Chapman gone

[nohairandfair]

The jumping is what may have him in danger of getting reckless especially when the MRP Chairman specifically said that the reason Buddy's was Negilgent and not Reckless was (or more to the point, one of the reasons) he didn't jump off the ground.

Reckless is also about intent. Buddy decided to pick off Malceski with no hope of impacting the contest. It was a cheap shot with a degree of malice and Malceski was concussed.

Chapman's bump was more a clumsy spoiling action that resulted in the ball going out of bounds. The force of the contact is very much on the low side of what is reportable and the contact to Gray was predominantly to the body.

If Chapman gets Reckless for such a low contact "footy" incident then it would be disappointing to say the least.

Chalk and cheese.

 

[Schism]

Reckless is also about intent. Buddy decided to pick off Malceski with no hope of impacting the contest. It was a cheap shot with a degree of malice and Malceski was concussed.

Chapman's bump was more a clumsy spoiling action that resulted in the ball going out of bounds. The force of the contact is very much on the low side of what is reportable and the contact to Gray was predominantly to the body.

If Chapman gets Reckless for such a low contact "footy" incident then it would be disappointing to say the least.

Chalk and cheese.

A bump contact is always predominantly to the body, how could it be anything else? So was buddy's, so was Hartlett's. You see a footy incident? I see a front on bump to the head where chappy jumped off the ground. What footage are you watching?

 

[Adam H]

A bump contact is always predominantly to the body, how could it be anything else? So was buddy's, so was Hartlett's. You see a footy incident? I see a front on bump to the head where chappy jumped off the ground. What footage are you watching?

He didnt jump it was all in one motion. Chappy applied enough pressure to have the ball kicked out of bound's on the full. Comparisons to Buddy's and Hartlett's are laughable.

 

[Taylor]

It looked more like someone putting on physical pressure once the ball was moved on.

Physical pressure is code for trying to limit their impact on the game later.

 

[mollyfud]

Reckless is also about intent. Buddy decided to pick off Malceski with no hope of impacting the contest. It was a cheap shot with a degree of malice and Malceski was concussed.

Chapman's bump was more a clumsy spoiling action that resulted in the ball going out of bounds. The force of the contact is very much on the low side of what is reportable and the contact to Gray was predominantly to the body.

If Chapman gets Reckless for such a low contact "footy" incident then it would be disappointing to say the least.

Chalk and cheese.

Well actually, no, Reckless is about not having enough duty of care! It has little to do with intent! If there is intent, its intentional! And to try to claim that Chappy was a saint and Buddy is the devil in their intention is just wearing rose blue and white glasses! Both were dumb and there is every chance that both will get the same amount of weeks!

 

[Schism]

He didnt jump it was all in one motion. Chappy applied enough pressure to have the ball kicked out of bound's on the full. Comparisons to Buddy's and Hartlett's are laughable.

Thanks captain physics! The only thing laughable here is you saying he didn't jump. You're like a creationist trying to convince yourself the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I wasn't comparing it to Hartletts, after nohairandfair's moronic statement that the bump was predominantly to the body, i was pointing out that all of these bumps are predominantly to the body.

 

[Catfish Alley]

I don't like that these bumps get suspensions now. I'd love for him to be cleared but would be ok with 1 week. 2 seems a bit harsh.

 

[nohairandfair]

Well actually, no, Reckless is about not having enough duty of care! It has little to do with intent! If there is intent, its intentional! And to try to claim that Chappy was a saint and Buddy is the devil in their intention is just wearing rose blue and white glasses! Both were dumb and there is every chance that both will get the same amount of weeks!

That's just absurd talk.

Buddy's sole intent was to put a cheap one on Malceski... and do it very late and from behind.

Chapman's intent was to impact the disposal of Gray and was more a "footy" incident in the cut and thrust.

 

[tazhawk]

That's just absurd talk.

Buddy's sole intent was to put a cheap one on Malceski... and do it very late and from behind.

