No case to answer

[NSWCROW]

First off , cheers to the MRP for winning me $20 off the old-boy

Second , NO CASE TO ANSWER is just extracting !!!.......not even on a RECKLESSNESS basis ????

IIRC that pert tosser who slung Freedy Bassett to the ground last year didn't have a case to answer either....or the Andrew Welsh elbow to Goody's head.....or the cheap shot on Porps last year.....Farmer kneeing Dogga.......

One could get a complex about these things.....

 

[kimirocks]

This is what the MRP had to say;

Contact between Fremantle’s Luke McPharlin and Adelaide’s Scott Stevens from the second quarter of Sunday’s match was assessed. It was the view of the panel that McPharlin ran back to contest the ball. Initially, he had his eyes on the ball and was looking over his shoulder.
The Fremantle player then looked at the marking contest while moving towards it. McPharlin then looked up again at the ball as it went over his head, just prior to reaching Stevens. Given that his eyes were on the ball just before contact was made, it was considered a legitimate attempt to spoil the ball. No further action was taken.

 

[jo172]

Seriously though, he raised his knees, he was expecting the impact. It wasnt courageous, it was stupid.

It was ****ing soft really. If you know the collision is only going to happen on your knee you know you're not going to be in much pain as the knee's a ****ing hard bone.

A hard player would have run back facing the other way into it.

But hey, it's classic Fremantle soft football hence leading to pathetic results.

 

[cmndstab]

I was just about to make a thread about this. I'm furious that it didn't even make it to the tribunal. I really don't usually get so worked up that I'm still angry a day after a match but this is ridiculous.


The whole point of the new tribunal system was to make things transparent. So, here is the tribunal rulebook for 2009. I will now demonstrate using this rulebook that A) the rules are not transparent at all, and B) extrapolating from the unclear rulebook as best I can, there is no way McPharlane could not have been cited.

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/Tribunal_Booklet_2009.pdf

Let me first go easy on McPharlane when picking out the offence here, then go realistic. We have options:

Conduct: Negligent, Reckless and Intentional. Let's go with Negligent for now.
Impact: Low, Medium, High and Severe. This dude was knocked out with a knee to the god damn face, but let's go with High for now. It's very ambiguous as to which this is. Can anyone remember a similar incident that was cited and what impact was chosen there?
Contact: High/Groin, Body. Clearly this is High.

A Neglient, High impact, High/Groin hit gives 6 activation points, which is a level 3 offense. Now, I'm not sure whether this would be counted as striking, or charging, or whatever, but the minimum penalty for a level 3 offense is 225 points, or a 2 week suspension. Even with good behaviour and an early plea, that ends up over 100 points.


Now, let's look realistically. The act was reckless, not negligent. You do not "negligently" slam your knee into someone's head late in a marking contest. This becomes a level 4 offence, with a minimum penalty of 325 points. If we bump the impact up to severe, it becomes a level 5 offence, with a minimum penalty of 425 points.



Finally, let me quote from the tribunal rulebook.

Rough conduct
It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally, recklessly or negligently engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.

When determining whether or not the Conduct was unreasonable, consideration should be given, but not limited, to whether the player is not, or would not reasonably be, expected to influence the contest.

Was it reasonable to expect McPharlane to attempt to spoil the ball? Yes. Was the force of his knee cannoning into Stevens' jaw after the ball had already passed overhead reasonable? No way in hell.

Furthermore, let's visit the rules for bumping. I'd visit rules specifically for spoiling if they actually had any but of course they don't so we'll have to go with the rules for bumping.

Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be
deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:

(a) contest the ball;
(b) tackle; or
(c) shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.

In determining whether there was a realistic alternative
to shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the
circumstances, regard will be given to:

• whether the degree of force applied by the person bumping
  was excessive for the situation;
• whether the player being bumped was actively involved in the
  passage of play;
• the distance the player applying the bump has run to make
  contact;
• whether the player being bumped is in a position to protect
  himself or is in a vulnerable position;
• whether an elbow is part of the contact;
• whether the player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to
  bump.

1) Getting concussed from an "attempted spoil" in a marking contest is excessive for the situation.
2) Hands out taking a mark does not put you in a position to protect yourself.
3) McPharlane's knee hit Stevens in the jaw. He left the ground.



If it comes to pass that the AFL have decided that injuries to the head are not automatically citable in a marking contest, I am certain there will be plenty of footballers that have been cited and suspended over the past few years that will be feeling very hard done by. The AFL have absolutely dropped the ball with this one.


The worst part of it is they will get away with it. If the Crows so much as complain about it they'll be accused of "breaking the player's code" and Chad Cornes himself will probably come out and tell us to watch out in round 6. Put this incident on file, AFC. The next time we are cited for head-high contact I want Neil Craig himself to march into the tribunals court, slam it into the machine, play it, then grab the video and walk straight back out again.

 

[jo172]

It's been open season on Crows players for years though, take last year's showdown for one.

