MRP / Trib. Issues from today?

[Bring_Back_Brad]

Anyone else notice Chappy stays down a LONG time after bumps...?

Slow mo replay shows no head contact here yet same reaction.

Chapman is as tough as they come, there's no way he's staying down unless he's hurt.

 

[Tippy78]

Could still lose this - 79 to 90

 

[Tippy78]

Sorry, wrong thread

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I understand Young will get a week but I don't reckon it was a bump. He actually went for the ball and turned to shield it in one motion. Chapmans head actually hits Young in the upper back.

 

[motr]

I found footage of the Chapman hit, I turned it into a .GIF

Love that vision. Certainly looks like they both had eyes for the ball.

 

[Tippy78]

Still haven't seen the Frosty hit...

 

[Matz]

Still haven't seen the Frosty hit...

Here I tried to record it with my phone.

 

[Tippy78]

Here I tried to record it with my phone.

Cheers!

 

[Collingwood pro]

Frost should be fine, didn't seem to get him in the head, the ball was in dispute and Heppell got straight up after.
Young shouldn't get suspended, ball was in dispute, Young had eyes for the ball, the incident was accidental and the umpires didn't feel it was worth a free.

 

[unplugged]

Worst thing about the bye is that if he gets a week, he won't play for 2. If he somehow gets 2 weeks, he won't play for 3. That said though, I'm assuming he'll have no worries...

 

[Pie eyed]

The fact that Chappy left the ground and Young still managed to collect him in the head actually makes it worse for Young.. think about it...

Not if Chappy was intending only to ko young and young was going for the the ball and just got lucky putting Chappy on the deck.

 

[unplugged]

I think the MRP will take into account that even if young was trying to make contact with Chappy's head, he was mobile (I.e getting off the ground himself). I think that will help.

 

[Scodog10]

Having seen both incidents now my take is that you are still allowed to contest the ball and protect yourself when it's in dispute therefore all clear for both, but more concern being given to Young because he left the ground.

In my view that is fine when contesting the ball, but I'm not convinced the MRP will view things that way. I would challenge in both circumstances if either receives a suspension because neither had a viable alternative

It's also worth remembering that Young is likely to receive the 25% discount for a good record as well. Because I can't remember him being reported previously.

 

[JD-Roo]

Just a warning to brace yourselves with spinning the MRP Lotto Wheel.

Everything mentioned here about the Young hit is almost word-for-word the comments about Zeibe's hit against Carlton a couple of seasons ago.

Hopefully things have changed and I'll add that in no way shape or form do I think this should be a suspension.

However, contesting the ball, protecting himself, eyes only for the ball etc etc. It's all the damn same and it'll bloody damn wrong if he goes in my opinion.

Hopefully I'm completely wrong, but like I said, just brace yourselves in case its bad news.

 

[Seedsfan]

Young got a reprimand

 

[Kilmo]

Frost not assessed?

 

[Wooljay]

In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 93.75 demerit points towards his future record with an early plea. Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Essendon Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points).

This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One Offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 demerit points towards his future record.

Shouldn't have even been cited. If he's injured anyways I'd just contest it for the sake of showing up the MRP, isn't like he's in Brownlow contention.

 

[Apex36]

Shouldn't have even been cited. If he's injured anyways I'd just contest it for the sake of showing up the MRP, isn't like he's in Brownlow contention.

Agreed. His corky might put him out this week anyway, and this should be contested on principal. Protecting the head from contact when intent is there is one thing, but citing a player for unintentional contact whilst contesting the ball is just ridiculous. It's a contact sport FFS! Not netball!

 

[themidlandmaster]

Absolute joke that gears anything. There's often hyperbole about thew game turning into netball, but that's an awful decision for the game; two blokes have eyes for the footy and go for it!

 

[Wooljay]

Absolute joke that gears anything. There's often hyperbole about thew game turning into netball, but that's an awful decision for the game; two blokes have eyes for the footy and go for it!

The AFL has lost it's ****ing mind. I am all for taking blokes out of the game who play the man and not the ball, or who line up guys off the ball or intentionally go for the head - but this is quite literally two guys contesting a footy.

I'm beyond baffled.

 

[Scodog10]

Shouldn't have even been cited. If he's injured anyways I'd just contest it for the sake of showing up the MRP, isn't like he's in Brownlow contention.

I can understand your frustration, but why is it that he shouldn't have been cited? The MRP have adjudicated according to the rules in place. If you work back from the principle that the head is sacrosanct and take into account that Essendon have provided a medical report on Chapman (as is standard in these cases) you can't fault the MRP.

The blame lies with the AFL for instigating rules that don't enable any grey it is all black and white for lack of a better term...

 

[Bard]

If we contest the charges against Young, and fail, meaning he spends 1 week on the sidelines does that mean he'll have no carry-over points? If so I believe it's a win-win if we contest the charge regardless of the outcome, as he'll likely benefit from the week off anyway with the knock to his leg, and this won't be able to come back and haunt us in the future.

 

[MagpieJoel]

Young got a reprimand

Woohoo!

 

[Scodog10]

If we contest the charges against Young, and fail, meaning he spends 1 week on the sidelines does that mean he'll have no carry-over points? If so I believe it's a win-win if we contest the charge regardless of the outcome, as he'll likely benefit from the week off anyway with the knock to his leg, and this won't be able to come back and haunt us in the future.

He'll have 25 as opposed to 93.75. Much of a muchness really, IMO.

The only reason you'd challenge is if 100% confident he won't play through injury. It might give us a bit of a sneak peek on whether he's a chance to get up for the match.

 

[Bard]

He'll have 25 as opposed to 93.75. Much of a muchness really, IMO.

The only reason you'd challenge is if 100% confident he won't play through injury. It might give us a bit of a sneak peek on whether he's a chance to get up for the match.

You never know, could be the difference between one or two weeks, and imagine if it happened in the first week of finals.