Chapman's intent was to impact the disposal of Gray and was more a "footy" incident in the cut and thrust.

Keep your eye out for the tooth fairy.

Dude I get you are a geelong supporter and all but take those glasses off for a minute.
Chapman jumped off the ground and hit the guy in the head.

Buddy should not have got a week but that is the way footy is these days, to suggest Chapman should not get a week is you being biased.

 

[mollyfud]

That's just absurd talk.

Buddy's sole intent was to put a cheap one on Malceski... and do it very late and from behind.

Chapman's intent was to impact the disposal of Gray and was more a "footy" incident in the cut and thrust.

You got me! 100% right! Apartently Malceski had said something about his mother and Buddy was intent on knocking him into next week! Lets face it, Buddy caused the Global Financial Crisis and also the drought (thank god Buddy he relented on that one!)

Chappy on the other hand, is s saint on earth. His tears cure cancer and a strand of his hair be sold to provide enough funds to solve world hunger!

I can't believe I ever doubted these facts and argued that Chappy would get a week! In fact, Buddy should get a week for Chappy trying to protect Gray with his actions!

 

[Taylor]

If it was an attempt to influence disposal of the ball then he had the option to tackle, which means contact to the head from a choice to bump is going to be a problem.

 

[Adam H]

If it was an attempt to influence disposal of the ball then he had the option to tackle, which means contact to the head from a choice to bump is going to be a problem.

He effected the disposal though which he is allowed to do with a bump.

 

[Taylor]

He effected the disposal though which he is allowed to do with a bump.

The changes mean that players who lay a bump and hit an opponent in the head, even accidentally, will be guilty of rough conduct if they have ignored options such as getting the ball themselves or laying a tackle.

He either had the chance to tackle to influence play or didn't, if he had no other reasonable ways to involve himself in play then the bump is fine as long as you don't get the head. If you aren't in play, because the ball is gone, you're not in a position to influence play at all.

 

[Donakebab]

He effected the disposal though which he is allowed to do with a bump.

Yes he is allowed to bump, but once he makes this decision it is his responsibility to ensure that high contact is not made, duh.

 

[Adam H]

Yes he is allowed to bump, but once he makes this decision it is his responsibility to ensure that high contact is not made, duh.

He did everything right hardly his fault Gray made slight contact. Really worry about where the game is going when we have people actually hoping a incident like this warrants missing a prelim final.

 

[nohairandfair]

He did everything right hardly his fault Gray made slight contact. Really worry about where the game is going when we have people actually hoping a incident like this warrants missing a prelim final.

Don't despair... it's predominantly damaged and rightfully nervous Hawks supporters.

 

[mollyfud]

Don't despair... it's predominantly damaged and rightfully nervous Hawks supporters.

Yep. Cats should be HUGE favorites for Friday night! HUGE!

 

[nohairandfair]

Yep. Cats should be HUGE favorites for Friday night! HUGE!

9 out of the last 11 games the Hawks have been favourites... gotta love that.

 

[Badesumofu]

It will definitely be negligent. It will definitely be high contact. The question here is is low impact or medium. Buddy got medium impact which meant a week. Finals rules (and COLA) might save Chapman.

I would say that the impact will be low, with almost no chance of medium. The question is whether it is graded negligent or reckless. The main worry for Chapman would be that he jumped. The MRP has been pretty consistently grading high bumps where the player jumps off the ground as reckless rather than negligent. That and the lower force are the relevant differences with Buddy's bump. That Buddy's was late and pointless has no relevance with the current MRP system.

To be clear, gradings and the way the MRP works aside, does someone deserve to miss a final for that incident? I don't think so. But he probably will.

 

[Donakebab]

He did everything right hardly his fault Gray made slight contact. Really worry about where the game is going when we have people actually hoping a incident like this warrants missing a prelim final.

He did everything right EXCEPT not make head high contact. On top of that you're now saying it's Gray's fault and that he caused the contact?! Incredible.