The AFL doesn't suspend on merit but on publicity. If a match happens between two Victorian sides in Prime Time that hit would have gotten 2-3 weeks. But due to two interstate sides playing in Perth on a Sunday evening they couldn't give a stuff.

It's the same BS we've been putting up with for years.

All goes back to ****ing Port Adelaide forcing us to enter the competition early and not being able to do it on our own terms ensuring a fair deal for us and we continue to suffer to this day.

 

[smoovy]

I remember Mcleod being suspended for the exact same thing against Matthew Lloyd probably about 7 years ago now. Think it was at Docklands.

I thought the MRP when assessing negligent/reckless etc had to to determine whether there was anything the offending player could have done to reduce the severity of the contact.

 

[SAAndy]

I was just about to make a thread about this. I'm furious that it didn't even make it to the tribunal. I really don't usually get so worked up that I'm still angry a day after a match but this is ridiculous.


The whole point of the new tribunal system was to make things transparent. So, here is the tribunal rulebook for 2009. I will now demonstrate using this rulebook that A) the rules are not transparent at all, and B) extrapolating from the unclear rulebook as best I can, there is no way McPharlane could not have been cited.

Good post but its Mcpharlin isnt it?

 

[NSWCROW]

I remember Mcleod being suspended for the exact same thing against Matthew Lloyd probably about 7 years ago now. Think it was at Docklands.

What was particularly infuriating was that the very next day GAVIN WANGANEEN actually jumped OVER the footy to hit a bloke and.........nada

 

[cmndstab]

Good post but its Mcpharlin isnt it?

Well, there goes my credibility

Also, please don't quote enormous posts in their entirety, it just makes the thread difficult to read

 

[jenny61_99]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised at all because, although I thought it was very clumsy, I didn't for one minute believe he maliciously went after Stevo. I believed he was running with the flight of the ball and at the last minute looked to see Stevens where he wanted to be. Contact was incidental and unfortunate. I didn't think it would be reported.

 

[jo172]

Well, I can't say I'm surprised at all because, although I thought it was very clumsy, I didn't for one minute believe he maliciously went after Stevo. I believed he was running with the flight of the ball and at the last minute looked to see Stevens where he wanted to be. Contact was incidental and unfortunate. I didn't think it would be reported.

Then it's clear you don't really understand the rules of football.

Contact doesn't have to be malicious, as long as it is reckless, negligent or intentional it is still very suspendable.

But don't worry, having that kind of understanding makes you perfectly capable of being an umpire, administrator or commentator

 

[ltdamn]

That's unbelievable - it was one of the softest and most negligent gutless acts I've ever seen. He clearly went back with the intention of interfering with Stevens ability to mark the ball, took his eyes off the footy and put them on the contest, and when he realised that he'd fluffed it and was going to make contact front on he absolutely squibbed it and raised his knees and arms to protect himself, and smashed Stevens in the process.

If that was amateur footy he would have been sent off immediately and the coach would have dragged him if he wasn't for having no guts and not contesting properly. If Rutten had done that to Pavlich he would have been reported on the spot.

He had every opportunity to turn around and watch the ball instead of the contest, but he didn't have the courage to take his eyes off the contact coming towards him.

Absolutely typical of the way Fremantle play - no skill, no thought, no courage.

 

[jenny61_99]

Then it's clear you don't really understand the rules of football.

Contact doesn't have to be malicious, as long as it is reckless, negligent or intentional it is still very suspendable.

But don't worry, having that kind of understanding makes you perfectly capable of being an umpire, administrator or commentator

Jo, have just read the other thread and having a clearer understanding now believe that at least it should have been reviewed. If he'd lined Stevens up, I would say throw the book at him, but I honestly believe (in reviewing the incident several times), he was running back with the flight of the ball and turned to see Stevens there and instantaneously they collided.

 

[magtrev]

I am shocked and confused as to why he hasn't been reffered to the tribunal, but im not unhappy.

it was an unco attempt with no malice. He shouldve gone for reckless high contact, but clearly without intent to cave his face in and to quote a schoolyard basketball rule no harm, no foul.

 

[Seanason]

Reckless. Severe. High. w***er.

Im still waiting to see the video evidence that suggests he was looking at the ball at any time prior to the collision.

Even if he was, how it isnt negligent or reckless is beyond belief. Id be asking for a please explain.

 

[DOCKERZ]

That's unbelievable - it was one of the softest and most negligent gutless acts I've ever seen. He clearly went back with the intention of interfering with Stevens ability to mark the ball, took his eyes off the footy and put them on the contest, and when he realised that he'd fluffed it and was going to make contact front on he absolutely squibbed it and raised his knees and arms to protect himself, and smashed Stevens in the process.

If that was amateur footy he would have been sent off immediately and the coach would have dragged him if he wasn't for having no guts and not contesting properly. If Rutten had done that to Pavlich he would have been reported on the spot.

He had every opportunity to turn around and watch the ball instead of the contest, but he didn't have the courage to take his eyes off the contact coming towards him.

Absolutely typical of the way Fremantle play - no skill, no thought, no courage.

I don't often post outside our board but I could not let this post slide without response.

