No case to answer

[RealSlimShady]

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

What is even more confusing is that a player touching the ump will get more punishment than Macpharlin. Just goes to show how much of a joke the AFL are in regards to enforcing their own screwed up rules. Macpharlin deserved at least one, possibly two games for this but as usual the Crows are getting royally ****** up the **** once again!

 

[beartoo]

It was reckless and stupid. Should have been cited and should have got a few weeks.
Think back to Burton sliding with his eyes on the ball. 2 weeks for unintentional head high contact where the other player was uninjured.
The tribunal needs a rocket up its clacker and someone from the Crows, Reid or Triggy to give it to them.
The way we are being treated by umpires and now the tribunal this year is farcical

 

[Smoooothy]

i wonder if there would have been any punishment if stevens had a broken face instead of a concussion...

still a joke

 

[cmndstab]

i wonder if there would have been any punishment if stevens had a broken face instead of a concussion...

still a joke

The rulebook (I'm an expert now! ) states that the severity of the injury is taken into account when deciding on the level of impact.

 

[marvin]

The rulebook (I'm an expert now! ) states that the severity of the injury is taken into account when deciding on the level of impact.

They are a little ambiguous in the 2009 tribunal booklet.

Page 11:

In determining the level of impact, regard will be had to the
extent of force and in particular, any injury sustained by the
player who was offended against. Regard will also be had to the
potential to cause serious injury​

Page 13:

The Match Review Panel and the Tribunal can inquire and
receive information as to the nature and extent of any injury
suffered by a player in relation to a reportable offence.
The nature and extent of injury may be a relevant factor in
determining the level of impact, point of contact and in some
instances, the nature of the conduct.​

So the brittleness or otherwise of the victim's cheekbone is a factor; but also the potential of the impact to do more damage than actually happened.

 

[RealSlimShady]

The rulebook (I'm an expert now! ) states that the severity of the injury is taken into account when deciding on the level of impact.

Well if thats the case then Shaw has nothing to worry about and Diesel didnt deserve 9(?) for his contact with the ump either

 

[pjcrows]

I've got no doubt McPharlin wasn't trying to knee him in the face - it was actually courageous for him to go back with the flight like that - but with the AFL saying for 4 years that "the head is sacrisanct, recklessness around the head won't be tolerated", I am utterly bemused that this wasn't even cited.

If it had involved a Victorian player it would be headline news.

 

[Thesaurus]

I'm totally bewildered that this has been deemed no case to answer. McPharlin jumped in the air with both knees raised and made head high contact while having his back to the ball. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the AFL intent on cleaning up the game from hits to the head.
If its not intentional you don't jump into the air with both knees raised. A legitimate attempt to spoil? You have to be kidding! He wasn't even looking at the ball. Crows fans should be incensed. I remember Farmer kneeing Michael Doughty and damaging his cheekbone and getting off.

 

[CrowHop]

I agree with Jo's analysis and comparison to the Jono Brown mark.

If he was legitimately going the spoil the nature of the collision would have been much different. The moment he left the ground and the knees were raised it was negligent ... or reckless ... or something (both ?).

In this day and age where contact with the head is severely frowned upon, the fact that it was instantly dismissed is just mind boggling.

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.

Didn't help that Lloyd went down like he had been shot dead, although he has been a fine actor over the years.

 

[ams4crows]

I agree with Jo's analysis and comparison to the Jono Brown mark.

If he was legitimately going the spoil the nature of the collision would have been much different. The moment he left the ground and the knees were raised it was negligent ... or reckless ... or something (both ?).

In this day and age where contact with the head is severely frowned upon, the fact that it was instantly dismissed is just mind boggling.



Didn't help that Lloyd went down like he had been shot dead, although he has been a fine actor over the years.

that cost Mcleod a brownlow too!

 

[ltdamn]

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.

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.

