I'm not sure anyone feels sorry for Greene. They're just calling out the inconsistency in the MRO. If Astbury, Fritsch and Buddy had all been suspended then no-one would be arguing the toss on Greene's two match ban.
Dangerfield hit on Vlastuin
- Thread starter sobrave
- Start date
- Tagged users None
None of those hits sent their opponent to hospital......
So if he'd hit him in the head that is probably okay as he was less likely to go to hospital?
So you do want the outcome and not the action to be a determinant in MRO findings?
Fritsch and Buddy were suspended. What is it with people not understanding this? Greene is in exactly the same position. It’s only the Richmond player getting ‘looked after’
The other 2 had to find loopholes to get off.
Fritsch and Buddy were not suspended. The MRO offered a sanction, they chose to successfully challenge and then played the next week. Believe it or not, but the MRO and tribunal work under the same rules. The tribunal in effect said that the MRO got it wrong. Simple really.
Look at the entire process, not just the part that supports your argument.
Speaking of looked after... how many times can Selwood be looked after this season - stomping, eye-gouging, head high hits,...
- Mar 26, 2015
- 11,909
- 21,995
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
Because they are completely different.
If you honestly can't see the differences, then there's no point trying to explain it.
I'm more concerned about how Selwood gets off for his bump.
The only person not to even get offered a match was the protected tiger. Get it?
I get the process but you’re sooking Greene is ‘offered’ weeks.
It’s not a suspension as you say so why are you and everyone else complaining?
Selwood should’ve been suspended yes, but he isn’t the only one to ever get off on a bump that didn’t cause an injury is he?
He is also the only player to get suspended for a push.
The difference between you and I is one is bias. I call for a suspension on my own, you don’t. You just get upset when I point out only the tiger player didn’t get offered a week.
Last edited:
Of corse the outcome determines the MRO findings it is actually part of the grading system they use. Sometimes players are lucky the person the infringe upon does not get injured and they don’t get as harsh a penalty and sometimes they are unlucky and they get hurt and they are suspended for longer.
Dangefield was suspended at the beginning of the year for choosing to bump someone and knocking him out in the process. If you choose to bump and no one is injured players don’t get reported for it. Do you think that everyone who lays a bump should get three weeks because it is the action not the outcome that is the issue?
Would’ve been quite comfortable with Astbury getting a week, which I’ve stated on BigFooty before.
Would’ve been quite comfortable with Astbury getting a week, which I’ve stated on BigFooty before.
That’s great now just make sure you get your protected species targets right. That is Astbury.
So in other words, go to hospital and it’s a week. Get concussed but stay at the ground, it’s okay.
Dangerfield’s elbow to Vlastuin is almost identical to Greene’s. Eh the whole thing is a shambles
Dangerfield’s elbow to Vlastuin is almost identical to Greene’s. Eh the whole thing is a shambles
Being reported once, found guilty and fined when he should’ve been given a week makes Astbury a protected species… but stomping, gouging and making deliberate head high contact and not getting weeks still makes Selwood a victim somehow. That seems right.
It's not the same at all. Look at the Vlastuin hit. Dangerfield raised his arm and hit the ball and then it remained up to brace for impact. Greene just lifted his arm to hit or brace for Dangerfield.
Perfectly put. There just should be no tolerance of raising the elbow and contacting an opponent, let alone contacting his most vulnerable areas around the head, neck and throat.
In the AFL there didn’t seem to be any tolerance of it….until the edit: Ablett incidents and Dangerfield incident. Now this season we’ve seen these incredibly dangerous Fritsch and Greene actions at speed which fortunately did not cause serious injury. For mine it is very difficult to understand where this has come from and how it can happen in an such an increasingly concussion conscious environment.
I can see how some people find the Dangerfield forearm debatable, but for mine that is a suspension, a player contesting he ball fairly like Vlastuin was should never expect to cop a forearm to the face at top speed. The other two, those for mine were cut and dried and should result in telling suspensions.
Looked at another way….why is it reasonable for Dangerfield to raise his forearm to protect himself but unreasonable for Vlastuin to do the same? Why is it ok for the ball carrier to put up a forearm to fend but not reasonable for the tackler to put up a forearm to deal with the ball carrier. Forearms need to be either legal or illegal for both players in a contest, and it is blindingly obvious they cannot be legal.
Last edited:
