MRP / Trib. RD 4 Cats V Hawks - Menegola 1 Week, Parsons 2 Weeks

[Vdubs]

Being a new player it should have been 2 down to one. But that's just my opinion. The club is gonna take it and move on, Parsons is gonna be more determined to endure and become a Good Bloke™ going forward and I think we supporters are going to see some exciting stuff from this kid in the future.

Maybe it's like being on P's and zero tolerance for DUI.
Hit them early and young and hope they learn from it big time.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I don't think Parson's punishment was just, especially compared to Scott Thompson's elbow on Paddy. I agree with CS the contact wasn't intentional it was just poor technique. Hodge wrong footed Parsons so the young bloke tried to reach(lean toward) Hodge with his body to effect the bump and when you do that the elbow raises. The kid should've tackled, not tried to bump, so it'll be a learning curve for the guy.

I also think Menegola was hit a bit hard too, and a fine would've been adequate since the tackle didn't cause any harm to Hodge. But the MRP has a history of punishing Geelong players harder than other clubs.

 

[Desslok]

This is Hodgey breaking Marc Murphy's cheekbone in 2013. I believe he was cited for rough conduct but cleared.

Isnt it interesting that in the Hodge vs Marc Murphy clip you have Leigh Matthews defending Hodge .. Then again in the Gibson vs Ruggles clip you have Leigh Matthews defending Gibsons' action.

 

[David the Cat]

Well...i have no problem with Gibson getting off....looked ok to me....just an unfortunate clash of heads...

 

[Pollywaffle]

I have no idea why no-one called me on this.

Saying you haven't seen the incident so you can't comment is code for - you have seen the incident and you know he is as guilty as sin.

Definitely thought about it ...

 

[catswhiskers]

Well...i have no problem with Gibson getting off....looked ok to me....just an unfortunate clash of heads...

How come they always bring up duty of care but then forget it when its "convenient" (or vice versa). This also occurs with the other favourite context they like...... "what other options did the player have".

In this case Gibson had a duty of care and he could also have just applied a normal shepherd (running between Ruggles and his chase target).

This flip flop does my head in. More often than not changes occur just in time for us to receive the rough end of the pineapple.

And while I am fired up. Watch how many single action tackles made with the same or more force than used by Menagola do NOT result in suspension over the rest of this season.

 

[you pick one]

This is Hodgey breaking Marc Murphy's cheekbone in 2013. I believe he was cited for rough conduct but cleared.

Play on.
The longer you play the smarter you get, Hodge positions his body perfectly in that contest not only to win the ball but do maximum damage and stay within the rules.Look at Monday Rougheads knee into Dangerfield, he goes fractionally early drives the knee into Dangerfields ribs with in the laws of the game and perfectly timed,Gibbo on Ruggles again timing is everything, they never miss a opportunity to seek out any advantage in a game and that includes softening up the opposition if the opportunity arises,a very well drilled team and very disciplined.

 

[lionbear]

I thought Menegola might have got away with a fine as Hodge got straight back up.

Parsons was about right, no way I would challenge that.

Gibson, I would hate to see players serve weeks for that, it was a head clash.

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

I thought Menegola might have got away with a fine as Hodge got straight back up.

Parsons was about right, no way I would challenge that.

Gibson, I would hate to see players serve weeks for that, it was a head clash.

I love a well executed bump however the old interpretation that the head is sacrosanct is the right one IMO
In other words if you elect to bump and there is contact to the head - intended or accidental- you have a case to answer. That's the right response to Duty of Care I would have thought

 

[DanA]

It's not such a bad thing for us. Parson no doubt will tire as the season progresses so it won't hurt to have an extra two-week bye, even if it's a bit earlier than ideal and Menegola out gives us the chance to get more games into GHS. If we lose to Saints or Collingwood I'll be less happy about it though.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I love a well executed bump however the old interpretation that the head is sacrosanct is the right one IMO
In other words if you elect to bump and there is contact to the head - intended or accidental- you have a case to answer. That's the right response to Duty of Care I would have thought

As I was saying on the main board, the head is not always sacrosanct. For example, you can smash your knees into an opponent's head in the process of taking a mark. We don't want to see the end of the speccy or the bump. But whilst they are permitted, with the potential to cause head injury, the AFL needs to get rid of the notion of upgrading impact for certain illegal actions. Hodge didn't lose any game time, but both the Menegola tackle and Parson's elbow were effectively upgraded from low to medium impact. If an action is deemed illegal the MRP should just go with the result on the player.

 

[PatrickBateman]

Well...i have no problem with Gibson getting off....looked ok to me....just an unfortunate clash of heads...

What happened to the idea of - if a player chooses to bump (instead of shepherd in this case) he has a duty of care for the opponent if the head is hit? And made responsible for the outcome?

I say he should have gotten a week, by this ruling you can take out any player within 5 metres of the ball with a bump, even if it's accidentally high. As just discussed on SEN, what's stopping players taking out opponents at stoppages? By this ruling, you could just charge through anyone, as long as your intent is to protect a teammate and the ball is within 5 metres.

