Sam Mitchell punch

[Liger]

Funnily enough, the AFL guideline doesn't make a distinction between a opened or closed handed strike.
Since when did the MRP re-write the rules?

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/2015TribunalBooklet.pdf

There's no force in a open hand pushing motion - MRP

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/1042979/slap-o.gif

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I don't get how you can make deliberate contact to the face - closed fist or otherwise - and be okay.

Agreed.

Still waiting for an explanation as to what Jack Watts was doing with his fingers in Mitchell's face.

Oh, that's right, we're not suppose to question why Mitchell had a crack at Watts, just why he isn't serving weeks.

 

[hk89]

I don't get how you can make deliberate contact to the face - closed fist or otherwise - and be okay

Agreed, Jack was very very lucky at the MRP.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Agreed.

Still waiting for an explanation as to what Jack Watts was doing with his fingers in Mitchell's face.

Oh, that's right, we're not suppose to question why Mitchell had a crack at Watts, just why he isn't serving weeks.

Simple. Both players were down. Watts was looking at where the ball was at. His left hand was on Mitchell's shoulder and he was about to push up from him. Then Mitchell punches him in the face.

You spent time in the ASADA forum. You know how corrupt the AFL is.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

His left hand was on Mitchell's shoulder...

Nope. Guess again.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Nope. Guess again.

have another look. Initially Watts isn't even looking at Mitchell as he went to get up.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Agreed, Jack was very very lucky at the MRP.

For sure. Head should be out of bounds. Both should have received something

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

have another look. Initially Watts isn't even looking at Mitchell as he went to get up.

Nope. You're looking at the edited version, where the only angle shown is Mitchell's shove in the face.

Here's Jack's attempt at getting up.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Open hand. No actual movement or physical reaction from Mitchell to the contact like he had been hit, other than he didn't like it and then punched Watts. With a clenched fist. The open hand claim is just an insult to everybody's intelligence.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Open hand. No actual movement or physical reaction from Mitchell to the contact like he had been hit, other than he didn't like it and then punched Watts. With a clenched fist. The open hand claim is just an insult to everybody's intelligence.

So, as I was saying it's ok for Watts to grapple with Mitchell's face.....no questions ask.....but let's melt about him reacting and not getting weeks for it.

I reckon it's pretty fair to assume the MRP gave Mitchell a pass in the belief that he was only retaliating to get Watts off him.

Watts had no business going for Mitchell's face like that, but hey, we'll just continue to overlook that because Melbourne aren't sitting on top of the ladder.

 

[Gavin Excell]

has Gavin Excell imploded yet?

Nah

Just accept this shyte goes on. We all knew hawks players wouldnt be suspended

 

[RegHickeyStand]

So, as I was saying it's ok for Watts to grapple with Mitchell's face.....no questions ask.....but let's melt about him reacting and not getting weeks for it.

I reckon it's pretty fair to assume the MRP gave Mitchell a pass in the belief that he was only retaliating to get Watts off him.

Watts had no business going for Mitchell's face like that, but hey, we'll just continue to overlook that because Melbourne aren't sitting on top of the ladder.

Watts did not look like he intentionally or accidently poked Mitchell in the eye. And Mitchell did not react like that happened. As Mitchell punched him, Watts looked like he was trying to pull himself up.

Had Watts head not reacted to the impact like it did, there would be no case to answer. It's the impact that puts Mitchell in. There was none of that just prior from Mitchell that justifies any retaliation.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Watts did not look like he intentionally or accidently poked Mitchell in the eye. And Mitchell did not react like that happened. As Mitchell punched him, Watts looked like he was trying to pull himself up.

Had Watts head not reacted to the impact like it did, there would be no case to answer. It's the impact that puts Mitchell in. There was none of that just prior from Mitchell that justifies any retaliation.

So, as I suggested, the posters of Bigfooty will overlook that Watts grabbed Mitchell around the face and head...they'll even pretend like he was just trying to get to his feet.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

So, as I suggested, the posters of Bigfooty will overlook that Watts grabbed Mitchell around the face and head...they'll even pretend like he was just trying to get to his feet.

Oh come on. There is no evidence of gouging, he was turning around to get up, there was no reaction of any attempt to hurt Mitchell.

Are you saying in that situation where they are both on the ground getting up watching the ball, that because Mitchell's face got touched he is entitled to punch Watts with a closed fist.

And that the AFL is entitled to lie about that and say it was an open hand?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Oh come on. There is no evidence of gouging, he was turning around to get up, there was no reaction of any attempt to hurt Mitchell.

Are you saying in that situation where they are both on the ground getting up watching the ball, that because Mitchell's face got touched he is entitled to punch Watts with a closed fist.

And that the AFL is entitled to lie about that and say it was an open hand?

Have you watched the vision at all? Who said anything about gouging?

I can't take you seriously if you think Watts was just trying to get to his feet. Ridiculous assertion.

I assumed you were just having a laugh, but now I think you actually believe it.

Watch the video.

He looked directory at Mitchell once on the ground and tried to grapple with his head and face, to rough him up.


If you can't see that, then I can't help you.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

RegHickeyStand you might as well save yourself the bother.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

RegHickeyStand you might as well save yourself the bother.

I reckon

 

[Chief]

Agreed.

Still waiting for an explanation as to what Jack Watts was doing with his fingers in Mitchell's face.

Oh, that's right, we're not suppose to question why Mitchell had a crack at Watts, just why he isn't serving weeks.

Is provocation a defence?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Is provocation a defence?

Sure seems like it, considering Mitchell copped nothing.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Is provocation a defence?

No

 

[Chief]

No

Is it a case of not "officially" a defence, but to cite Watts would mean that Mitchell had motive and if he has motive and they call it a punch in retaliation then Mitchell gets a suspension. Watts isn't going to complain if he also gets off.

Call it even, no matter who it pisses off.

 

[Chief]

Oh come on. There is no evidence of gouging, he was turning around to get up, there was no reaction of any attempt to hurt Mitchell.

Are you saying in that situation where they are both on the ground getting up watching the ball, that because Mitchell's face got touched he is entitled to punch Watts with a closed fist.

And that the AFL is entitled to lie about that and say it was an open hand?

Have you watched the vision at all? Who said anything about gouging?

I can't take you seriously if you think Watts was just trying to get to his feet. Ridiculous assertion.

I assumed you were just having a laugh, but now I think you actually believe it.

Watch the video.

He looked directory at Mitchell once on the ground and tried to grapple with his head and face, to rough him up.


If you can't see that, then I can't help you.

I don't think you guys are going to ever agree on this - can we agree to disagree?

 

[Pessimistic]

Watts did not look like he intentionally or accidently poked Mitchell in the eye. And Mitchell did not react like that happened. As Mitchell punched him, Watts looked like he was trying to pull himself up.

Had Watts head not reacted to the impact like it did, there would be no case to answer. It's the impact that puts Mitchell in. There was none of that just prior from Mitchell that justifies any retaliation.

If Mitch had been cited, he would have challenged, and the exact nature of what Watts did would be included in the evidence.

which would be different from the fairytales featuring in here

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I don't think you guys are going to ever agree on this - can we agree to disagree?

Where's the fun in that?

This thread has at least another 10 pages left in it.

 

[blue harvest]

Nah

Just accept this shyte goes on. We all knew hawks players wouldnt be suspended

Great to hear that Sicily challenged and had the charge thrown out.