Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[Doss]

Ablett getting off is a joke.

Entirely expected, though.

 

[Whispering_Jack]

Ablett getting off is a joke.

And the status quo is maintained...

 

[Stopher]

So the AFL have once again shown that they deem accidental head clashes to be worse and thus more punishable than stray elbows being thrown about.

 

[Phone]

Ablett and Hodge were never in trouble once it became obvious there was no harm done.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Port have done well, but lets remember how we started the last few years. An how quickly a side can WC back down again.

Was much more impressed by Hawthorn actually. Port played pretty well and they still nearly nicked it.

I lold at Clarkos comments pretty much called Port overrated in his presser also the Hawks did have 6 of their premiership stars missing.

 

[daz17]

I like Ablett, and would like to see him play this week... but that was a blatant elbow.

 

[monty1104]

In isolation, I'm happy with the MRP's decision that Ablett was let off. However given the softness of other suspensions throughout the past few years, the Ablett should've gone too.

 

[eth-dog]

In isolation, I'm happy with the MRP's decision that Ablett was let off. However given the softness of other suspensions throughout the past few years, the Ablett should've gone too.

If that's the case, the fault is in the other cases, not in this case.

 

[Kakkle]

Anyone see this score from the NEAFL from the weekend?

GCS - 2.7.19
GWS - 32.18.210

 

[monty1104]

If that's the case, the fault is in the other cases, not in this case.

I don't dispute that.

 

[yaco55]

Not sure about that mate, the local media ( Foxtel / Herald Sun ) have Cooney gone for a couple of weeks at least. Most likely because he took out Ablett, the shining star in the AFL firmament. Like the media's other darling ( no, not Goodes ), Judd, they have downplayed a forceful elbow from Ablett to Picken"s face, and dismissed it as low impact and careless. Nothing to see here MRP, move along.

We must let him stay eligible for the Brownlow, or the betting markets will crash.

I was right - It's now open slather on front on head contact as long as you get to the ball at about the same time as your opponent and put your hands down near the ball.

 

[yaco55]

Don't be me wrong, Ablett is a complete freak and superstar but I hate the way he carries on off the ball. The ways he falls easily if he just bumped slightly to try earn a free kick, he does it all day, but when he's tackled when he has the ball he's too strong. It's the acting that annoys me and the commentators are blinded by their love to even comment on it. Once he sooked it up to the ump everything went his way

Are you serious - One of Ablett's strengths as a player is keeping his feet.

 

[The Scales]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-26/mrp-full-statement-round-10
Tom Lynch, Gold Coast, has been charged with a first offence for making negligent contact with an umpire ($1200 sanction) for making negligent contact with umpire Matthew Nicholls during the third quarter of the round 10 match between the Suns and the Western Bulldogs, played at Metricon Stadium on Sunday May 25, 2014.
In summary, he can accept a $900 sanction with an early plea.
A first offence for making negligent contact with an umpire is a $1200 sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a $900 sanction.

I watched this game ( mostly ), and don't recall hearing an umpire vomit, or play delayed while he was stretchered off the ground in the care of medical staff. Clearly, incidental contact is a revenue raising exercise, but knock a maggot out cold ( and play for sydney swans ), different story altogether.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-05-19/mrp-full-statement-round-nine
Contact between the Sydney Swans' Nick Malceski and umpire Troy Pannell from the third quarter of Friday's match was assessed. Umpire Pannell was backing away from play while Malceski was not looking at the umpire, with his focus elsewhere, and a collision occurred. It was the view of the panel the collision was accidental and no further action was taken.

I think a player's focus being elswhere during a match is ( demonstrably ) more dangerous to other players and officials, and the extent of the umpire's injury should have attracted, at a minimum, equal sanction, as has been regularly been administered by the MRP.

I can see no justifiable reason for Malceski ( unfocussed / negligent ), escaping the usual fine. Anyone got any suggestions?

 

[The Scales]

I was right - It's now open slather on front on head contact as long as you get to the ball at about the same time as your opponent and put your hands down near the ball.

