Molloy incident

[walshy1993]

firstly i want to say, i dont think there was too much wrong with it
but i want to compare it with the long incident in the grannie last year

now both players who got hit had eyes only for the ball
they both got hit by guys whose sole focus was to make physical contact, legally may i add
molloy was airborne when contact was made and long was on the ground

the main difference i see is that simmonds went off on a stretcher and gasper didnt

interesting to see whether molloy will get suspended, both incidents were very similar other than the outcome

does the outcome make a difference, considering gasper could have easily been knocked out?

 

[Richmondfan#1]

I saw it, i have no opinion on it yet...

However, did anyone see the same incident at the kangaroos/cats match? Carey did the same thing to someone and didn't get a report. I can't even remember if there was a free kick given.

------------------
Yellow n Black is the colour of the sky and the grass.

 

[bulldogs1]

Wayne Campbell must have seen it. Let's wait until Monday morning.

Originally posted by Richmondfan#1:
I saw it, i have no opinion on it yet...

However, did anyone see the same incident at the kangaroos/cats match? Carey did the same thing to someone and didn't get a report. I can't even remember if there was a free kick given.

 

[Dan26]

Molloy is gone.

Rightly or wrongly, he is gone.

 

[Danny Chook Fan Club]

My take on it:

- Went past the ball
- Left the ground
- Hit Gaspar in the head

Verdict: Guilty
Sentence: One week

Let's see how I go.

 

[Dan26]

Sure, the ball was within five metres, and sure he didn't raise his elbow, and contacted him with the hoip and shoulder. All that is fine.

The problem was, that under the circumstances, it was unreasonable and unnecessary. He had no intention of going for the ball. He just thrust himself into an opposition player who was going for the ball. Unnecessary, in my view. There is nothing courageous or tough about what he did, and he should cop a suspension.

 

[Guest]

To me...it wasn't any different to the Lloyd incident. If the tribunal are serious, they would be best served by at least being consistant! It's a one week job IMO!

 

[ant]

Anyone see Roo's hit on Houlihan?? A few commentators reckon it might be called up on video, hard and fair hit, ball within 5 metres, could say it was a shepard but only had eyes for the body though. Who knows nowadays.

 

[Asgardian]

If history is any guide, once a player jumps into that type of contact, the offending player will be suspended.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just what usually happens at the tribunal

------------------
Chris

(Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus)

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

HAHA!! Interesting that those particularly obsessed Bomber fans are still trying to lessen the seriousness of the Long incident by comparing it to anything they can. Get over it people. Essendon actually won that game unlike the '99 prelim obsession.

Oh, and 'if Matty can get one week for what he did, then the tribunal have to suspend Molloy' argument is comparing apples and oranges.

Comment on the incident, sure. Come up with a precendent, okay. But why does every incident come back to the Long incident when seeking justice. Obviously the first thing the umpires do when looking at booking somebody on video evidence is play the tape of Long first. I think it must be the rule of thump as far as tribunal decisions go too!

 

[LC_15]

I was directly behind the incident, about 40 metres (was near the 50 M Line). Looked more like Molloy lifted his elbow. I could swear that he did. But memory is always a little unreliable. To me, Molloy would get 2.

And also, don't try and compare the Long incident to this. What Molloy did was not even 1/2 of how serious Longs hit was.

LC_15

 

[JUBJUB]

Originally posted by ant:
Anyone see Roo's hit on Houlihan?? A few commentators reckon it might be called up on video, hard and fair hit, ball within 5 metres, could say it was a shepard but only had eyes for the body though. Who knows nowadays.

I think the commentators might be right.



------------------
"FIGHTING WITH ALL OUR MIGHT"

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Dan25:
Sure, the ball was within five metres, and sure he didn't raise his elbow, and contacted him with the hip and shoulder. All that is fine.

Malloy is a Collingwood player and will get suspended just for that.

I fully agree with you Dan. Except I have to make two additional points.

Firstly, the ball was not only within five metres, it was closer to being within five centimetres of Gasper/Malloy. Gasper had the ball in his grip and therefore Malloy was attacking the ball.

Secondly, the fact that Malloy left the ground slightly and Gasper was slightly bent over, meant that an otherwise perfect hip and shoulder, made contact above the opponent's shoulders. Free kick? Yep. Plus fifty? No, and there wasn't one awarded.

Originally posted by topdon:
To me...it wasn't any different to the Lloyd incident.

This was posted late at night topdon, so I'll just assume you were tanked. Raised elbow compared to legitimate hip and shoulder = Big Difference.

But here is the funny part. Lloyd; Defininte raised elbow with deliberate contact made to head to player without ball = 1 week.

Malloy; Legitimate hip and shoulder made to player with ball, in attempt to dislodge ball, accidental/incidental contact made above shoulders = 1-2 weeks (my estimate).

And any comparrison made to the Long incident is ridiculous. Malloy; see above. Long; sights player bending over to pick up ball, which is still on ground, followed by cowardly (adn successful) attempt to seriously injure the player by deliberately applying a hip and shoulder to the vunerable player's head and neck region. Nuff said!

