Ryder suspended for some reason

[LukeParkerno1]

Thing is, I'd rather cop a week, than have him out for 2. It is soft, but no softer than the Burgoyne decision and he was unsuccessful in his challenge at the tribunal.

I actually think we'll go for a downgrade rather than a "not guilty" verdict

 

[james_omahoney]

Thing is, I'd rather cop a week, than have him out for 2. It is soft, but no softer than the Burgoyne decision and he was unsuccessful in his challenge at the tribunal.

I actually think we'll go for a downgrade rather than a "not guilty" verdict

I would be very surprised if we didn't contest it. Extremely.

 

[Boucks09]

Firstly Boucks I agree with what you're saying in regards to the rule. I have a question: If EFC argued the contact was not head-high, and the panel agreed, then how would it still be a reprimand? If you're innocent then you get off completely, right? No carrover points. Just an apology from the MRP .

The frontal shot looks bad but I think Ryder's body obscures what happens with his arm, as it appears there's some head-high contact there. However, when view from behind, to me it doesn't look like head-high contact at all.

I think most agree with the rule and its application, but it's whether or not the rule was actually breached which is in contention.

IMO should get off.

You raise a fair point. I'm not 100% sure on how the system works in regards to downgrading points, so you may very well be correct. Lets hope so.

The response is disroportionate when you consider that there was no malice in Ryder's bump. As far as I am concerned the camera angles don't even prove that Ryder hit Dangerfield in the head. Knocking you head on the ground can give you concussion.

Dangerfield played so either the Adelaide medical staff got it wrong or Dangerfield was not seriously injured. I am going to back the Adelaide medical staff because I think they almost have a betterr track record than Sydney.

So now we look at the reasoning behind a decision like this (the rule). They are trying to stop the bump and this is a way to phase it out. If you are over 6'4 there is no logical argument to ever place a bumb. The hysterical response to contact to the head means that you will be suspended. You can't rely on the nouse of your opponent to protect himself at all so there is a high likelihood that a bump will end up going wrong and you will get suspended.

It is indirectly killing parts of the game. It is completely naieve to say otherwise. Will Kinghts tell Ryder to make the same choice if he is presented with the same situation next time? I would like to think not, Ryder is going to tower over most AFL players and there is a good chance that he wll be suspended because there are too many uncontrollable variables when executing a bump on someone you are taller than.

All this shit about going for the ball vs not going for the ball is also disturbing. Somewhere in the last 10 years football people forgot that there are many situations during a game when it is more imortant not to play the ball.

The reality is that these rule changes are brought in, and supported, by Helen Lovejoy 'wont somebody think of the children' types who either don't really understand the game (those who are so concerned about head high contact when the % of collissions resulting in serious damage can barly be seen on paper), need to comment on something (journalists like Caro who say that mothers won't let their children play - whose mum ever stopped them playing football if their father was OK with it?) or are tied into suporting the AFL in any move they make (media personalities like Kevin Bartlett).

The concept of malice is completely irrevelant in this situation due to the new rule and I agree with it. Once you make the decision to go for the man rather than the ball that is all that matters. It is clear cut and much easier to understand as to whether a player is showing 'malice' which is objective at the best of times. You could be Christian Bock, Barry Hall or even Caroline Wilson, it does not matter - if you go the man and have the intention of bumping him and must do so within the rules.

The point regarding the severity of the injury is the one area of the MRP that I have serious concerns about - even outside of this situation. It is obvious that the panel is now basing much of their punishments on the severity of the injury caused by the action. This is completey wrong.

If Jamar had gone down and been concussed with the Gardner hit last week, the penalty would've increased even though Gardner's actions were exactly the same. If Dangerfield had gotten up or was a bigger player and handled the bump easily, Ryder's penalty would've been less. This is an area which needs to be addressed but should be addressed seperately to the interpretation of specific AFL laws (e.g. this bump).

In regards to 'phasing out the bump' this is complete and utter nonsense. The players in the AFL now HIT HARDER than ever before. The game is TOUGHER than ever before. The AFL are attempting to phase out hits to the head (and consequent injuries). If a player was NOT sanctioned for a bump which was head high and a player were to suffer serious head or neck injuries there would be an outcry and rightly so. The 'nous' of an opponent has nothing to do with it in this situation with Ryder. Ofcourse he would expect contact, but not to the head. Why would he? In ANY situation in an AFL game, head high contact is against the rules.

The only time an opponents actions can directly influence whether you bump a player high is when there is front on contact. We saw with the Coughlan vs Winderlich incident that Coughlan got as low as possible and thus was not suspended because it was Winderlich's actions which put him in danger - not Coughlan's. If Coughlan had not gotten low and hit Winderlich he would've gone, but he did everything he could in the situation and was thus not punished.

