taken off and checked and sent back out there uninjured. He had scans during the week which also showed no injury and played the next week. He missed absolutely zero football in the game of incident or the next week. It is a massive falsehood (or perhaps injustice is a better word) that Franklin got stung with medium impact because of Malceski's injury. He got checked for injury - and was found to have none and be fine to continue playing.

Being sore isn't an injury.

No one has said it was graded differently because of an injury. Can you show me where you got this idea?

While you're here, can you also explain why, if the Swans medical staff were attempting to torch Buddy, why they would send him for tests which would easily contradict any false claims they would have made about the consequences of the bump?

 

[MinerBoy]

What are you even talking about? It is certainly irrelevant to anything I've said. I've never made any point regarding Buddy getting torched by the Swans medical staff in our interaction.

My point has been from the start that Richards ran through Casboult with every bit as much force as Franklin hit Malceski with. My issue is with the MRP finding that one is low impact and one medium. Pretty simple. Not a dig at Richards or the Swans but you wouldn't know it from the offence you seem to be taking.

 

[mollyfud]

What amazes me is Mark Fraser saying that if your feet are off the ground that is tantamount to reckless behavior. To some that's fine, if the MRP upholds that view on a consistent basis (I believe a legal challenge to that stupid ruling has to happen at some stage as it is legally flawed).

Yet a week ago Zac Dawson's feet were more than a metre off the ground when he collected Joel Selwood. Yet the MRP had no concern about that incident.

<FACEPALM> <HEADSHAKE> <FACEPALM>

Not going to repeat myself - http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/chapman-gone.1032046/page-12#post-30188201

 

[Sttew]

<FACEPALM> <HEADSHAKE> <FACEPALM>

Not going to repeat myself - http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/chapman-gone.1032046/page-12#post-30188201

But why have a feet off the grounds rule at all, if it relates only to a bump? Selwood could have been knocked out cold (and some might say any other player would have been). Just because Dawson wasn't going the bump seems irrelevant as the outcome was potentially the same. This is just one inconsistency.

Bruce Matthews in the Herald Sun, and Greg Denham in The Australian, have asked the same question today....

 

[Sttew]

Its all moot now, as Geelong has announced it will accept the 1 game suspension. Too much at risk, and the AFL / MRP knew this would be the case when it dished out the penalty. So time to move on....

 

[mollyfud]

But why have a feet off the grounds rule at all, if it relates only to a bump? Selwood could have been knocked out cold (and some might say any other player would have been). Just because Dawson wasn't going the bump seems irrelevant as the outcome was potentially the same. This is just one inconsistency.

Bruce Matthews in the Herald Sun, and Greg Denham in The Australian, have asked the same question today....

Your quoting those two brain surgeons? REALLY? REALLY? No, but like, REEEEAAAALLLLLLLYYYYYYYY??????? Is this take the piss out of me day or something and I didn't know? Come on, come clean?

Okay, I will pretend to take you seriously!

Right, so for you to be guilty of an offense, you have to be committing the offense! Bumping high is an offense. Incidental contact Smoothering isn't unless it is judged that you weren't really smoothering but bumping (see the Ziebell bumps)! Now, if you seriously think that Dawson was bumping and not smoothering, god help us all! The fact that he jumped well before the ball left his hand, went up about as high as he could and then ran into Selwood on the way down shows that he wasn't trying to hit Selwood, it was accidental. So it doesn't matter if he jumped, did a spin, sang the dockers theme song while he was in the air, HE WASN'T ATTEMPTING TO BUMP! If you believe anything else, please DM me as I have this really cool bridge in Sydney that I would love you to have really cheap! That or maybe you could help my cousin the prince in nigeria that needs to give away some of his money!

 

[Sttew]

Your quoting those two brain surgeons? REALLY? REALLY? No, but like, REEEEAAAALLLLLLLYYYYYYYY??????? Is this take the piss out of me day or something and I didn't know? Come on, come clean?

Okay, I will pretend to take you seriously!

