MRP / Trib. How many Weeks for Rioli?

[bzparkes]

Yes tribunals always get everything right and are calculator-like in their accuracy.

Evidenced by the AFL coming out 17 minutes ago announcing that the Tribunal got it wrong.

And they weren't contesting it, because the possibilities of a successful appeal were too low. I guess that would indicate that it's the AFL's 'opinion' that the verdict was wrong.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Imagine thinking that what you see in a slow motion replay is how much time a player has to react in real time.

 

[SuperMal]

Why not? If you are going to do that and put yourself in harms way then the outcome should be on you. Just ban running back with the flight of the ball. This is how ridiculous this is all becoming.
For me neither the Rioli or Robinson invidents needed to be looked at.
The AFL however look at it differently as they slowly destroy the sport. Based on their Auskick Football League rules both players should be wiped out for years.

Phatboy answered the question.

All I will say is the comparison is about whether Rioli was making a legit attempt to mark -

If Rowell ran straight at the oncoming player it would be reckless...but he had his eyes on the ball, and did not turn to affect the contact.

In my view, as an impartial observer, Rioli feigned an attempt at marking but knew he would be late - as such he had time to turn, close up and he took his eyes off the ball.

I don’t expect you to agree...and I won’t be arguing hypotheticals or minutia.

 

[DanWA]

The witch hunt on this one is epic

But the Sloane thread is quiet

 

[SuperMal]

And they weren't contesting it, because the possibilities of a successful appeal were too low. I guess that would indicate that it's the AFL's 'opinion' that the verdict was wrong.

I think you have it locked away now.

Not being able to appeal does not mean the decision was how people would think - It just means its technically sound - and the AFL don’t believe they can prove its a decision that ‘no tribunal would make’.

 

[PhatBoy]

And they weren't contesting it, because the possibilities of a successful appeal were too low. I guess that would indicate that it's the AFL's 'opinion' that the verdict was wrong.

Again, it’s an arbitrary system not a mathematical one. They got it wrong and every west coast fan trying to cite their lack of willingness to appeal the decision doesn’t change that any more than an umpire retaining his job means he got all his decisions right the previous week

 

[PhatBoy]

The witch hunt on this one is epic

But the Sloane thread is quiet

What witch hunt? A vast majority of people holding a view is automatically a witch-hunt?

 

[SuperMal]

There's your problem, you're thinking in terms of frames, you need to wrap your head around the fact these sorts of incidents happen in seconds. Willie was already committed to the contest before he noticed Rowell and turned his body. The only other alternative was run in head first and instead of Rowell being bumped in the chest/shoulder region we probably have 2 guys with concussion from a head clash.

It has nothing to do with thinking in frames - so nice try at pigeon-holing but no cigar.

I believe Rioli did see Rowell.....in fact I would gurantee he did, as he got there second.

I think your view is hopelessly unrealistic, because you’re a supporter. Try that pigeon-hole for size. Or is that Weagle-hole?

 

[SloppyJoe]

Looking seriously like the AFL need to add another parameter to appeal under.....

‘The Tribunal are a pack of geese and got it wrong’ provision.

This provision is used when the only technicality that has been breached is the minimum IQ of the tribunal members.

Bit harsh on the Tribunal there.

When you take into account all of the circumstances and available evidence, I just don't see how the "was it a marking contest/genuine attempt on the ball" question is as clear cut as most are making it out to be.

I can see reasonable arguments on both sides. But the Tribunal have to make the call.

Calling them "a pack of geese" for coming down on one side rather than the other in these circumstances (and on which they deliberated for 40+min) is not very fair.

 

[javaguice]

Looking forward to the whinge on 360 tonight. Will be epic.

 

[Mr Magic]

We are looking at this exactly the same way
Thank you

I was going to say Darrell White with his leap could not mark it the way Rioli attempted.

I just looked at the AFL website about the subject with a photo snapshot. Its worse than I thought. From that angle the ball is almost touching Rowell's hands before Rioli's second foot is off the ground and he is a metre or so away. No way any human could mark it from that instance where Rioli was with it about to fall into Rowell's hands.

If anyone can get a snapshot of the AFL website angle into this thread the marking argument is absurd!!

 

[Falchoon]

The suspension these days seems to be more based on the injury caused than the action itself. I don't have a firm view on that as I see merit both ways.

But, if the AFL are serious about wanting to protect the head, this needed some punishment. End of

Negligent by GC to not take him off for a concussion test. Should be an investigation into it.

You one eyed West Coast supporters are a bit of a yawn, see my previous response above.

 

[javaguice]

You one eyed West Coast supporters are a bit of a yawn, see my previous response above.

He didnt hit his head, he hit his collarbone. Hence Rowell clutching the collarbone. No concussion test? What are punishing Willie for? The potential to cause harm? may as well call the whole thing of then.

 

[thedank]

Well there you have it ladies, afl have signed off on it so we can close this awful thread

 

[SuperMal]

Bit harsh on the Tribunal there.

When you take into account all of the circumstances and available evidence, I just don't see how the "was it a marking contest/genuine attempt on the ball" question is as clear cut as most are making it out to be.

I can see reasonable arguments on both sides. But the Tribunal have to make the call.

Calling them "a pack of geese" for coming down on one side rather than the other in these circumstances (and on which they deliberated for 40+min) is not very fair.

I would argue Rioli knew the likely outcome, given his ability to prepare for contact vs Rowells unprotected position.

