Jy simpkins bump on Allen Christensen.

[darko]

Not really. The head high contact came from a head clash, not body to head. The rules that the AFL has written explicitly give the MRO discretion with head clashes, even where they assess that a player intended to bump. I don't necessarily agree with how they've applied that discretion (eg the Burton case) but they are following the guidelines.

They have no such discretion to determine body to head contact is an accidental consequence of a deliberate bump. So the issue in the Simpkin case revolves around the assessment that he chose to bump. As already stated, I think he has a very good chance of successfully arguing he didn't chose to bump.

North have already been successful in one appeal this year and I reckon North fans should put their meltdowns on ice (can you do that) until a tribunal challenge has been unsuccessful.

Sandilands chose to bump. Simpkin had eyes on the ball, as did Christensen. Simpkin protected himself in the last moment, Christensen didn't.

 

[Snake_Baker]

North have already been successful in one appeal this year and I reckon North fans should put their meltdowns on ice (can you do that) until a tribunal challenge has been unsuccessful.

Jesus Christ, as if you can talk.

A front on contact in an actual split second contest for the ball gets two weeks, but a front on elbow to the jaw from a franchise growth market marquee player doesn't raise an eyebrow.

Your understanding of the fairness of the tribunal is non existent. You simply wouldn't have a clue.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Sandilands chose to bump. Simpkin had eyes on the ball, as did Christensen. Simpkin protected himself in the last moment, Christensen didn't.

The photograph actually shows Simpkin making the greater effort to avoid contact.

 

[liz]

Jesus Christ, as if you can talk.

A front on contact in an actual split second contest for the ball gets two weeks, but a front on elbow to the jaw from a franchise growth market marquee player doesn't raise an eyebrow.

Your understanding of the fairness of the tribunal is non existent. You simply wouldn't have a clue.

Bizarre response.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Bizarre response.

Entirely relative.

 

[liz]

Sandilands chose to bump. Simpkin had eyes on the ball, as did Christensen. Simpkin protected himself in the last moment, Christensen didn't.

I don't think you read what I wrote. I haven't argued that Simpkin chose to bump. I've stated that the MRO has assessed that Simpkin chose to bump, which is evident from the fact they've cited him.

The circumstances of the high contact are just completely different to the Sandilands case, so the thought process the MRO has gone through is different. That doesn't mean the right outcome has been reached here. It just means that one isn't relevant to the other.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Seems about right. 2 weeks for that hit. North fans love complaining about everything.

YEah, shoulda won by 100 points

 

[Snake_Baker]

YEah, shoulda won by 100 points

Turn it up Tron.

The AFL have mandated that this is not allowed to happen to growth market franchises.

 

[Whiskers]

The MRP - now MRO never cease to amaze me.
Incompetence just keeps rising. Clearly CLEARLY no intent to injure. FFS Michael Christian does my head in.

 

[rippersnipper]

Michael Christian can get ****ed, what a dumb campaigner. Has absolutely no idea what he's doing and should have been sacked or resigned himself after the local footy incident earlier on in the season.

 

[Tex9798]

Can people stop comparing this to Burton on Higgins? Other than the jumper there is absolutely nothing similar about them.

One of them was a completely accidental head clash from a legal bump, an action that is allowed under the rules - its the one thing Michael Christian has been consistent with, accidental head clashes will not get suspended.

Simpkin should get off on appeal, all I see is two players going for the ball and colliding, no bump, nothing careless about it, just two people arriving at the ball at the same time.

 

[BLERN]

Can people stop comparing this to Burton on Higgins? Other than the jumper there is absolutely nothing similar about them.

One of them was a completely accidental head clash from a legal bump, an action that is allowed under the rules - its the one thing Michael Christian has been consistent with, accidental head clashes will not get suspended.

Simpkin should get off on appeal, all I see is two players going for the ball and colliding, no bump, nothing careless about it, just two people arriving at the ball at the same time.

They are only being compared because christian in his "findings" stated that jy elected to bump and had time to decide to act differently.

I doubt many people actually think they are similar in many ways. But that is a moronic statement from christian to say he elected to bump

 

[Chappycats]

They are only being compared because christian in his "findings" stated that jy elected to bump and had time to decide to act differently.