I may have been vociferous in my response, granted. Also, I don't think McPharlin overall is a cowardly player, BUT:

Jo's response sums it up really - if you're going to commit to running front on into a contest, keep your eyes on the ball, off the player coming towards you, and make the footy your sole object. Brown's mark is a classic example, as was Riewoldt's against the Swans from a couple of years back and pretty much any mark Carey took from 1992 - 1996. Yes you may get absolutely poleaxed by someone running into you while you're not looking and unprotected - but still running with the flight of the ball is the courageous part!

McPharlin did none of the above. In fact, he did the opposite, and quite obviously so. The second he left the ground and jumped over the flight of the ball, he absolutely squibbed it, end of story.

Suggesting that he was '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 romantiscing it at best. He wasn't watching the ball come over his shoulder, he knew exactly what he was leaping into and who was coming the other way.

 

[Kennyrocks]

I don't think anyone would suggest it was a deliberate or malicious act, but it was certainly reckless, very much so. In my opinion he should have gotten 2-3 weeks. Then again, I can't remember the last time I agreed with the tribunal

Someone recommended replacing the tribunal with a heads/tails system and a roll of the dice to determine how many weeks. The sad part is if I was told this is what they were actually doing, I would (obviously) be surprised, but other than unusual trend of the dice favouring low numbers and the coin tending towards the innocence of high profile victorians it would actually make a whole lot of sense.

The MRP is more of a rubik's cube...

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

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

Yep. That was made painfully obvious after that showdown last year. Hence the reason why I harp on us having a few hard at it types who can act as a deterant against these type of cowardly incidents.

As much as I believe N Maxwell is a sniping hack. Its amazing to think he gets 2 weeks for the hit on Johnson, McPharlin doesn't even get cited. There were at least 3 Maxwell type off the ball incidents on Crows players in that showdown last year and not one Port player was cited.

Lets hope the likes of Dangerfield/Walker etc have the smarts to protect themselves becuase they will have big targets on their backs (especially in showdowns) and they wont get any protection from an unbelievably biased/incompetent MRP/Tribunal.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I've got no doubt McPharlin wasn't trying to knee him in the face - it was actually courageous for him to go back with the flight like that - but with the AFL saying for 4 years that "the head is sacrisanct, recklessness around the head won't be tolerated", I am utterly bemused that this wasn't even cited.

If it had involved a Victorian player it would be headline news.

"couragous" - you're kidding me aren't you. How can people say running and jumping knees first into a player with his eyes on the ball is couragous. Dont really see how taking your eyes off the ball and jumping into a player is couragous.

Stevens was couragous. McPharlin was reckless and gutless - traits possesed by many Freo players over the years. If it was Judd or Ablett instead of Stevens, McPharlin would have been hit with a 3-4 game suspension, and rightly so.

About time the AFC hierachy started speaking up abit more - squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[jo172]

Yep. That was made painfully obvious after that showdown last year. Hence the reason why I harp on us having a few hard at it types who can act as a deterant against these type of cowardly incidents.

I think most people's basic view on this Springy is that in this day and age having a few blokes go in with a wrestle and jumper punch doesn't actually deter anything. All it does is mean we've got blokes on the field more interested in squaring up then getting and using the footy.

Never forget, we won that showdown, primarily due to Port's ill discipline.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I think most people's basic view on this Springy is that in this day and age having a few blokes go in with a wrestle and jumper punch doesn't actually deter anything. All it does is mean we've got blokes on the field more interested in squaring up then getting and using the footy.

Never forget, we won that showdown, primarily due to Port's ill discipline.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but at what cost. Porps had his shoulder ruined for the year and Jericho suffered a broken sternum. Not to mention the Vince late hit and the Thompson hit. Imagine if that was the showdown before finals.

So what do we do about this, sit back and do nothing and just hope that our esteemed opponents will respect the laws of the game and play fair - c'mon seriously, there are dog teams out there who take delight in illegal hitting ball players. Surely, we are not that naive.