It was not a collision between two players with eyes only for the ball.

And the majority of those who’ve seen the incident clearly believe the same.

So there is a ‘goose factor’ in my view.

 

[Mr Magic]

I would argue Rioli knew the likely outcome, given his ability to prepare for contact vs Rowells unprotected position.

It was not a collision between two players with eyes only for the ball.

And the majority of those who’ve seen the incident clearly believe the same.

So there is a ‘goose factor’ in my view.

If it was last second and Rioli could not stop jumping he should have just decelerated in the jump and ensure he tackled the marking Rowell because he was simply too far to make the contest.

The only reason I think Rioli is let off is because West Coast are short on numbers and AFL HQ want a more competitive match on the weekend coming up I think for the West Coast game

 

[Madas]

I was going to say Darrell White with his leap could not mark it the way Rioli attempted.

I just looked at the AFL website about the subject with a photo snapshot. Its worse than I thought. From that angle the ball is almost touching Rowell's hands before Rioli's second foot is off the ground and he is a metre or so away. No way any human could mark it from that instance where Rioli was with it about to fall into Rowell's hands.

If anyone can get a snapshot of the AFL website angle into this thread the marking argument is absurd!!

Exactly
Rather than leaping into the air he could have put his arms forward and protected himself and Rowell .

What a bunch of bullshit that he didn’t bunch himself up for a full blooded hit .

I think in taking the easy road out the AFL have also absolved themselves of any questions that need to be asked of the pathetic umpiring decision to not even pay a free kick .

 

[javaguice]

Oh well guys, ruling stands. Willie plays this weekend. You can pray Willie pulls out next time.

 

[Falchoon]

I didn't say he did. Many concussion cases occur from the head hitting the ground, Rioli's action caused Rowell's head to hit the ground.

I can't see how that's in dispute.

He didnt hit his head, he hit his collarbone. Hence Rowell clutching the collarbone. No concussion test? What are punishing Willie for? The potential to cause harm? may as well call the whole thing of then.

Again, refer to previous post. Multi quoted for your reference

 

[Obeanie1]

I was going to say Darrell White with his leap could not mark it the way Rioli attempted.

I just looked at the AFL website about the subject with a photo snapshot. Its worse than I thought. From that angle the ball is almost touching Rowell's hands before Rioli's second foot is off the ground and he is a metre or so away. No way any human could mark it from that instance where Rioli was with it about to fall into Rowell's hands.

If anyone can get a snapshot of the AFL website angle into this thread the marking argument is absurd!!

LOL.

So you are 100% sure that Rioli was not contesting the mark? So sure a suspension is warranted and reasonable!

Players contesting a mark cannot be doing so if they are 2 / 1000th of a second later than someone else contesting the same mark?

When a pack flies some jump slightly earlier than others, some later. So by jumping slightly later (milli-seconds) than the other chap you are no longer legally contesting a mark? Is that what you are saying? That is what it sounds like.

Just think about that for a minute or two.

 

[javaguice]

Again, refer to previous post. Multi quoted for your reference

He hit his head on the ground. Happens a lot you know. Perhaps AFL isnt the sport for you with such gratuitous violence

Now its not about if the player hits someone in the head, but if they proceed to hit their head on the ground. Gotcha

 

[Yippy Yi Yeo]

It has nothing to do with thinking in frames - so nice try at pigeon-holing but no cigar.

I believe Rioli did see Rowell.....in fact I would gurantee he did, as he got there second.

I think your view is hopelessly unrealistic, because you’re a supporter. Try that pigeon-hole for size. Or is that Weagle-hole?

And you still miss the point. Of course he saw him but at the point he did it was too late to pull out of the contest, not sure if you're aware of this but all players are entitled to contest a mark. You believe somehow in the heat of the moment willie is meant to calculate precisely who will get to the ball first when they are milliseconds apart, and in the case he is beaten by any margin no matter how small, he is supposed to pullout of the contest and avoid all contact, and yet I'm the one who's being hopelessly unrealistic. You don't sound like you've played a game of footy in your life.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

The only reason I think Rioli is let off is because West Coast are short on numbers and AFL HQ want a more competitive match on the weekend coming up I think for the West Coast game

Haha this is my favourite take so far and given some of them, that's saying something.

 

[Falchoon]

He hit his head on the ground. Happens a lot you know. Perhaps AFL isnt the sport for you with such gratuitous violence

Now its not about if the player hits someone in the head, but if they proceed to hit their head on the ground. Gotcha

Are you quoting the the reinterpretation of the tackling rule?

Expect a similar rewrite here.

 

[Obeanie1]

What witch hunt? A vast majority of people holding a view is automatically a witch-hunt?

If the vast majority involved were also involved in the last witch hunt..............then yes!

It is incredible just how hard some Vic media flogs go at West Coast. It's a fact.

Cousins was burnt at the stake. Dane Swan in his book jokes about how many times Eddie and the AFL got him out of trouble keeping it quiet. Other players who are marketing pin up boys in NSW are not held to the same standards. Why was that?

Even posted footage of VFL 360 defending Viney two seasons ago when he knocked out Hurn with a jumping hip to the face in a non marking contest. That didn't seem to be an issue, and that was with Hurn laying on the ground with twisted fingers concussed.

So yep. When the VFL witch hunt fires up again it gets called out.

Don't know what you all are afraid of this season, Eagles will finish bottom 3.