Chapman gone

[RegHickeyStand]

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.

Tall players don't don't jump as they bump. I'm 179cm. When I bumped I was always pushing up trying to lift my opponent off the ground and sit him on his bum. Not looking for head contact.

 

[Boxhead_31]

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?" ()

Wrong Ziebell incident was talking about the one this year against the Crows

 

[mollyfud]

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?.

If that was an attempt to smother, Chappy should be missing a week for incompetence! (Note: I don't think Chappy is incompetent. I also know he wasn't smothering!)

 

[mollyfud]

Wrong Ziebell incident was talking about the one this year against the Crows

Fair enough. Thats one is a bit 50/50. If he went through with the smother, he would have been fine. In the end, there is one huge issue with just about whatever tribunal system you come up with (until we find three people with the foreseeing/mind reading powers of the peeps in the tank in the Minority Report) and that is in the end, no matter what else you do, it comes down to People judging other people! And people make mistakes. People have different opinions! And we can't know for sure what people were thinking.

But the Ziebell incident is nothing like the Chappy incident and neither is the Dawson one, so to bring it up pays no relevance to the Chappy incident, even if the tribunal/MRP did take precedent into account! The best you could hope for is that Dawson would have also got a reprimand or miss a week!

Additional:
By the way, the MRP said (in the Ziebell one) that they felt that after initionally trying to smother he then choose to bump. The Dawson one he was much more in the air then this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGBVMK2mJOc

(Interestingly, he mentions as early as this video that the jumping caused the negligent to reckless jump!)

 

[Kummerspeck]

Oh, you mean if he has a scan its automatically moved up from low to medium impact?

Chances of a source?

 

[mollyfud]

Chances of a source?

Gerard Whatley said it a number of times and I think he said its what Nathan Burke, Ex-saint and ex-MRP member, told him.

(Hang-on, is was I meant to answer "Tomato"? Will my BF account be closed for taking it seriously? ;-) )

 

[Kummerspeck]

Gerard Whatley said it a number of times and I think he said its what Nathan Burke, Ex-saint and ex-MRP member, told him.

So you don't actually know that it's automatically moved up to medium impact if a player is sent for scans.

I prefer someone on the current MRP, Fraser, to be exact, who said the medium impact was from Malceski not getting up straight away.

 

[mollyfud]

So you don't actually know that it's automatically moved up to medium impact if a player is sent for scans.

I prefer someone on the current MRP, Fraser, to be exact, who said the medium impact was from Malceski not getting up straight away.

Mate, its partially a joke (haha version)! But I think its fair to say that "rule-of-thumb" that needing scans is a fair sign of moving for low to medium impact. But do I honestly think the swans only sent him for scans for that reason? No! It was a joke! (but often jokes are based off reality!)

 

[RegHickeyStand]

If that was an attempt to smother, Chappy should be missing a week for incompetence! (Note: I don't think Chappy is incompetent. I also know he wasn't smothering!)

And if Dawson's attempt was a smother he should get a week too. And yes, I think Dawson lined up Selwood and was about as genuine as Chappy about smothering.

 

[Kummerspeck]

But I think its fair to say that "rule-of-thumb" that needing scans is a fair sign of moving for low to medium impact.

Again, there is absolutely nothing to base that on.

 

[mollyfud]

Again, there is absolutely nothing to base that on.

And if Dawson's attempt was a smother he should get a week too. And yes, I think Dawson lined up Selwood and was about as genuine as Chappy about smothering.

Fair enough!

 

[Crankyhawk]

Mark Fraser said the tribunal had decided on medium impact before they reviewed the medical report.


Here's a thought: Buddy is bigger than Malceski. Casboult is bigger than Richards. Maybe the impact of a player heavier and taller on a smaller player was greater than a smaller player's impact on a taller and heavier player.

More to the point, I can't believe people are actually stupid enough to think believe that the Swans would send Malceski for scans as some kind of scurrilous tactic when getting scans can be seen by the AFL and if they were clear, would actively disprove any falsities in a medical report. I mean, did you ever actually consider that?

Not at all contradictory. Just because a scan is clear doesn't imply that there was no basis for a scan. Mark Fraser has previously used the "They needed to get a scan therefore medium impact" line before. I am a medical professional and a lot of the time we order ct scans that don't show anything. Equally other clinicians can choose to not scan and observe only. If swans had chosen this impact would also be low.
Also given casboult went down for a while I think Richards is lucky to not get medium as well - basing on how mrp are grading things this year. If I was in charge chapman would be cleared due to insufficient force and both buddy and Richards would get low impact. Personally I think medium is goes off and doesn't come back, high impact misses the next week also.

 

[Kummerspeck]

. Mark Fraser has previously used the "They needed to get a scan therefore medium impact" line before.

Show me.

choose to not scan and observe only. If swans had chosen this impact would also be low.

You have nothing to base that on.