Right, so for you to be guilty of an offense, you have to be committing the offense! Bumping high is an offense. Incidental contact Smoothering isn't unless it is judged that you weren't really smoothering but bumping (see the Ziebell bumps)! Now, if you seriously think that Dawson was bumping and not smoothering, god help us all! The fact that he jumped well before the ball left his hand, went up about as high as he could and then ran into Selwood on the way down shows that he wasn't trying to hit Selwood, it was accidental. So it doesn't matter if he jumped, did a spin, sang the dockers theme song while he was in the air, HE WASN'T ATTEMPTING TO BUMP! If you believe anything else, please DM me as I have this really cool bridge in Sydney that I would love you to have really cheap! That or maybe you could help my cousin the prince in nigeria that needs to give away some of his money!

I have moved on, and you should too. But to humor you. What if Dawson had knocked Selwood out? Wasn't going the bump, but nevertheless connected and knocked a player out. Would you be saying accidental, nothing to see, even though there was head contact?

Now consider Chappy. No harm done. No intention to apply head high contact, but contact conceded. So what is the fairest penalty? A reprimand, simply because no harm was done. Gray received a free kick anyway.

 

[Off The Couch]

I have moved on, and you should too. But to humor you. What if Dawson had knocked Selwood out? Wasn't going the bump, but nevertheless connected and knocked a player out. Would you be saying accidental, nothing to see, even though there was head contact?

Now consider Chappy. No harm done. No intention to apply head high contact, but contact conceded. So what is the fairest penalty? A reprimand, simply because no harm was done. Gray received a free kick anyway.

Maybe you should take a look at the lewis/harbrow incident


It's interesting that everyone points out that malescki clutched at his face but no mention is made of grey doing exactly the same thing other of course than to say he was milking it. At the end of the day Richards is very very lucky - god only knows what the MRP saw that the rest of us haven't.

 

[Kummerspeck]

There were a ****load of Hawks fans accusing Malceski of milking it. There was even a thread on it.

 

[Off The Couch]

There were a ****load of Hawks fans accusing Malceski of milking it. There was even a thread on it.

You mean he wasn't

 

[mollyfud]

I have moved on, and you should too. But to humor you. What if Dawson had knocked Selwood out? Wasn't going the bump, but nevertheless connected and knocked a player out. Would you be saying accidental, nothing to see, even though there was head contact?

Now consider Chappy. No harm done. No intention to apply head high contact, but contact conceded. So what is the fairest penalty? A reprimand, simply because no harm was done. Gray received a free kick anyway.

If he had knocked out Selwood? Still not bumping! Would have been an accident and he was doing something that he couldn't have expected the outcome. so yes, if he had knocked him out, they would look and say was the action unreasonable or was there other options and considering where he was at the time, no, he couldn't have tackled or bumped in time. He had to try and smoother. Again, he was on the way down (from memory) so it was complete accident he couldn't have forseen!

 

[Kummerspeck]

You mean he wasn't

Did you mean to put a question mark or a full stop there?

 

[mollyfud]

There were a ****load of Hawks fans accusing Malceski of milking it. There was even a thread on it.

I don't suggest he was milking it but there was every reason to send him off for a scan, just in case. Oh, you mean if he has a scan its automatically moved up from low to medium impact? Oh, we just wanted to be sure! ;-)

But in reality, Buddy deserved the week and got the week and we won by 51 points! Everyone is happy, right?

 

[RegHickeyStand]

If he had knocked out Selwood? Still not bumping! Would have been an accident and he was doing something that he couldn't have expected the outcome. so yes, if he had knocked him out, they would look and say was the action unreasonable or was there other options and considering where he was at the time, no, he couldn't have tackled or bumped in time. He had to try and smoother. Again, he was on the way down (from memory) so it was complete accident he couldn't have forseen!

Are you saying Chapman deliberately went for his head? If not, then it was accidental and he would not have expected the outcome.

 

[mollyfud]

Are you saying Chapman deliberately went for his head? If not, then it was accidental and he would not have expected the outcome.

No. He deliberately bumped and there is a rule that says that if you bump, the onus is on you not to hit the head. There is no such rule for smothering!

In fact, the law says:
-------------------
High bumps
Without limiting the above, the Player Rules provide that a player
will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping of an opponent
(whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be
made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless
a) the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic
alternative way to contest the ball; or
b) the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by
circumstances outside the control of the player which could not
reasonably be foreseen.
In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with
high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries
to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all
players and will guide the application of the rule.
=================
(Source: http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/AFL-Tribunal-Booklet-2012.pdf)

So Dawson comes under a. he was contesting the ball, by attempting to smother. Chappy was bumping and could have tackled. Chappy doesn't have to have meant to hit the head, buddy sure didn't, but he bumped, and he did (as did Buddy) so is guilty (as was Buddy)! That is when you move to the gradings and the Jumping off the ground becomes important. Its not the other way around!

