Rory Sloane

Remove this Banner Ad

1970crow said:
How do you get medium impact? Brad's a self-confessed bleeder. Match review obviously didn't read Saturday's Advertiser.

View attachment 279646
Click to expand...

Is that a serious question? Because the MRP probably puts a bit more weight on medical reports and time spent off the ground than it does on newspaper articles. Ebert spent a significant period of the game getting patched up because he was hit by Sloane. The impact was medium, at least.

The Crows have every right to appeal and invite Ebert to be a witness.
 
934994-110923-s-sam-mitchell.jpg
 

Log in to remove this ad.

King Elvis said:
Why am I not surprised.

Any judicial panel which forbids the use of precedent only does so, so they can control the outcome - and don't have to be accountable to their own decisions.

It's corruption - and this is yet another example.

Complete bullshit.
Click to expand...
He punched a guy in the face causing the player to be of the ground for a quarter getting stitches.

Tom Hawkins scraped a guys chin to no ill effect of the player and got 2 weeks for it.
 
MC Extra Dollop said:
Is that a serious question? Because the MRP probably puts a bit more weight on medical reports and time spent off the ground than it does on newspaper articles. Ebert spent a significant period of the game getting patched up because he was hit by Sloane. The impact was medium, at least.

The Crows have every right to appeal and invite Ebert to be a witness.
Click to expand...

If a player has a bleeding problem, it takes longer for medical staff to fix the problem. So a low impact hit in a bleeding-prone player will take as long to fix as a medium impact but in a normal player. If Ebert bleeds to minor impacts, as he has publicly admitted, this should be taken into account by MRP and should be in medical report from PAFC. In this particular case, from the evidence, low impact would produce the actual outcome. While the Crows can appeal, we know that won't happen as Sloan plays for the wrong team
 
NickCC said:
He punched a guy in the face causing the player to be of the ground for a quarter getting stitches.

Tom Hawkins scraped a guys chin to no ill effect of the player and got 2 weeks for it.
Click to expand...
Ebert was off the ground "for a quarter" because he had a concussion assessment (not concussed) and therefore the 20 minute rule kicked in and he couldn't return for 29 mins despite Port wanting him to. The time to fix the bleeding was much shorter.
 
This bleeding / not bleeding thing is ******* bullshit. Tom Lynch only got a fine for this dog act in round 1, which was far more intentional and dangerous than Sloane's late spoil.

http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2016/1/gcfc-v-ess

The MRP is a joke. But then when you have muppets like Luke Ball kissing AFL arse (that ******* Dempsey tackle!), you'll get a joke of a system.
 
Last edited:
NickCC said:
He punched a guy in the face causing the player to be of the ground for a quarter getting stitches.
Click to expand...

That's actually false. He was off the ground for roughly 20 minutes for a concussion test, as it was the second hit to his head in the game (1st one should have seen him have a concussion test on its own). Came back on in the 3rd quarter.
 
MattyB_76 said:
That's actually false. He was off the ground for exactly 20 minutes for a concussion test, as it was the second hit to his head in the game (1st one should have seen him have a concussion test on its own). Came back on in the 3rd quarter.
Click to expand...

See, that contributes to the overall condition of the player. Add to that Ebert's own admission that he bleeds easily, plus the fact that Sloane never swung his arm and it is bullshit. Nobody will ever convince me that what he did was more deserving of a penalty than Brent Harvey's cheap shot last week.

* these commission campaigners.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I don't understand how the MRP can believe they can assess impact. It clearly appears to be based on the outcome, which is a poor proxy for impact.

Firstly a blow to the check or eyebrow is more likely to result in a cut than one to the chin or side of the face. Secondly, people have a different propensity to damage. For example Eberts cheekbone was split but he is otherwise ok. Last year Sloane had his cheekbone accidentally broken (clearly much greater force), yet he did not bleed. Hence why an outcome like bleeding can't indicate impact.
 
Large 1 said:
I don't understand how the MRP can believe they can assess impact. It clearly appears to be based on the outcome, which is a poor proxy for impact.

Firstly a blow to the check or eyebrow is more likely to result in a cut than one to the chin or side of the face. Secondly, people have a different propensity to damage. For example Eberts cheekbone was split but he is otherwise ok. Last year Sloane had his cheekbone accidentally broken (clearly much greater force), yet he did not bleed. Hence why an outcome like bleeding can't indicate impact.
Click to expand...

And an open hand can very easily make a nose bleed...
 
Large 1 said:
Ebert was off the ground "for a quarter" because he had a concussion assessment (not concussed) and therefore the 20 minute rule kicked in and he couldn't return for 29 mins despite Port wanting him to. The time to fix the bleeding was much shorter.
Click to expand...
They dropped the 20 minute rule at the beginning of the year. You can be assessed and sent straight back on if cleared. Being assessed for concussion doesn't really help your argument that the blow wasn't forceful.
 
D-N-R said:
They dropped the 20 minute rule at the beginning of the year. You can be assessed and sent straight back on if cleared. Being assessed for concussion doesn't really help your argument that the blow wasn't forceful.
Click to expand...
Actually it's 15 mins. But it still exists. Port were fined $20k for not following the rule with Hamish Hartlett against Hawks earlier this year.
 
Large 1 said:
Actually it's 15 mins. But it still exists. Port were fined $20k for not following the rule with Hamish Hartlett against Hawks earlier this year.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I was aware they had changed it but was under the impression there was no time limit. I stand corrected.
 
I'm guessing the MRP are trying to reinforce duty of care in this instance. For me it's careless with low impact - one week deferred on pleading early. Unfortunately Ebert coming off bleeding and needing to be stitched up was taken into consideration (as it should), however losing a match for what is clearly an unfortunate accident is far too harsh. Some kind of common sense should apply here but there are no point reductions for common sense.
 
If Hawkins got 2 for a weak as piss jumper punch then Rory can have the same for all I care, just suck it up and take it in the arse like everyone apart from Hawthorn do.
 
Jeff76 said:
If Hawkins got 2 for a weak as piss jumper punch then Rory can have the same for all I care, just suck it up and take it in the arse like everyone apart from Hawthorn do.
Click to expand...

I prefer not to suck anything or take anything up the arse. Speaking of which, this thread is strangely lacking any input from Hawks supporters since the verdict.
 
phill1795 said:
exactly, it is the VFL always has been and always will be. Don't even bother calling it the AFL anymore.
Click to expand...


Posting like this is the worst look for Crows supporters. As much as we'd like to think we're a rep team for the likes of West Adelaide, Glenelg, Sturt, Norwood, WWT, etc, we're not. Sloane is a Victorian himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top