I doubt many people actually think they are similar in many ways. But that is a moronic statement from christian to say he elected to bump

Absolutely.
Also the fact that the players on the receiving end were both knocked out.
What’s moronic is the one that got the suspension was actually competing for the ball up until the last split second and then only braced himself for impact, the other chose to bump when he had another option.

 

[scoman]

Turn it up Tron.

The AFL have mandated that this is not allowed to happen to growth market franchises.

Seriously we get your cranky dude but surely thats a bit of a stretch.

Edit: Had linked to a Tropic Thunder Quote but have reconsidered.

 

[BLERN]

Absolutely.
Also the fact that the players on the receiving end were both knocked out.
What’s moronic is the one that got the suspension was actually competing for the ball up until the last split second and then only braced himself for impact, the other chose to bump when he had another option.

Yep. And I personally had no real issue with burton getting off. I was surprised because he chose to bump, but had no real issue with it. Assumed that was just one of those "setting the standard" for the year decisions. Oh how wrong i was haha.

There is nobody who can honestly say with any confidence that "when incident x gets reviewed tommorow its going to fall into this category because of x,y and z" there is just so much confusion around christians decisions from week to week.

I just want to feel like i understand the rules. Havent felt that way for a few years now. A few months ago i was trying to explain it to an american as we were watching the game. He called me out on something i had said earlier with a comment like "but you said that this was the rule, why was it called differently this time?"

And the only response i had was "i dont know. Some rules are interpretational and can have different outcomes" the confused look i got made me feel like such a fool.

 

[Chappycats]

Yep. And I personally had no real issue with burton getting off. I was surprised because he chose to bump, but had no real issue with it. Assumed that was just one of those "setting the standard" for the year decisions. Oh how wrong i was haha.

There is nobody who can honestly say with any confidence that "when incident x gets reviewed tommorow its going to fall into this category because of x,y and z" there is just so much confusion around christians decisions from week to week.

I just want to feel like i understand the rules. Havent felt that way for a few years now. A few months ago i was trying to explain it to an american as we were watching the game. He called me out on something i had said earlier with a comment like "but you said that this was the rule, why was it called differently this time?"

And the only response i had was "i dont know. Some rules are interpretational and can have different outcomes" the confused look i got made me feel like such a fool.

Haha, yep and the are trying to sell the game to overseas markets.
How the hell are the going to go explaining the rules when people who grew up playing and watching the game are confused week to week.
I knew Christian was going to make the MRO a farce after he stated that they have to grade any elbow as intentional then let’s Mitchell off the very next week for a behind the play elbow to the head of a bloke whose 8 inches taller then him!
As you said though, if the precedent has been set with Burton and accidental head knocks then that has to be consistent with all others this year, no ifs or buts!

 

[BLERN]

Haha, yep and the are trying to sell the game to overseas markets.
How the hell are the going to go explaining the rules when people who grew up playing and watching the game are confused week to week.
I knew Christian was going to make the MRO a farce after he stated that they have to grade any elbow as intentional then let’s Mitchell off the very next week for a behind the play elbow to the head of a bloke whose 8 inches taller then him!
As you said though, if the precedent has been set with Burton and accidental head knocks then that has to be consistent with all others this year, no ifs or buts!

Yep. And then comes out this week an says re. Fyfe incident "a raised forearm or elbow is usually conclusive that it is intentional. He runs at greenwood and jumps off the ground and raises his forearm and makes contact with levis head. Taking into account that he was able to play on after a brief time we settled on low impact. We try to judge each incident on its own merits. Not thinking about the names or the players involved and make an assesment as best we can"

I couldnt help but think. So why the **** did mitchell get off. As far as im concerned his was worse because it wasnt in play. No split second decision. Much more intentional than fyfe. Or maybe harder to argue that it wasnt intentional.

