MRP / Trib. Crameri suspended for 2 weeks (rough conduct)

[Ridda93]

gumbyyyyy!!!!!

 

[Giggidy Giggidy]

It really annoys me that to me, it always feels like the tail is wagging the dog with the MRP. If there was no injury, they wouldn't of even looked at it.
I don't like the fact that the player gets punished for an injury. Addison slipped down, if he stayed up straight, he wouldn't of got hit in the head, Crameri couldn't of tackled as the ball was already free, he didn't have much other option than to bump.
It just frustrates me.

Yep.

Lucky they didn't do it this way in '03.... McVeigh would still be out for re-arranging Hird's face.

 

[Pweter]

If Addison had sustained absolutely no injury, it's probably the same gradings.

He rammed a shoulder into a face. That is weeks. The end.

Don't see the issue.

I hear what you're saying, but the bump is effectively dead unless going for a 50/50 ground ball and both players choose to protect themselves rather than one lead with their head and the other protect themselves (and that's a different subject altogether, the AFL encouraging players to lead with their head rather than protect themselves).

The game is no longer instinctive. We have a group of guys that were brought up under the "old" definition of a bump and the AFL is changing what constitutes a fair bump almost overnight. Hard to coach instinct out of players. This will continue to be a problem for players until the next generation comes in that has grown up with this "new" interpretation of a bump.

 

[Slattery_20]

I hear what you're saying, but the bump is effectively dead unless going for a 50/50 ground ball and both players choose to protect themselves rather than one lead with their head and the other protect themselves (and that's a different subject altogether, the AFL encouraging players to lead with their head rather than protect themselves).

Hardly.

The game is no longer instinctive.

Not really. Always learning, & playing to the rules involved. (the old adage "it takes a lot of hard work to look instinctive"). And rules have always changed. Herp derp!

We have a group of guys that were brought up under the "old" definition of a bump and the AFL is changing what constitutes a fair bump almost overnight.

This has been reportable for at least 5 years.

 

[Slattery_20]

It really annoys me that to me, it always feels like the tail is wagging the dog with the MRP. If there was no injury, they wouldn't of even looked at it.
I don't like the fact that the player gets punished for an injury. Addison slipped down, if he stayed up straight, he wouldn't of got hit in the head, Crameri couldn't of tackled as the ball was already free, he didn't have much other option than to bump.
It just frustrates me.

That's why they're saying Crameri was NEGLIGENT for the contact... (rather than intentional or whatever)

 

[Kong]

I still think the MRP, or at least SOMEONE in it, has it totally in for us.

We seem to cop some totally random and dumbfounding decisions

This decision is ridiculous, but that comment is, too.

Every club cops absurd decisions at times.

There are inexusable things like Fletcher being the only player to be executed (yes) for tripping; but I don't think anybody has it in for any particular club.

Shit decisions get made all round; it's incompetency, not bias.

 

[Rack Watts]

*Humming* There once was a little green slab of clay.

 

[Childish Gambino]

Not sure if it has been mentioned but Essendon have accepted the two weeks.

 

[Pweter]

Hardly

Eventually players will choose not to bump as there are too many variables in a contest which could cause them to get suspended. That will mean the death of the bump.

I am not saying players can't and don't go hard at the ball (though it irks me when they lead with their head), they do this moreso than ever today with incredible intensity, but what consitutes a bump or at least used to, will die out of the game.

Not really. Always learning, & playing to the rules involved. (the old adage "it takes a lot of hard work to look instinctive"). And rules have always changed. Herp derp!

And some players have always struggled to come to terms with new rules. Physical players moreso in this situation.

This has been reportable for at least 5 years.

It's been reportable in the AFL for the last 5 years and mostly via the MRP and not match day reports. Pretty much any other league and it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

 

[Yabba]

Not brain dead to call for Gumby. I would like to have seen Kavangh given the call up against the doggies too and told that he has Zaka's spot till he's not injured.

Remember we're still only a small chance to really challenge for the flag and still need to get games into blokes for the future. Last year we had a look at Browne and Ross. This year we need one or two games looking at Kav and also to see how Gumby goes in the big time still. Remember he's never ever played in a good AFL side working like a unit.

He performed pretty well in 2010 in a side that was struggling, he really held the forward line together until he got his broken ribs late in the season.

 

[Slattery_20]

This decision is ridiculous, but that comment is, too.

Every club cops absurd decisions at times.

There are inexusable things like Fletcher being the only player to be executed (yes) for tripping; but I don't think anybody has it in for any particular club.

Shit decisions get made all round; it's incompetency, not bias.

Some players get targetted; others get very 'lucky'.
Fletch being one, Jordan Lewis another, arguably Franklin for the former; Beau Waters is just a very very very clumsy boy and always gets the benefit.

 

[Kong]

Some players get targetted; others get very 'lucky'.
Fletch being one, Jordan Lewis another, arguably Franklin for the former; Beau Waters is just a very very very clumsy boy and always gets the benefit.

Agree, I don't think it has anything to do with the clubs they play for, though.

 

[Valve Bounce]

I just hope that he takes the time to get rid of his leg issues as he has been limping, and most importantly practise his kicking. Some of his kicks showed a lack of confidence, style, or call you what you want. Maybe Matty Lloyd can give him some invaluable clues on how to kick straight.