I'll firstly say that I fully expected McPharlin to get at least a couple of weeks on the sideline, it was Negligent, or even reckless, obviously High speed Impact at Head height. Thank goodness Stevens is OK, when contact was made I feared James Hird like injuries.

Now to Itdamn's rant.
Soft/Gutless would have been to not make the contest at all. Sprinting at full pace while watching the ball over your shoulder, leaping into the unknown and not knowing what was coming the other way is far from gutless. Yes, his eyes were at Stevens on contact, pretty sure that's about where the ball was going to be too.

When jumping, you'll find McPharlin, as well as most of the human population, will raise a knee to get more lift, he does this whether he's jumping over a pack or over a puddle.
Simmonds was crunched by a knee in the back of the head in a ruck contest v the Bulldogs, guess that was by someone gutless too. Seen the olympic high jumpers? Pretty sure they raise a knee.

Dunno if you've tried turning around at full pace, but I end up on my arse.

Anyway, you guys have every right to be vociferous in your surprise at the non referral, but to call it soft or gutless is unfair.

I'll crawl back to our little board now, heck we have plenty to talk about.

 

[relapse]

I agree with the decision, I said from the moment it happened there was no malice in it. Free kick definately, 50 ? Maybe, but definately not a report. I definitely thought he was going for the ball.

 

[Geoffa32]

I agree with the decision, I said from the moment it happened there was no malice in it. Free kick definately, 50 ? Maybe, but definately not a report. I definitely thought he was going for the ball.

I agree

We got the goal and Stevo was not hurt as badly as could have been. I was thinking Steve Waugh/Dizzy clash at the time.

 

[jenny61_99]

I agree with the decision, I said from the moment it happened there was no malice in it. Free kick definately, 50 ? Maybe, but definately not a report. I definitely thought he was going for the ball.

It's funny how we all see things differently isn't it?

 

[marvin]

it was an unco attempt with no malice. He shouldve gone for reckless high contact, but clearly without intent to cave his face in and to quote a schoolyard basketball rule no harm, no foul.

No harm? Stevens was stretchered off, took no further part in the game and may or may not play this week. I'd hate to see harm.

I agree

We got the goal and Stevo was not hurt as badly as could have been. I was thinking Steve Waugh/Dizzy clash at the time.

The Match Review Panel guidelines are quite explicit. The for injury is just as good a reason to cite/suspend a player as actual injury. So the fact that Stevens was "not hurt as badly as he could have been" doesn't really count; it's how badly he could have been hurt that's the main thing.

Look, maybe I'm turning soft in my old age. All I know is I've got a footy-mad, Crows-obsessed son who understands you just can't hack away with your feet at a ball on the ground in a pack, and that you can't dive on the back of someone on the ground with a ball, to protect your opponents. And that to do these sort of things have consequences.

Yet as of Sunday you can now run front on into a player with your knees up and knock him senseless, without repercussion. He can't understand it, I can't explain it, and it's just inconsistent with everything that coaches try to work into their training in Auskick and junior footy.

 

[magtrev]

No harm? Stevens was stretchered off, took no further part in the game and may or may not play this week. I'd hate to see harm.

no harm long term - sounds like his face is structurally fine and he is recoverring from the concussion.

/shrug, i didn't even think it was a 50, as Stevo didn't take the mark. although the 50 against Stiffy earlier in the game was wrong for similar reasons (high contact,, but accidental and in the marking contest)

In my humble opinion, wrong decision not to cite him looking at the rules and consistency, right decision from a footy perspective.

 

[crowugoodthing]

If it was Gary Ablett instead of Steven's I promise you it would be put up and would be the biggest story of the weekend!

 

[jo172]

Now to Itdamn's rant.
Soft/Gutless would have been to not make the contest at all. Sprinting at full pace while watching the ball over your shoulder, leaping into the unknown and not knowing what was coming the other way is far from gutless. Yes, his eyes were at Stevens on contact, pretty sure that's about where the ball was going to be too.:

No, the leap was soft, if Stevens and the other Fremantle bloke were in the air (which he knew they weren't as he had his eyes on them and not the ball) it would have been somewhat courageous but by leaping he completely excluded the possibility of harm coming to himself, particularly by sticking his knee out, the hardest bit of his body.

The jump was gutless because he jumped over the trajectory of the ball, there was never any possibility of him sustaining contact or the ball so long as he jumped.

A gutsy footballer would have ran back into the pack with his eyes on the ball at full pace and never left the ground. Look at Johnathon Brown's Mark of the Year a few years back for an example.

 

[jo172]

[YOUTUBE]iqPk-EpHQVA[/YOUTUBE]

That's the mark i'm talking about.

Notice the trajectory where Brown leaves the ground. He jumps at the last second only where he can actually mark the ball and he never takes his eye off the ball.

That's hard, what McPharlin did was soft.

 

[brucetiki]

I'd like to know why the MRP have made no reference to the head-high contact in it's findings - the reason it was investigated in the first place?

The Crows need to file this incident, then cite precident whenever a Crow gets booked for head high contact.