He is just proving that he doesnt really know what he is doing. But i think we all knew that after a couple of weeks. The sad thing is that there are probably hundreds of posters on this site more capable of being the "MRO" than most of these ex footy players. I dont know what the answer is to fix the issue of the MRO/MRP or the guidelines or rules in general that allow this confusion. But its pretty self-evident that its not working in its current form

 

[Chappycats]

Yep. And then comes out this week an says re. Fyfe incident "a raised forearm or elbow is usually conclusive that it is intentional. He runs at greenwood and jumps off the ground and raises his forearm and makes contact with levis head. Taking into account that he was able to play on after a brief time we settled on low impact. We try to judge each incident on its own merits. Not thinking about the names or the players involved and make an assesment as best we can"

I couldnt help but think. So why the **** did mitchell get off. As far as im concerned his was worse because it wasnt in play. No split second decision. Much more intentional than fyfe. Or maybe harder to argue that it wasnt intentional.

He is just proving that he doesnt really know what he is doing. But i think we all knew that after a couple of weeks. The sad thing is that there are probably hundreds of posters on this site more capable of being the "MRO" than most of these ex footy players. I dont know what the answer is to fix the issue of the MRO/MRP or the guidelines or rules in general that allow this confusion. But its pretty self-evident that its not working in its current form

Exactly!
Now I can understand that the argument for Mitchell getting off was below the force required but the intent was far more then Fyfe, but that’s not what he explained.
To me I first thought that the Fyfe incident was careless not intentional but also if we are then comparing the relative forces then Fyfe gets off because Greenwood suffered no injuries.
Fyfe was worth a fine but to say his was intentional and Mitchell’s wasn’t is absurd!

 

[BLERN]

Exactly!
Now I can understand that the argument for Mitchell getting off was below the force required but the intent was far more then Fyfe, but that’s not what he explained.
To me I first thought that the Fyfe incident was careless not intentional but also if we are then comparing the relative forces then Fyfe gets off because Greenwood suffered no injuries.
Fyfe was worth a fine but to say his was intentional and Mitchell’s wasn’t is absurd!

Yeah thats what confuses me too. Mitchell was graded as misconduct i believe and is the reason he essentially got off.

Given fyfes was in play i can understand that it was never going to be graded as anything other than intentional or careless. And i personally dont see it as intentional. Yes he does have a bit of a track record of silly decisions. But so do most prolific ball winners.

Im now at a point where i dont even know what im arguing for. And im guessing you are the same. Hence why both of us have gone from discussing simpkin to fyfe and mitchell and burton without any real effort. They are all bloody confusing because of different results for each of them even thoough each have similarities and parallels.

 

[Chappycats]

Yeah thats what confuses me too. Mitchell was graded as misconduct i believe and is the reason he essentially got off.

Given fyfes was in play i can understand that it was never going to be graded as anything other than intentional or careless. And i personally dont see it as intentional. Yes he does have a bit of a track record of silly decisions. But so do most prolific ball winners.

Im now at a point where i dont even know what im arguing for. And im guessing you are the same. Hence why both of us have gone from discussing simpkin to fyfe and mitchell and burton without any real effort. They are all bloody confusing because of different results for each of them even thoough each have similarities and parallels.

Yeah the sad part was it was meant to be more consistent and we should have been able to compare and say that is similar to x so should expect a similar outcome/argument.
But if anything it’s been more of a chook lotto and even the MRO has different arguments for similar actions!

 

[BLERN]

Yeah the sad part was it was meant to be more consistent and we should have been able to compare and say that is similar to x so should expect a similar outcome/argument.
But if anything it’s been more of a chook lotto and even the MRO has different arguments for similar actions!

A lotto would be more consistent.

At least there is a system to support it.

I dont believe that statement AT ALL! Hahaha

 

[zacaxel1975]

Feel sorry for this kid, rough end of the stick and a pretty clear cut incorrect decision for mine. There is a difference between bumping someone and turning to protect yourself, and everyone should be able to protect themselves. Split second and almost involuntary action, like flinching.
Was it two weeks? Harsh.

 

[shintemaster]

I find this a particularly ridiculous decision.

 

[Devington]

Mind boggled.

What was his 'reasonable alternative'? Running at the ball faster/slower?

I'm serious. What other alternatives while competing for that loose ball did he have? This isn't a 'choosing to tackle or bump' situation. This isn't a 'charging in hip first when a player already has their head down' situation. It's two blokes running to get the same loose ball from different directions and one getting there a fraction of a second later. WTF else was he supposed to do?

 

[Chadwiko]

I find this a particularly ridiculous decision.

Watch your profanity