 

[Off The Couch]

"Laying on the ground for a little bit elevates it, the medical report confirms it"

 

[Righteo]

And if Dawson's attempt was a smother he should get a week too. And yes, I think Dawson lined up Selwood and was about as genuine as Chappy about smothering.

You sound like you're one of the Geelong fans that condemned Whitecross last year for "taking out" Selwood.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Its okay to throw these sort of thing up, but come on people, be serious! To try to suggest they are the same is just silly, one-eyed, clutching at straws type stuff!

Not at all, maybe understand what 'principle' means and the context to what I was replying to before shooting away

 

[Kummerspeck]

"Laying on the ground for a little bit elevates it, the medical report confirms it"

So the impact was graded as medium before the medical report came in. Shit, imagine.

 

[mollyfud]

Not at all, maybe understand what 'principle' means and the context to what I was replying to before shooting away

Even in Principle or context there is no linking them! About the most you have is that they both happened on Footy Fields! I will give you that much! In any note. Zac is free to play and Chappy isn't and Buddy wasn't and neither was Zeibell. All the rest is us just crapping on!

 

[MinerBoy]

So the impact was graded as medium before the medical report came in. Shit, imagine.

Yeah, which is why it is also observable that Richards should have been graded the same level of impact as Buddy even though no scan or medical report was needed. It was obvious from watching that he nailed him with as much force.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand you claim that 'how can you tell it's medium just from watching' and then on the other you say 'Buddy's medium has nothing to do with the Swans - it was already medium before the report came in'.

Come on mate - give it a spell.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Y
You can't have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand you claim that 'how can you tell it's medium just from watching'

I actually asked how it was obvious that the force in two completely separate incidents were identical, involving 4 players of varying weights moving in different ways in different situations. Malceski's hit was graded medium because he had to be taken from the ground just after the hit and was confirmed by the medical report that probably, lo and behold, said he had to go off and had a sore jaw. Casboult was able to stay on after he was checked by a trainer.

I know where the next step in this is going, but I ask you to consider this: Maybe Malceski isn't a diver, the Swans medical team aren't a pack of frauds, and there isn't an anti-Hawks conspiracy. Perhaps Buddy's late hit on a smaller, off balance player moving in a different direction was bigger then Richard's hit on a bigger player moving in another direction.

 

[MinerBoy]

Once again you go to the Malceski diving, Swans lying angle when it is completely irrelevant and not an issue I've raised in this thread. As is the weight of Malceski and Casboult in judging how hard the respective hits were.

Certainly never mentioned an anti Hawks conspiracy either.

Really, there is no point going on with this. You are deliberately missing the point or simply fudging the discussion to where you want it to go even though it is completely irrelevant.

Good luck to ya.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Once again you go to the Malceski diving, Swans lying angle when it is completely irrelevant and not an issue I've raised in this thread.

But they are issues you've raised, aren't they? In other discussions you've brought both up as way of pointing to the impact being raised in Buddy's case. Buddy's hit was hard enough to require a player to go off the ground. Richards' wasn't. That's what the MRP used ans a basis along with whatever they got from the clubs. There's no way you, a dude watching on TV with absolutely no other information could work out the impacts, and you seem to be struggling with that.

 

[MinerBoy]

But they are issues you've raised, aren't they?

They are irrelevant issues to the discussion we are having.

 

[ThatsjustDappa]

Even in Principle or context there is no linking them! About the most you have is that they both happened on Footy Fields! I will give you that much! In any note. Zac is free to play and Chappy isn't and Buddy wasn't and neither was Zeibell. All the rest is us just crapping on!

Cool, thanks for condescending response.....

 

[MinerBoy]

Buddy's hit was hard enough to require a player to go off the ground. Richards' wasn't. .

He went off. Whether he was required to is another question. The fact he played the game out and played next week would point to the fact it wasn't necessarily required. He certainly didn't go for the 20 minute concussion rule - he was back on almost instantly.

That's the point. He wasn't injured. He was checked out and was still shown not to be injured. Casboult wasn't injured. Just because one bloke got checked doesn't mean the impact was harder. Perhaps Casboult has a greater pain tolerance, perhaps Swans were playing it up (and I have no idea why that notion even offends Swans fans as it would be a smart thing to do), perhaps with finals next week the Swans were just ticking all the boxes and ensuring he was 100%.

There's no way you, a dude watching on TV with absolutely no other information could work out the impacts, and you seem to be struggling with that.

Forgive me if I don't give much credence to your thoughts on the impacts on the force of contact when you use the weight of the recipient receiving the bump as a determinant of the force that was delivered.

It isn't really hard to watch the footage and see how hard both hit the contests.



Anyway, I don't think Richards should have been suspended FWIW - I've made that clear. Likewise Chapman or Franklin. The footage shows enough though to suggest Richards and Franklin should have been assessed in the same impact category and the fact Malceski went off in no ways convinces me that he was hit harder.