I'd love to think you are right, but Cooney can thank his lucky stars that the MRP excused Hannebery last week, and it was high rotation in the media. That was likely the saving grace factor, for this week ( imo ).

I feel they are waiting for the bump and head contact issues to die down, before they start to rub out players again, due to the inherent risk of catastrophic injury in these style of clashes.

Consistency and precedent are not the strong points of the MRP, Tribunal, Appeals Board or the AFL.

 

[Pweter]

In isolation, I'm happy with the MRP's decision that Ablett was let off. However given the softness of other suspensions throughout the past few years, the Ablett should've gone too.

Ablett elbows player supposedly to the body - all good.

2 players punch another in the guts - suspension/reprimand (dependent on prior record).

Fyfe has an accidental head clash whilst shepherding - 2 weeks.

McKernan elbows a player in the head when running past - 2 weeks.

Moral of the story - if you want to hurt someone, use your elbows. The punishment is far less than pumping or punching someone. Roger Merrett likes this a lot.

 

[rines]

THe MRP starting in response to an inconsistent tribunal.. it was poor in its first few years before gaining a modicum of respect in its 3rd year.. since then it has progressed downhill to the point where it is not a complete shambles..

The decisions this year have been poor.. beyond poor.. 2 weeks for shepards that brush a guys cheek but nothing for nearly hospitalising guys with forceful head on bumps to the top of a guys head..

Some players fined/banned for touching umpire.. but knock one out completely and it is 'play on, play on'...

At what point does the footy public have the right to say 'enough'?

It is beyond jokes now.. the chook lotto can't be predicted by players, officials or even the panel itself. How can you have a system where 10 very senior experts can look at the footage and come up with penalties ranging from 'no offence' to '3 weeks'... just insane.

 

[BrunoV]

I was right - It's now open slather on front on head contact as long as you get to the ball at about the same time as your opponent and put your hands down near the ball.

So as long as you're playing the ball you're not going to get suspended?

Sounds about right to me. Pay the free kick for high contact and move on.

 

[Pweter]

So as long as you're playing the ball you're not going to get suspended?

Sounds about right to me. Pay the free kick for high contact and move on.

Heresy.

There's no place for logic here thanks very much!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Stopher]

So as long as you're playing the ball you're not going to get suspended?

Sounds about right to me. Pay the free kick for high contact and move on.

But this trend can be said to be good for the 'spirit of the game' in that it supposedly rewards ball-players. What then, of the wet-lettuce punishments for elbows (potentially the most dangerous part of the body) directed at players?

 

[Kong]

Ablett and Hodge were never in trouble once it became obvious there was no harm done.

I'm asking you because you're on the opposite end of the scale in terms of the MRP; if Hurley had've come out of the Sydney game with a concussion, do you think Hannerbery would've gotten weeks?

 

[Pweter]

I'm asking you because you're on the opposite end of the scale in terms of the MRP; if Hurley had've come out of the Sydney game with a concussion, do you think Hannerbery would've gotten weeks?

Yes is my answer.

Why?

Because the MRP looks at the injury sustained as the primary cause for citing someone, the action leading to the injury is secondary.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

But this trend can be said to be good for the 'spirit of the game' in that it supposedly rewards ball-players. What then, of the wet-lettuce punishments for elbows (potentially the most dangerous part of the body) directed at players?

Don't forget Judd's second Brownlow after elbowing Pavlich.

 

[Pweter]

Don't forget Judd's second Brownlow after elbowing Pavlich.

Wasn't that one due to not enough force though? You know, because the cheek bone skin splits wide open when only hit with a fairy tap?

 

[Zach Package]

Clarko in hospital with a bad back. On indefinite leave from coaching.

Suppose he can now get around in those delightful little short shorts he loves so much more often

 

[baz_machine]

Yes is my answer.

Why?

Because the MRP looks at the injury sustained as the primary cause for citing someone, the action leading to the injury is secondary.

Correct.

Which is in response to all the lawyers running the game paranoid that a former player will sue for injuries sustained while playing.