Crows v Dogs MRP watch

[Big Wilbur]

Hit - another word for strike which is what he was charged with "Easton Wood, Western Bulldogs, has been charged with striking Mitch McGovern, Adelaide Crows, during the first quarter of the Round 16 match between the Western Bulldogs and the Adelaide Crows, played at Adelaide Oval on Friday July 7, 2017.

In summary, as a third classifiable offence this season, he can accept a one-game sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Adelaide Crows Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the body. This was a third classifiable offence for the season, and therefore the player is subject to a one-match sanction with an early plea."

Doesn't matter where he hit him, he hit him and it was the third time so the one game sanction was appropriate because it was the third one. BTW Charlie Cameron for us is on his second offence and if he does it a third time he will also get a game and deservedly so because he has had the two warnings to cut it out.

Mate....if Charlie goes for something similar to Easton Wood, you'll be outraged.

Your doctor stated there was some bruising but Melbourne's doctor said the same about Clayton Oliver's chin. Please don't tell me Wood's "hit" was worse than Schofields.

 

[Vader]

Mate....if Charlie goes for something similar to Easton Wood, you'll be outraged.

Your doctor stated there was some bruising but Melbourne's doctor said the same about Clayton Oliver's chin. Please don't tell me Wood's "hit" was worse than Schofields.

Melbourne said that to prevent Oliver from being charged with diving.

Why would Adelaide falsify their medical report?

 

[Big Wilbur]

Melbourne said that to prevent Oliver from being charged with diving.

Why would Adelaide falsify their medical report?

I never said they would.

- Regardless of the motivation both Adelaide and Melbourne reported bruising
- the appeals tribunal decided there was insufficient force in the Oliver incident
- was Wood's "hit" worse than Schofield's?

 

[NikkiNoo]

Mate....if Charlie goes for something similar to Easton Wood, you'll be outraged.

Your doctor stated there was some bruising but Melbourne's doctor said the same about Clayton Oliver's chin. Please don't tell me Wood's "hit" was worse than Schofields.

Actually, no we won't, and it's already been discussed around these boards and also on the podcast I am on, that if Charlie does it again, he has no one to blame but himself.

It doesn't matter if Schofield hit was worse because the Tribunal and the MRP do not consider precedent.

 

[Big Wilbur]

Actually, no we won't, and it's already been discussed around these boards and also on the podcast I am on, that if Charlie does it again, he has no one to blame but himself.

It doesn't matter if Schofield hit was worse because the Tribunal and the MRP do not consider precedent.

You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Where did I say Schofield's hit was worse. My point is, the AFL tribunal deemed Schofield's strike was of insufficient force. So how does the MRC decide Wood's was forceful enough to deserve suspension unless it was worse than Schofield's? Do you think it was worse than Schofield's elbow?

 

[NikkiNoo]

You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Where did I say Schofield's hit was worse. My point is, the AFL tribunal deemed Schofield's strike was of insufficient force. So how does the MRC decide Wood's was forceful enough to deserve suspension unless it was worse than Schofield's? Do you think it was worse than Schofield's elbow?

Please read my last sentence in the post of mine you quoted, before accusing me of lacking comprehension. Then read the MRP report from this round - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-10/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-16

 

[Big Wilbur]

Please read my last sentence in the post of mine you quoted, before accusing me of lacking comprehension. Then read the MRP report from this round - http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-07-10/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-16

I read it. I'm know they don't use precedents but you'd think after the appeals tribunal decision they would revonsider what constitutes sufficient force. As for their statement, they state there was low impact. My argument is there was actually insufficient force to constitute a reportable offence.

You and I both know there are numerous forearms into opponent's backs every week that are more forceful than the Easton Wood hit. How many do you think the MRC will lay a charge for?

 

[NikkiNoo]

I read it. I'm know they don't use precedents but you'd think after the appeals tribunal decision they would revonsider what constitutes sufficient force. As for their statement, they state there was low impact. My argument is there was actually insufficient force to constitute a reportable offence.

You and I both know there are numerous forearms into opponent's backs every week that are more forceful than the Easton Wood hit. How many do you think the MRC will lay a charge for?

It's the MRP and if there are others more forceful that make a player go to ground, then they get looked at.

 

[Big Wilbur]

It's the MRP and if there are others more forceful that make a player go to ground, then they get looked at.

Yep....thought as much.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Yep....thought as much.

I thought I had quoted this in this thread, but I did it in another...

In changes to this year: "Selected jumper punches and strikes to the head that have insufficient force to constitute a Low Impact offence will be processed as a fixed financial sanction under Attempt to Strike." So even with that lower step down it would have still been his third offence, and becomes the automatic match ban of 2 games down to 1. They can whine all they like but they need to read the AFL Tribunal rules.

