Mitch Duncan on Aaron Hall

Remove this Banner Ad

Munro_Mick

All Australian
Mar 15, 2007
742
51
Mill Park
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Danish Vikings
Or the Jack Riewoldt studs in the back speccie.
Don't hurt me Tigers fans...
The comparisons to marks are such a "worst case scenario" on something like this.

In the Duncan case look (see images below) at where he launched from and where he landed (past Hall after collecting him). He didn't just jump 'up'.

re marking contests - - there's a lot of freedom there; they've given up paying the push off the shoulders with the hands.Certainly the studs up is dangerous and should be penalised.

Raised knees are outlawed in Supers/Masters footy. I can understand why but never a great fan of it.

1618884361734.png
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Munro_Mick

All Australian
Mar 15, 2007
742
51
Mill Park
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Danish Vikings
And that’s why the AFL concluded, “It was determined by the MRO that the action was not unreasonable in the circumstances,”
A smother is targetting the ball.

NOT a leaping shirtfront that knocks the guy out.

It might seem a little too subtle for some out there to understand........especially umpy #17.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
20,521
18,224
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
A smother is targetting the ball.

NOT a leaping shirtfront that knocks the guy out.

It might seem a little too subtle for some out there to understand........especially umpy #17.
LOL. The use of highly emotional exaggeration won’t change the outcome, and nor should it. The free kick was missed. That’s all it warranted
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
7,614
17,772
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
Geelong supporters now proclaiming that the MRO/tribunal are faultless. A big turnaround from what we were hearing in rounds 1 and 2.

"Action not unreasonable in the circumstances" could become a catchcry from clubs and supporters of players fronting the tribunal.
 

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 28, 2006
20,521
18,224
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
Geelong supporters now proclaiming that the MRO/tribunal are faultless. A big turnaround from what we were hearing in rounds 1 and 2.

"Action not unreasonable in the circumstances" could become a catchcry from clubs and supporters of players fronting the tribunal.
I don't think any Geelong supporter has said that. My view is that common sense prevailed in this instance. No doubt you disagree, but hey, what else would one expect?
 

Munro_Mick

All Australian
Mar 15, 2007
742
51
Mill Park
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Danish Vikings
"a leaping shirtfront" - if the MRO had deemed it to be this, i.e., a bump, he'd have been cited, probably sent straight to the tribunal.
It was hardly an "emotional exaggeration".

Perhaps an "eloquently painted description"


As it is - - I still look at from where Duncan launched off his left foot - at that point committing to a huge flying leap at the kicker.

So....yup.....it's a bump to me.


#HangingJudge
 

BF Tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 5, 2007
7,614
17,772
9th
AFL Club
Richmond
I don't think any Geelong supporter has said that. My view is that common sense prevailed in this instance. No doubt you disagree, but hey, what else would one expect?
And common sense prevailed in the Dangerfield and Rohan incidents. No doubt you disagree, but hey, what else would one expect?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Elroo

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2014
3,369
4,985
AFL Club
North Melbourne
2012 Jack Zieball accidently knocked out a Carlton player during a contest; the umpire on the scene said nothing in as JZ his eyes on the ball.

The Tribunal said so what, JZ had an alternative to jumping and making a contest for the ball, so therefore he was guilty.


NORTH Melbourne's decision to challenge a rough-conduct ban against Jack Ziebell has backfired, with the midfielder to be sidelined by the tribunal until round 21.
The Kangaroos challenged Ziebell's rough-conduct charge - his second within a year - for crashing into Carlton's Aaron Joseph on the basis he was legitimately pursuing a loose ball when contact occurred. Their failure to convince the tribunal of that resulted in a four-match suspension for the midfielder.
Jack Ziebell leaves the tribunal after he was banned for four weeks.

Jack Ziebell leaves the tribunal after he was banned for four weeks.Credit:Michael Clayton-Jones
Defence counsel Will Houghton, QC, disputed the relevance of Joseph having to be substituted with concussion after the second-quarter incident at the weekend. ''It doesn't follow that just because a collision occurred there was rough conduct,'' he said.
Nevertheless, the tribunal jury of Wayne Henwood, Emmett Dunne and Wayne Schimmelbusch rejected the view that Ziebell was legitimately trying to gain possession, and that he instead had a ''realistic alternative'' to contest the ball than jumping in the air and catching Joseph high.


4-weeks for this, an act the umpire said occurred in play and had his eyes on the ball the entire time.
 

kidkenobi

Club Legend
May 3, 2008
1,352
1,785
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
2012 Jack Zieball accidently knocked out a Carlton player during a contest; the umpire on the scene said nothing in as JZ his eyes on the ball.

The Tribunal said so what, JZ had an alternative to jumping and making a contest for the ball, so therefore he was guilty.






4-weeks for this, an act the umpire said occurred in play and had his eyes on the ball the entire time.
This was also 9 years ago. It’s hard to compare them on that basis alone (in terms of MRO outcome).

Considering the way the whole situation played out is extremely rare and it was accidental, it makes sense to just put it down as a footballing incident with no further punishment. The only other option would be to have a blanket rule deeming any concussion caused is automatically suspension-worthy regardless of the circumstances, which would be ridiculous in a contact sport.

If it were to happen more often from now, the AFL would then be forced to address it more thoroughly and potentially come up with a specific rule to address that exact situation, but as it stands now, it was just an unfortunate accident and that’s about all there is to it.
 

Devington

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 4, 2013
10,141
20,332
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This was also 9 years ago. It’s hard to compare them on that basis alone (in terms of MRO outcome).

Considering the way the whole situation played out is extremely rare and it was accidental, it makes sense to just put it down as a footballing incident with no further punishment. The only other option would be to have a blanket rule deeming any concussion caused is automatically suspension-worthy regardless of the circumstances, which would be ridiculous in a contact sport.

If it were to happen more often from now, the AFL would then be forced to address it more thoroughly and potentially come up with a specific rule to address that exact situation, but as it stands now, it was just an unfortunate accident and that’s about all there is to it.
The bump is notorious for causing concussion, hence why after going backwards and forwards on how to adjudicate it for the last decade they've finally (or is it just currently?) decided that there is no "accidental" head contact from a bump and so you're going to be graded careless at a minimum. Smothering doesn't exactly have the same issues.

It's why I'm A-OK with this being graded as accidental even though it was a devastating blow. Now, if Duncan finds himself in a similar circumstance in a few weeks time you might raise an eyebrow, but unless there's some kind of pattern that evolves with either him or players at large then there's simply nothing in this one.

Accidents happen, and people get hurt. It's a contact sport, and 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 match review wrongs don't make a right. As bullshit as some of the previous charges (and some penalties) have been, I'm not going to complain when they get one right.
 

kickazz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
9,002
12,196
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Accident for sure.

But it's the sort of incident that is so rare we can just call it an accident. I recon if it started happening more often, that is, players aggressively approaching to smother then turning and hurting a player, we'd probably have to rethink it and clarify it as careless or reckless.

Just don't have enough examples off it to really understand the risk profile.
 

Remove this Banner Ad