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by LC_15:
I was directly behind the incident, about 40 metres (was near the 50 M Line). Looked more like Molloy lifted his elbow. I could swear that he did. But memory is always a little unreliable. To me, Molloy would get 2.

And also, don't try and compare the Long incident to this. What Molloy did was not even 1/2 of how serious Longs hit was.

LC_15

You must have been 1 bay around from me LC_15!

My first thought was that he raised the elbow but after seeing it on replay am not so sure!

There is a distinct difference between this and the Michael Long incident.

Molloy went for a fair hip and shoulder which had some incidental contact with the head. Definite free kick, but not much more!

Long on the other hand lined Simmonds up from front on and deliberately went for the head. That is why he was reported and got 4 (Claytons) weeks.

My gut call is Molloy will get off. The fact that his feet left the ground is irrelevant.



------------------
Public Execution - Collingwood match review - Collingwood Preview
Short Stories - Why Richmond shouldn't wear white shorts.

 

[amazonstud]

I think Molloy will get 2 weeks. Given that the wording of these charges now includes "reckless" and that one word seems to carry a lot of weight at the tribunal he'll get two.

I think if he'd had his arms oustretched as if to smother the ball and then turned side on at the last second given that Gaspar had just gotten rid of the ball then he'd get away with it. But I don't think Molloy changed his action at the last second so it would appear he was going to charge into him and then left the ground.

Apart from not having a squeaky clean image ala Lloyd his feet left the ground and that constitutes a reckless action as he cannoned into Gaspar and made contact above the shoulders. So two weeks.

Is it just me or has "reckless" only just been included in the definition under charges at the tribunal.

 

[Olmy]

Originally posted by FIGJAM:

Malloy is a Collingwood player and will get suspended just for that.

Wrong! Molloy is a Fitzroy player! You've just got him on loan . . .

 

[Olmy]

Originally posted by Asgardian:
If history is any guide, once a player jumps into that type of contact, the offending player will be suspended.
Not saying I agree or disagree, just what usually happens at the tribunal

Yeah, similar to C.Scott's suspension in '99, during the finals. After Powell had gotten rid of the ball, the fact that C.Scott jumped into him, rather than just running through him, made all the difference from just a down-field free kick, to an actual suspension.

 

[Darky]

I reckon he will get 2. The charging rule is very cloudy.

The segment on the news was also the first I had seen of the M.Johnson-S.Grant alleged charge from Round 1 - should never have been reported in the first place.

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by Dan25:
Molloy is gone.

Rightly or wrongly, he is gone.

Yes Dan. As usual you get everything correct

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club:
My take on it:

- Went past the ball
- Left the ground
- Hit Gaspar in the head

Verdict: Guilty
Sentence: One week

Let's see how I go.

 

[Joel]

Check the replay. Didn't lift his arm.

Originally posted by LC_15:
I was directly behind the incident, about 40 metres (was near the 50 M Line). Looked more like Molloy lifted his elbow. I could swear that he did. But memory is always a little unreliable. To me, Molloy would get 2.

And also, don't try and compare the Long incident to this. What Molloy did was not even 1/2 of how serious Longs hit was.

LC_15

 

[Carey_is_King]

Is this basketball or football ? There was nothing wrong with it as far as I am concerned.(in a reportable sense) The head contact was incidental and therefore warranted a free.

------------------
Trample the Weak,
Hurdle the Dead.

 

[Seth]

Originally posted by Dan25:
Sure, the ball was within five metres, and sure he didn't raise his elbow, and contacted him with the hoip and shoulder. All that is fine.

The problem was, that under the circumstances, it was unreasonable and unnecessary. He had no intention of going for the ball. He just thrust himself into an opposition player who was going for the ball. Unnecessary, in my view. There is nothing courageous or tough about what he did, and he should cop a suspension.

Dan have to disagree with you about unreasonable and unnecessary. My opinion in relation to charging is that it applies when players are charged when they reasonably do not expect to be. Gasper had the ball and must have known that he could be taken out with a bump/shirtfront etc. This rule is for the player running along gingerly down the wing not really chasing anyone who gets clenaned up when he didn't reaaly expect to be.

Anyway as I type I believe he got off which is a good result. I guess they are then consistent with Campbells charge earlier this year. I can see that this charge rull really needs clarification.



------------------
The future is black and white.

 

[CJH]

Originally posted by CJH:

My first thought was that he raised the elbow but after seeing it on replay am not so sure!

...

Molloy went for a fair hip and shoulder which had some incidental contact with the head. Definite free kick, but not much more!

...

My gut call is Molloy will get off. The fact that his feet left the ground is irrelevant.

Told you so!



------------------
Public Execution - Collingwood match review - Collingwood Preview
Short Stories - Why Richmond shouldn't wear white shorts.

 

[Michele]

Originally posted by CJH:
Told you so!

Very good call CJH, but now I think I have to agree with Hird and Buckley.!!!!!

I think the rule is too "grey" and too much interpretation is left to indivdual umpires at different games. The tribunal's rulings are not more helpful either. ie tonight's ruling and justification.

Michele

NMFC 1869