So even if they judged it to be the insufficient force, it would have been downgraded to 'attempt to strike' which is a financial sanction but is still considered an offence. Therefore Wood would have had it classified as a third offence, so he still would have gotten the 1 game sanction. It's a useless whine from your football club making your supporters feel like you have once again been hard done by, in spite of actual facts.

 

[dogs105]

Seems like comprehension issues again.

First....it wasn't a strike to the head or a jumper punch so where dies that leave your interpretation?
Second....the footy club hasn't complained at all. That's part of my criticism

Try again.

Disgusting

 

[Big Wilbur]

I thought I had quoted this in this thread, but I did it in another...

In changes to this year: "Selected jumper punches and strikes to the head that have insufficient force to constitute a Low Impact offence will be processed as a fixed financial sanction under Attempt to Strike." So even with that lower step down it would have still been his third offence, and becomes the automatic match ban of 2 games down to 1. They can whine all they like but they need to read the AFL Tribunal rules.

So even if they judged it to be the insufficient force, it would have been downgraded to 'attempt to strike' which is a financial sanction but is still considered an offence. Therefore Wood would have had it classified as a third offence, so he still would have gotten the 1 game sanction. It's a useless whine from your football club making your supporters feel like you have once again been hard done by, in spite of actual facts.

Seems like comprehension issues again.

First....it wasn't a strike to the head or a jumper punch so where does that leave your interpretation?
Second....the footy club hasn't complained at all. That's part of my criticism

Try again.

 

[Interloperer]

So all the Crows fans jumping on the Bulldogs bandwagon during the prelims/gf last year despite the Talia nonsense have been rewarded by more conspiracy theories from Beveridge after a loss. Who would have guessed?

 

[Big Wilbur]

So all the Crows fans jumping on the Bulldogs bandwagon during the prelims/gf last year despite the Talia nonsense have been rewarded by more conspiracy theories from Beveridge after a loss. Who would have guessed?

Link us to Beveridge's "alleged" comments........or should I be asking Talia?

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Making a rare appearance here because MRP stuff is up my alley.

You seem to have a problem with comprehension. Where did I say Schofield's hit was worse. My point is, the AFL tribunal deemed Schofield's strike was of insufficient force. So how does the MRC decide Wood's was forceful enough to deserve suspension unless it was worse than Schofield's? Do you think it was worse than Schofield's elbow?

Difference is, WCE were able to run an argument that there was another incident that caused Oliver's injury.

The evidence re McGovern suggested that his bruised ribs were a result of the Wood incident.

Personally I reckon they could've contested it on the basis it wasn't a "strike". McGovern actually had a similar one the week before that he got a fine for and I reckon was ripe for a contest on that basis.

But I reckon they would've struggled on the insufficient force argument.

I thought I had quoted this in this thread, but I did it in another...

In changes to this year: "Selected jumper punches and strikes to the head that have insufficient force to constitute a Low Impact offence will be processed as a fixed financial sanction under Attempt to Strike." So even with that lower step down it would have still been his third offence, and becomes the automatic match ban of 2 games down to 1. They can whine all they like but they need to read the AFL Tribunal rules.

So even if they judged it to be the insufficient force, it would have been downgraded to 'attempt to strike' which is a financial sanction but is still considered an offence. Therefore Wood would have had it classified as a third offence, so he still would have gotten the 1 game sanction. It's a useless whine from your football club making your supporters feel like you have once again been hard done by, in spite of actual facts.

Nah. Fixed financial sanction offences are not classifiable offences. Three low level classifiable offences = 1 week but fixed financial sanctions are under a regime of their own. So if Wood got done for attempting to strike he would've got a fine.

One nice thing about Tex being charged with misconduct is that it falls under the fixed financial sanction regime so it doesn't count as the first of his three strikes towards a suspension.

Also the third low level classifiable offences is not 2 down to 1. It's 1 with a $2,500 fine down to 1 with no fine if you plead.

 

[Big Wilbur]

Making a rare appearance here because MRP stuff is up my alley.



Difference is, WCE were able to run an argument that there was another incident that caused Oliver's injury.

The evidence re McGovern suggested that his bruised ribs were a result of the Wood incident.

Personally I reckon they could've contested it on the basis it wasn't a "strike". McGovern actually had a similar one the week before that he got a fine for and I reckon was ripe for a contest on that basis.

But I reckon they would've struggled on the insufficient force argument.



Nah. Fixed financial sanction offences are not classifiable offences. Three low level classifiable offences = 1 week but fixed financial sanctions are under a regime of their own. So if Wood got done for attempting to strike he would've got a fine.

One nice thing about Tex being charged with misconduct is that it falls under the fixed financial sanction regime so it doesn't count as the first of his three strikes towards a suspension.

Also the third low level classifiable offences is not 2 down to 1. It's 1 with a $2,500 fine down to 1 with no fine if you plead.

Thanks for the reasoned response.