Get stuffed. Read your own post. I don't regard the conduct as negligent. Just because you don't understand, there's no need to make a fool of yourself.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
O'hAilpin 4 and Maxwell 3 weeks from MRP
- Thread starter m0nty
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Get stuffed. Read your own post. I don't regard the conduct as negligent. Just because you don't understand, there's no need to make a fool of yourself.
then he has a glass jaw, he should try soccer!
Read my comment again ... slowly ...... no .... way .... did .... Maxwell ... deserve ... three ... weeks.
Did I say anything about it being a fair bump? I just feel the MRC's assessment of the severity of the incident was wrong.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Feb 9, 2009
- 1,337
- 3
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
That's one of the things that's always given me the poos about the tribunal, the level of inconsistency. If the formula says that what Maxwell did was 75% as bad as what O'hAilpin did, then the formula is obviously flawed.
Insightful BB. Love your work.
seriously, it was as fair as a hard front on bump could get, no malice in it, the young bloke was wide open, he'll learn from that you would hope, although I dunno if warranted in a praccy game especially from the capt of the oppo team, but thats just footy!
He got him in the head BB.
You can't shirtfront blokes in the head.
Once upon a time you could. Now you can't.
I agree with the bolded bits in your quote. The bit you got wrong was "fair". According to the rules of the game, it was not fair.
- Mar 25, 2007
- 1,741
- 13
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- San Diego Chargers,SKOBFC
- Banned
- #283
So what is your opinion of Mitchell's hit on Gary Jr in the GF?
Competitive football players would have seen it as fair! only very fair players would have seen it differently, there is a slight difference!
The Big League
Club Legend
Terrible decision on both accounts O'Hailpin should be able to do whatever he likes to his own team mate at training, ive seen players punch the living daylights out of each other at training and everyone just sat back and let them go at it. Sometimes it needs to happen, they will probably be better for it.
Maxwell, well what can i say? If people get rubbed out for unintential high contact then our game is up the creek.
Maxwell, well what can i say? If people get rubbed out for unintential high contact then our game is up the creek.
Juddy88
Brownlow Medallist
On which account?
Clearly it was high contact. Clearly it was high impact. Clearly it was negligent.
Seriously, which part are you finding it difficult to comprehend?
You can waffle on about it being accidental, but this is regarded as negligent, as it is the responsibility of the person laying the bump, if they decide to ignore the ball, to not make contact with the head/face.
It has been explained for you over, and over, yet you still do not understand. Maybe you require the book on tape?
Fossie 32
Community Leader
- Oct 6, 2002
- 31,672
- 26,508
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Melbourne..VICTORY, Leeds
- Moderator
- #287
I may be in the minority here but I think the rules should not not allow players trying to hurt / injure opponents by bumps, tackles or whatever when they are not going for the ball.
There is plenty of scope for bumps, collisions, physicality and courage in the game without that.
There is plenty of scope for bumps, collisions, physicality and courage in the game without that.
Well said.
ninjaturtle49
Draftee
maxwell you are a dog
Thank you for the stuffing
I'll make this easy for you. The default position is negligent. If you don't think its negligent it must be intentional or reckless which would have been 425 or 550 points. In your words only a "fool" would be arguing for that.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.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
So what part of the assessment did they get wrong. From your post above you didn't think it was negligent but as I pointed out the ONLY other options would deliver 4-5 weeks.
So the other factors used in determining the severity of the incident are,
(1) Conduct- negligent, reckless or intentional
(2) Impact- severe, high, medium or low
(3) Contact- high/groin or body
So assuming that when you say "slowly he didn't deserve 3" you think he should have got less the only other input that could be lower is the impact and seeing he broke the guys jaw it'd be hard to argue it was medium or low. Can you please explain using the MRP guidelines how they assessed the severity wrong.
Hawk-in-Sydney:
Please explain the Setanta decision based on two intentional strikes to the head, and then a kick. Does this equate to 5 weeks (4 with early plea)?
Please explain the Setanta decision based on two intentional strikes to the head, and then a kick. Does this equate to 5 weeks (4 with early plea)?
How can anyone be 100% confident when it is going to the MRP??
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I can answer this. He got 2 charges from it.
The first one was for striking
intentional (3)
medium impact (2)
high contact (2)
Total of 7 points meaning it is a level 4 offence (basically you take 3 points off and that is the level as 3 is the minimum number of points you can score), giving him 325 points, or 243.75 with the guilty plea.
The second one was for kicking
intentional (3)
low impact (1)
body contact (1)
5 points = level 2 offence = 250 points, or 187.5 with a guilty plea
all up, 4 matches with some carryover points to boot
So it doesn't matter whether you hit a player once or twice or three times? Surely, the more punches you throw, the more points you accrue?
No I'm not 100% confident the appeal fail as the tribunal has made some astounding decisions in the past, where the MRP most of the time gets it right. I think the MRP have got this one 100% correct using the current rules.
Most people get angry at the MRP because:
(A)they don't understand the points system with residual points, additions for a bad record and discounts. They look at the final weeks given and say thats wrong because Jones got 3 and that was the same hit as Smith who got 1.
(B)they don't understand the rules and interpretations. Maxwell is a perfect example of this when people say it was a text book shirtfront.
(C)the MRP miss some all together. (a referral system by the clubs would help)
The grading system, while not perfect is evolving and getting better each year. It takes the ambiguity out of the grading and provides a template for consistency.
I think he may of been a bit lucky because you can't see the first punch connect from the footage (I havent seen it anyway) so it can't be assesed. Don't get me wrong, he did hit twice but they need footage or an admission from Setanta. A camera on the other side and he'd be up on three charges. The grading of the second punch they may have gone a bit easy on him. Could have graded it as high impact instead of medium. That would have given him 425 points
As for the kick in the bum. Probably the same as the hit in that it could have been graded as medium and given him 400.
The impact is where the grading provides some wriggle room for the panel. No one can say categoricaly that the punch was high or medium. If Setanta had connected properly you'd be looking at severe-high, as it was a glancing blow its high-medium.
End of the day he should have been given between 825 and 575 points gross and thats what he got. Don't really have a problem with the grading.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 43,353
- 24,843
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
- Banned
- #299
Well done Ninja. Your first 3 posts since you joined in over a year.
I have to ask given your obvious dedication to the club.
Did you watch the game or in fact even see the incident you are commenting on or are you just another ****ing troll with an alias?
This is what interests me. If Cam Cloke had received a broken jaw, the MRP probably would have deemed Setanta's punch(es) as severe-high? If that's correct, what if Cam Cloke has a glass jaw and Setanta didn't actually hit him that hard at all?
Likewise for McGinnity, Maxwell could have still hit him with the same amount of force but not broken his jaw. In this case, he would have received less weeks (or no weeks at all).
Or I could just be a little bitter than our captain got suspended
Similar threads
- Poll