 

[Halftimehero]

ARE YOU BLOKES SERIOUS??? IM AS BIG AS A FAN OF THE BOMBERS AS ANYONE BUT YOUR ALL BEING SO VERY ONE EYED. HE BUMPED FAIR IN THE FACE AND BROKE HIS JAW,

END OF STORY

 

[mantis]

ARE YOU BLOKES SERIOUS??? IM AS BIG AS A FAN OF THE BOMBERS AS ANYONE BUT YOUR ALL BEING SO VERY ONE EYED. HE BUMPED FAIR IN THE FACE AND BROKE HIS JAW,

END OF STORY

Turn off your caps lock, plus the guy played the rest of the game with the broken jaw. Maybe he got another knock or two in the rest of the game that caused the break. If it was so bad, how come he played on.?

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

ARE YOU BLOKES SERIOUS??? IM AS BIG AS A FAN OF THE BOMBERS AS ANYONE BUT YOUR ALL BEING SO VERY ONE EYED. HE BUMPED FAIR IN THE FACE AND BROKE HIS JAW,

END OF STORY

Why are you here? no one cares about your plastic fantastic club, leave us alone!

 

[yaco55]

The breaking of Addison's jaw added an extra one or two weeks to Crameri's penalty.

You can safely bump - excerpt - Karmichael Hunt - Has caused a few sore ribs.

 

[astrowizzle]

It doesn't actually matter.
He went at him (whether to block or bump), and hit him high. Whether he intended to take body on body or not, he actually hit him high.


Not even in our worst 10 tribunal decisions.
It could've maybe been 1 week; more likely 2.
I get the feeling an Essendon player could shoot someone and you'd be arguing they shold get off.


If he'd taken a bit more care and got down a bit lower the bump would've been far more effective, and also legal. Could absolutely cream him through the guts/ribs.

Yes he could have gotten lower. However i am not arguing that our players should have free reign on slaughtering opposition players. I, like other posters are basically arguing that the act should determine the suspension and not what happens as a result of it. By AFL logic i can see why Carlton supporters were calling for Lonergan to get suspended because Lonergans tackle was crude at best and he stuffed Carazzo up for a long time. Now we all know that is a ridiculous concept. In Crameries case he was going to tackle, you can see he stutters then in a split second blocked/bumped. Negligent yes and suspension maybe onoe week. Impact high, i dont think so. Guerras "Medium" contact was a lot harder than Crameries "High" impact which ruled his fate. We all know in the long run he needs 2 weeks rest anyway but that is beside the point. That should be up to our club to decide when to rest him not the inconsistent MRP

 

[Slattery_20]

Yes he could have gotten lower. However i am not arguing that our players should have free reign on slaughtering opposition players. I, like other posters are basically arguing that the act should determine the suspension and not what happens as a result of it. By AFL logic i can see why Carlton supporters were calling for Lonergan to get suspended because Lonergans tackle was crude at best and he stuffed Carazzo up for a long time. Now we all know that is a ridiculous concept. In Crameries case he was going to tackle, you can see he stutters then in a split second blocked/bumped. Negligent yes and suspension maybe onoe week.

Agreed, up to here.

Impact high, i dont think so. Guerras "Medium" contact was a lot harder than Crameries "High" impact which ruled his fate. We all know in the long run he needs 2 weeks rest anyway but that is beside the point. That should be up to our club to decide when to rest him not the inconsistent MRP

Do not agree with the bolded.
Crameri was going at a fair clip.
Guerra did not have much momentum - if he was going as hard as Crameri, he would've shortened Eddie's spine.
Could probably have knocked both down a peg; but Crameri's impact was definitely harder.

 

[Halftimehero]

Turn off your caps lock, plus the guy played the rest of the game with the broken jaw. Maybe he got another knock or two in the rest of the game that caused the break. If it was so bad, how come he played on.?

have you actually seen the footage? if you have and believe he shouldnt have got rubbed you have absolutely no clue about football, obviously the club knew he was guilty as they didnt contest it did they? get your blinkers off.

 

[astrowizzle]

Agreed, up to here.


Do not agree with the bolded.
Crameri was going at a fair clip.
Guerra did not have much momentum - if he was going as hard as Crameri, he would've shortened Eddie's spine.
Could probably have knocked both down a peg; but Crameri's impact was definitely harder.

I reckon we are gonna have to agree to disagree on that point. I just watched the indicent in full from the replay of the game and Crameri hardly looks to be moving much at all and seems to shuffle across in front of him then lay the block/bump. Either way if the dude didnt bust his jaw i would be interested to see how the MRP interpretted it.

 

[Summer Nights]

2 weeks is fair, with or without a broken jaw. You can't bump blokes with your shoulder to their face. Everybody knows this. The sticking point for me is the inconsistency where we see other players get off for similar incidents. It's not that Crameri is suspended (which, sadly, he should be), it's that some others aren't.

 

[Kong]

Beau Waters continues to get free range, meanwhile.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

*rein

 

[astrowizzle]

Should probably merge the thread with the 'delusional pearlers'.

Maybe delusional but this has been brought around by the Maxwell rule.
Josh Kennedy on Sylvia is pretty close to this incident:
Incidental contact to the head resulting in broken jaw - tick
Sylvia/Addison not in possession of ball so only reasonable action is to bump - tick
Crameri 3 weeks suspension, Kennedy perfectly legal bump. - not a tick
Consistency by the delusioin MRP would be more appropriate to appease supporters