There is a massive reason for a 6'4 bloke to lay a bump. Because it ****en hurts and is an effective blocking strategy. That doesn't mean he needs to hit him in the head and get suspended. We saw when Nick Maxwell got suspended that he openly said in public that if he was confronted with the same situation again that he would lay the bump. I argue most other AFL players and coaches would say the same - the will just make sure that they don't hit the head.

So your concerns about players not going the man when required is unfounded - it is and will continue to be a big part of our game. These decisions are not going to stop players from being physical, it is going to make them become better at executing the skill of bumping and remove the chance of injury through head high contact.

In regards to KB and Caro - people don't understand that EVERYONE ENJOYS THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF OUR GAME - KB and Caro included. Nobody is out to wreck it, nobody (e.g. KB) has a hidden agenda. The only reason there is hysteria is because ill-informed people in the public and media DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RULES AND WHY THEY WERE MADE and thus carry on like pork chops rather than actually reading the rules.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I would be very surprised if we didn't contest it. Extremely.

We will contest it, I don't like our chances getting him off. I like our chances of getting a downgrade though- it is a Level 2 offence, a downgrade would see a reprimand.

 

[BrunoV]

Sorry but I didn't mention toughness once.

My point is that change is made that has a number of unintended consequences (give them the credit of really trying to keep the bump) because these rules are not thought through.

My other point is that chage is often made with very little justification. Too often change is made to appease the vocal minority.

I can't see how you can say that a tall player can continue to lay heavy shepherds (which are the advantages as you put them) when the player cannot control the outcome. Giving away a free kick I can live with but you have the suspension cloud hanging over you every time you go in for a bump. The footbal community on this forum will tell you that this bump was basically perfectly executed (again there is no concrete proof that Ryder actually hit Dangerfield in the head). If the bump is viewed as being soo good and soo fair and soo within the spirit of the game and costs a player two weeks how on earth can a coach let players bump?

It wasn't so long ago that the onu was place on the players to protect themselves...ducking anyone?

 

[Boucks09]

Sorry but I didn't mention toughness once.

My point is that change is made that has a number of unintended consequences (give them the credit of really trying to keep the bump) because these rules are not thought through.

My other point is that chage is often made with very little justification. Too often change is made to appease the vocal minority.

I can't see how you can say that a tall player can continue to lay heavy shepherds (which are the advantages as you put them) when the player cannot control the outcome. Giving away a free kick I can live with but you have the suspension cloud hanging over you every time you go in for a bump. The footbal community on this forum will tell you that this bump was basically perfectly executed (again there is no concrete proof that Ryder actually hit Dangerfield in the head). If the bump is viewed as being soo good and soo fair and soo within the spirit of the game and costs a player two weeks how on earth can a coach let players bump?

It wasn't so long ago that the onu was place on the players to protect themselves...ducking anyone?

That's the point. We have two contrasting video angles which tell two completely different stories. The MRP have not given Ryder the benefit of the doubt and decided to offer him a suspension. That is why the tribunal is there so that a case can be answered if more evidence is provided.

I would say that Essendon will look at using Dangerfield as a witness to argue that the contact was not head high and that his injuries were a consequence of his head hitting the ground. If that happens as you say the bump was brilliant and we all move on.

I'm not 100% convinced it was a great bump going off the front-on angle - and I want Ryder to play as much as anybody - so I can understand why the MRP ruled against him.

In regards to rule changes - that's a whole different argument.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Was not negligent from what I saw. Anyway see what happens.

The bigger worry I see is how it will affect Paddy's approach to the game henceforth.

 

[Rack Watts]

It's ok, the media will talk up how stupid the call was hopefully!

 

[AlwaysRight]

I've seen kids in World Vision ads fatter then him.

No joke.

 

[AndyLesPaul]

I've seen kids in World Vision ads fatter then him.

No joke.

I'd say thats because their not as tall, and do eat food.

 

[The_Young_Gun]

We should do what collingwood did..

If Nick Maxwell can get off for breaking someones jaw.. Then I'm certain Paddy Ryder can get off for "Sheppeding!"...

 

[Crumpler83]

Ryder's case thrown out, sanity prevails. Just heard it on SEN...

 

[George Washington]

Thank god, now i hope to god this debacle doesnt affect the fantatic footy ryder has been playing.

 

[Skeeta Olly]

Win.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/78526/default.aspx

 

[james_omahoney]

We will contest it, I don't like our chances getting him off. I like our chances of getting a downgrade though- it is a Level 2 offence, a downgrade would see a reprimand.