I don't want him to miss, I want consistency. You don't change the rules because awww it's Chappy and we want him to play against Hawthorn in a Prelim.

 

[Badesumofu]

Reckless is also about intent. Buddy decided to pick off Malceski with no hope of impacting the contest. It was a cheap shot with a degree of malice and Malceski was concussed.

Chapman's bump was more a clumsy spoiling action that resulted in the ball going out of bounds. The force of the contact is very much on the low side of what is reportable and the contact to Gray was predominantly to the body.

If Chapman gets Reckless for such a low contact "footy" incident then it would be disappointing to say the least.

Chalk and cheese.

Well, clearly recklessness doesn't have anything to with whether the player was engaged in a very late bump. Buddy was assessed as negligent. Negligent means that the contact to the head was negligent. The lateness of the bump is relevant when considering whether to give a free kick, but not when considering whether to grade contact as reckless or negligent.

The questions for Chapman are these: did he have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball? Was the impact high enough to constitute a reportable offense? Will the MRP be consistent in the view that jumping off the ground means a reckless grading?

In this case, given the contact was made after the other player had disposed of the ball, I'd say he certainly had other options. There was clearly head high contact and it was significant. Probably low impact. The last question? Who knows? But that is one thing they have been very consistent on.

Personally, I'd rather we beat Geelong with Chapman in the side, and that a player not be rubbed out for that bump.

 

[Badesumofu]

Actually, here is one way he might just be able to get off. Say that the implied pressure that he delivered before the actual contact had an affect on the kick, and that he had no other way to produce that affect.

That is the best defence I can think of. He clearly had no option to spoil or tackle effectively. The only way he could influence the play in a positive way for his team to was to put implied pressure on the player, put the idea of hard-man Chapman baring down on him as he is taking his kick in his head in the hope that he sprays it.

Pretty well grasping at straws, I know. But it's one way you might be able to say that he had no other reasonable alternative to contest the ball.

 

[mollyfud]

9 out of the last 11 games the Hawks have been favourites... gotta love that.

The Smart money is often not very smart! As I said, Cats should be huge favs!

 

[mollyfud]

Reckless is also about intent.

But to be serious, here is the definition of reckless from the tribunal laws:

recklessness
More serious conduct is known as recklessness.
Definition of ‘reckless’ – A player recklessly commits a reportable
offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable
player would realise may result in the reportable offence being
committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring
whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the
reportable offence. The reckless commission of a reportable offence
does not require any wish that the reportable offence be committed.
This does not require proof that the player turned his mind to the risk.
A player who without looking swings his arm backwards in a
pack and strikes an opposing player in the face may be said not to
have intended to strike his opponent but his conduct was reckless
because it can be inferred from his action that he realised that
his arm might make contact or alternatively a reasonable player
in his position would have realised that such contact might be
made. The guideline relating to inferring a state of mind with
respect to intentional offences has application to determining if
the player acted recklessly. However, even if it is not established
that the player realised the risk, he will have acted recklessly if a
reasonable player in his position would have realised the risk.
In the example given under negligent above, if a player collides
with another player who has marked the ball, in circumstances
where there is some further time after the mark has been taken,
and where he blindly continued on, to contact the player taking the
mark, then the act would best be described as reckless.

(Source: http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/AFL-Tribunal-Booklet-2012.pdf)
I hate to say, but the bolded area translated to a simpler form says "Intent doesn't matter"!

All apologies welcome in writing! ;-)

(PS. Sorry to take the debate out of the emotional into the facts!)

 

[Adam H]

He did everything right EXCEPT not make head high contact. On top of that you're now saying it's Gray's fault and that he caused the contact?! Incredible.

I don't want him to miss, I want consistency. You don't change the rules because awww it's Chappy and we want him to play against Hawthorn in a Prelim.

But they do as shown after the Geelong v Freo final where they ignored a number of the soft incident's that would perhap's get you week mid season.