 

[CharacterFirst]

What happened to the idea of - if a player chooses to bump (instead of shepherd in this case) he has a duty of care for the opponent if the head is it. And made responsible for the outcome?

I say he should have gotten a week, by this ruling you can take out any player within 5 metres of the ball with a bumb, even if it's accidentally high. As just discussed on SEN, what's stopping players taking out opponents at stoppages? By this ruling, you could just charge through anyone, as long as your intent is to protect a teammate and the ball is within 5 metres.

Yep. Gibson should have got a week.

It was a charge, not a shepherd.

 

[Burro]

What happened to the idea of - if a player chooses to bump (instead of shepherd in this case) he has a duty of care for the opponent if the head is it. And made responsible for the outcome?

I say he should have gotten a week, by this ruling you can take out any player within 5 metres of the ball with a bumb, even if it's accidentally high. As just discussed on SEN, what's stopping players taking out opponents at stoppages? By this ruling, you could just charge through anyone, as long as your intent is to protect a teammate and the ball is within 5 metres.

This is my thinking as well. Glad that it is being talked about. I would hate to see any player have a serious injury due to the AFL not wanting to take responsibility, just look at the drugs saga. I hate to say it but a player needs to challenge the AFL to sort this stuff out. The AFL will do nothing other than trying to maximise profit.

 

[Bobby_]

What happened to the idea of - if a player chooses to bump (instead of shepherd in this case) he has a duty of care for the opponent if the head is it. And made responsible for the outcome?

I say he should have gotten a week, by this ruling you can take out any player within 5 metres of the ball with a bumb, even if it's accidentally high. As just discussed on SEN, what's stopping players taking out opponents at stoppages? By this ruling, you could just charge through anyone, as long as your intent is to protect a teammate and the ball is within 5 metres.

Let's not turn this sport into soccer.
Gibson's bump was perfect. Stayed low and kept his elbow tucked in.
Such force was also going to knock the brain around.

 

[hbk_aus]

Let's not turn this sport into soccer.
Gibson's bump was perfect. Stayed low and kept his elbow tucked in.
Such force was also going to knock the brain around.

I also cant help but think that Ruggles should have more awareness than he did. I know it is easy watching from the stands/couch but given the Hawks penchant for picking off the man on the mark, could/should he have had a quick look to see if anything was coming?

 

[candiehappy]

I also cant help but think that Ruggles should have more awareness than he did. I know it is easy watching from the stands/couch but given the Hawks penchant for picking off the man on the mark, could/should he have had a quick look to see if anything was coming?

maybe Silvagni is our new tackling coach?

 

[romeohwho]

I also cant help but think that Ruggles should have more awareness than he did. I know it is easy watching from the stands/couch but given the Hawks penchant for picking off the man on the mark, could/should he have had a quick look to see if anything was coming?

Not that easy because smith ran around so quickly and ruggles just started to chase and was intent on that-Gibson may have been too close -what's happened to the 10 metre protected zone from last year-remember Bartel getting pinged for some baloney last year within the zone when he was off to the side? That seems to have gone by the wayside so Hawks continue to take out man on mark. It may be a fair bump but it's not 'nice' because man on mark is exposed as their focus is elsewhere. And surely Gibson's bump was a little excessive for the situation?

 

[PatrickBateman]

Let's not turn this sport into soccer.
Gibson's bump was perfect. Stayed low and kept his elbow tucked in.
Such force was also going to knock the brain around.

I've got no issue with the bump, but players who hit the head should be made responsible for the outcome. Gibson may have had the best intentions, but unfortunately he hit Ruggles in the head, who now misses a game himself.

Your point re the brain being knocked around by force is illegitimate. There was a head clash, and possibly more damage to the head when he hit the turf. Contact below the neck had nothing to do with it.

 

[darren forssman]

I also cant help but think that Ruggles should have more awareness than he did. I know it is easy watching from the stands/couch but given the Hawks penchant for picking off the man on the mark, could/should he have had a quick look to see if anything was coming?

I still find this to be the most perplexing rule or non rule and actually thought after the Ruggles concussion the AFL may have looked at it. It has the potential to cause damage as players are mostly not expecting to be hit whilst manning the mark.

Even the simple blocks are just not a good look as players get held and pulled whilst manning the mark.

 

[Sttew]

Yep. Gibson should have got a week.

It was a charge, not a shepherd.

I think the MRP invoked a mercy rule for Hawks. They need every fit body on the field this weekend

 

[MotleyLemon]

Interesting that Hodge was not assessed for concussion in either incident.

Port got in big trouble last year for similar, didn't they?

 

[ATSAM]

Interesting that Hodge was not assessed for concussion in either incident.

Port got in big trouble last year for similar, didn't they?

You assume that there is something inside his skull

 

[Cataholic]

You assume that there is something inside his skull

Classic line

Great work

Nail, hammer too.

 

[you pick one]

Parsons v Hodge