 

[Boxhead_31]

Cats fans should be annoyed with Chapman. He knows the rules - don't bump people in the head.

He's now removed himself from their preliminary final team because of this lack of discipline.

Disappointing.

But Richards hit a player in the head and he is playing, Dawson jumped in the air and hit a player in the head and he is free to play can you see why it is a bit confusing

 

[mollyfud]

But Richards hit a player in the head and he is playing, Dawson jumped in the air and hit a player in the head and he is free to play can you see why it is a bit confusing

Nope, I can't!

 

[Boxhead_31]

If he had knocked out Selwood? Still not bumping! Would have been an accident and he was doing something that he couldn't have expected the outcome. so yes, if he had knocked him out, they would look and say was the action unreasonable or was there other options and considering where he was at the time, no, he couldn't have tackled or bumped in time. He had to try and smoother. Again, he was on the way down (from memory) so it was complete accident he couldn't have forseen!

So running straight at a player then jumping into the air in that players direction and it cannot be foreseen that this action may end in head high contact?

So how do you conclude that Jack Ziebell was suspended for the same action as Dawson?

 

[RegHickeyStand]

No. He deliberately bumped and there is a rule that says that if you bump, the onus is on you not to hit the head. There is no such rule for smothering!

In fact, the law says:
-------------------
High bumps
Without limiting the above, the Player Rules provide that a player
will be guilty of rough conduct where in the bumping of an opponent
(whether reasonably or unreasonably) he causes forceful contact to be
made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck unless
a) the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic
alternative way to contest the ball; or
b) the forceful contact to the head or neck was caused by
circumstances outside the control of the player which could not
reasonably be foreseen.
In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with
high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries
to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all
players and will guide the application of the rule.
=================
(Source: http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/AFL-Tribunal-Booklet-2012.pdf)

So Dawson comes under a. he was contesting the ball, by attempting to smother. Chappy was bumping and could have tackled. Chappy doesn't have to have meant to hit the head, buddy sure didn't, but he bumped, and he did (as did Buddy) so is guilty (as was Buddy)! That is when you move to the gradings and the Jumping off the ground becomes important. Its not the other way around!

Actually Chapman came in to smother, was a fraction late and bumped instead. Note Chapman had raised arms to block as he was coming in. That has been used as a reason by the MRP in the past to excuse a bump. Buddy got a week and not a repimand I thought because the impact was more severe. I don't think Chappy's victim even left the field, did he?

As for Dawson, he has an onus not to injure his opponent with reckless actions. The way Dawson threw himself into that contest was reckless, at least negligent. Don't pick up on that and pretty soon everyone will be waving their hands looking like Dawson did and going through kneeing their opponents in the head, saying oops!.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Nope, I can't!

All the posters in here are saying that Chapman had to go because he made contact to the head.
Richards made contact to the head, Dawson made contact to the head but are free to play why?

Because Fraser has taken it upon himself to invent a ruling that doesn't exist on paper anywhere in the AFL rules that if you jump then make contact with the head then that should be classified as being reckless.

 

[mollyfud]

So running straight at a player then jumping into the air in that players direction and it cannot be foreseen that this action may end in head high contact?

So how do you conclude that Jack Ziebell was suspended for the same action as Dawson?

Because I don't think Ziebell was smothering! He was bumping. Thats my opinion.

Just looking at the Dawson one again, its questionable (from the angle I see) that he hit Selwoods head at all! ( or better vision of the Zac in this one with the full explaination: )

Look the Zeibell one again, I am still left asking the question "who tries to take the ball in a cocked elbow like Jack leads with?" ()

 

[Boxhead_31]

Actually Chapman came in to smother, was a fraction late and bumped instead. Note Chapman had raised arms to block as he was coming in. That has been used as a reason by the MRP in the past to excuse a bump. Buddy got a week and not a repimand I thought because the impact was more severe. I don't think Chappy's victim even left the field, did he?

Yep Buddy was assessed as Negligent, High Contact and Medium Impact due to Malceski going off the field for assessment and scans after the game.

If that didn't happen Buddy would have been assessed as Negligent, High Contact and Low Impact and 125 points down to 93.75 with an early plea