Do we sit back and do nothing and then when we see another "that" showdown like late hit fest in a few years time on the eve of finals - we look at each other all confused and say "sh*t, we didn't see that coming".

That showdown wasn't the only game last year whereby Crows players were hit illegally behind the play. There was a game against the Bulldogs where Reilly suffered a broken wrist from a behind the play hit and VB was also decked and from memory taken from the ground.

It really is becoming beyond a joke. Either the AFC starts recruiting players who have that touch of mongrel in them that can protect their teamates or we start issueing "please explains" to the AFL. To do nothing, is proving very costly.

 

[Deaneus!]

I think most people's basic view on this Springy is that in this day and age having a few blokes go in with a wrestle and jumper punch doesn't actually deter anything.

I disagree. IMHO Springy's right on this one - our problem is we don't have anyone go in for the wrestle and the jumper punch, so we get looked at as soft targets. Bullies always go for the people they think they can beat.

All it does is mean we've got blokes on the field more interested in squaring up then getting and using the footy.

No it doesn't. Flying the flag when it's warranted is required for the reason above. We don't have to start the fight, we just have to finish it, or at least break-even in a fair way. Having a strong physical presence will often deter gutless sniping bullies, you have to remind them that they touch someone, they're next. One thing we don't teach our players enough of is if you can't tackle, and don't have the ball, then hip-and-shoulder to take out the player, the harder the better.

Never forget, we won that showdown, primarily due to Port's ill discipline.

Makes no sense. Sure, if Port had gone for the ball, maybe they'd have won. So you're saying, because we were punching bags for that game, we won? We might have won easier if we'd taken out a few of their players (fairly). And it's not ill discipline to fly the flag or take a player within the rules, it's smart play. It's a contact sport, if you can remove a player from the opposition's team, you've done your side a big service.

 

[jo172]

I disagree. IMHO Springy's right on this one - our problem is we don't have anyone go in for the wrestle and the jumper punch, so we get looked at as soft targets. Bullies always go for the people they think they can beat..

Having played football for many years I disagree. Flying the flag does not stop incidents happen, just makes both teams denigrate lower and lower and forget about the basic element of getting the bloody football. Good football teams ignore behind play shit and win the ball instead.

No it doesn't. Flying the flag when it's warranted is required for the reason above. We don't have to start the fight, we just have to finish it, or at least break-even in a fair way. Having a strong physical presence will often deter gutless sniping bullies, you have to remind them that they touch someone, they're next. One thing we don't teach our players enough of is if you can't tackle, and don't have the ball, then hip-and-shoulder to take out the player, the harder the better..

If you can hip and shoulder the ball carrier you can certainly tackle them!

Makes no sense. Sure, if Port had gone for the ball, maybe they'd have won. So you're saying, because we were punching bags for that game, we won? We might have won easier if we'd taken out a few of their players (fairly). And it's not ill discipline to fly the flag or take a player within the rules, it's smart play. It's a contact sport, if you can remove a player from the opposition's team, you've done your side a big service.

I'm saying because we focused on the ball rather than getting distracted by Port's BS we won.

Also love to hear your "taking out players fairly" theory. Just how often do you see a bloke in the AFL sustain a game ending injury from a fair hit? Particularly since Pickett retired?

 

[Deaneus!]

Having played football for many years I disagree. Flying the flag does not stop incidents happen, just makes both teams denigrate lower and lower and forget about the basic element of getting the bloody football. Good football teams ignore behind play shit and win the ball instead.

Valid point.

If you can hip and shoulder the ball carrier you can certainly tackle them!

My bad - i meant to say, "and if they don't have the ball"

I'm saying because we focused on the ball rather than getting distracted by Port's BS we won.

I can't disagree with that. Whacking them back would have been nice too, might have discouraged them a bit, because eventually we'd have run out players to take the field.

Also love to hear your "taking out players fairly" theory. Just how often do you see a bloke in the AFL sustain a game ending injury from a fair hit? Particularly since Pickett retired?

Stevens, on Sunday (being a bit facetious, apparently that was a "fair" hit). Jericho, during that showdown (big hit, but i recall it was fair). But is that because no one can do it, or they're instructed by their coaches not to?

Just thinking of the Saints, Kozi's got no awareness, anyone could take him out with a well-timed hit.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Also love to hear your "taking out players fairly" theory. Just how often do you see a bloke in the AFL sustain a game ending injury from a fair hit? Particularly since Pickett retired?

On the weekend McPharlin showed the competition how to take a Crows player out with a "fair" hit. Forgetting our other debate for a second as we will never agree with each other, the more I think about it, I just cannot believe that he didn't get cited.

I wonder in your defense at the tribunal if you can bring up examples of other incidents that didn't get games???

 

[jo172]

I wonder in your defense at the tribunal if you can bring up examples of other incidents that didn't get games???

Nope, contrary to popular belief the AFL tribunal is a fact driven inquiry and theoretically takes no account of precedent.

However, if there is a precedent to get a Collingwood/High Profile Victorian player off it will probably be used.

 

[Crow-mo]

Mike Sheehan wrote an interesting bit on this. he also thinks its incredible that nothing came of this, particularly pointing to the MRP's findings that McPharlin's eyes were on the ball. as he makes clear, that would be all good and well if it were true - but it isn't.

 

[macca23]

Rowey also raised this on 5AA this a.m.

He read out the rules and just couldn't see how McPharlin didn't get reported as it was reckless.

As Rowey said, there appears to be no connection between the intent of the rules as they are written, the interpretation of them by the MRC and the interpretation of them by the tribunal.

I still find this McPharlin non report just so farcical - if he was watching the ball at the point of impact, he must have a set of eyes in his bum.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Docker decision a mystery
0 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink Mike Sheahan Blog
Mike Sheahan
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 09:54am


HEATH Shaw got a week. Predictable enough. Fair enough, too, in all the circumstances.

Message delivered.

What, though, is the message from the match review panel’s inexplicable decision on Monday to take no action against Luke McPharlin?

Video: See Luke McPharlin’s bump.

Adelaide’s Scott Stevens appeared to have been seriously injured in a marking contest at Subiaco Oval on Sunday night when McPharlin’s knee hit him in the face.

He was carried from the ground on a stretcher and all of us were relieved and surprised to learn he had escaped serious damage.

Yet, he might have ended up with major facial injuries. All because of McPharlin’s bizarre attempt to . . . well, spoil, I guess.

The Fremantle defender certainly wasn’t attempting to mark. He had his back to the ball, his arms down. In the final moments, he was looking at Stevens and crashed into him with his knees raised.

The panel ruled thus: “Given that his eyes were on the ball just before contact was made, it was considered a legitimate attempt to spoil the ball.”

The fact is his eyes weren’t on the ball when contact was made. They were fixed on Stevens’ face.

The umpire apparently didn’t like what he saw, paying a free kick and a 50m penalty. Not so the match review panel.

We all know McPharlin is a ball player, but we also know had a Campbell Brown or a Dean Solomon done the same thing, they would have got 4-5 weeks.

 

[jenny61_99]

Rowey also raised this on 5AA this a.m.

He read out the rules and just couldn't see how McPharlin didn't get reported as it was reckless.

As Rowey said, there appears to be no connection between the intent of the rules as they are written, the interpretation of them by the MRC and the interpretation of them by the tribunal.

I still find this McPharlin non report just so farcical - if he was watching the ball at the point of impact, he must have a set of eyes in his bum.

I honestly didn't believe he'd get matches (thought it was a clumsy act but not malicious), but on reviewing the rules and guidelines I am bewildered how it wasn't even looked at. No case to answer is just bizarre. Head high contact must at least be considered by the MRP.