Stevie J Does it again.

[estibador]

I don't agree with all the road rules, but I think that penalties given down for breaking them are valid cause I like this in this society and stuff.

Again that's a pretty inconsistent position you've talked yourself into believing.

There's some laws I don't agree with (possession of certain drugs, etc) and I absolutely do not want to see people punished under them. That's the whole point of not agreeing with them.

 

[manboob]

You make a decent point, but it's a pretty slippery slope. Fyfe/SJ's bump was intentional but the head high contact was unintentional? Pretty easy to argue that if you intended to hit you knew that making head high contact was a potential outcome. A but like firing a rifle into a crowded place - you didn't intend to hit someone, but chances are pretty good that you're gonna.

 

[manboob]

Again that's a pretty inconsistent position you've talked yourself into believing.

There's some laws I don't agree with (possession of certain drugs, etc) and I absolutely do not want to see people punished under them. That's the whole point of not agreeing with them.

It's incredibly consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration

 

[estibador]

It's incredibly consistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleration

"One can meaningfully speak of tolerating—i.e., of allowing or permitting—only if one is in a position to disallow."

 

[jackkkkk]

You make a decent point, but it's a pretty slippery slope. Fyfe/SJ's bump was intentional but the head high contact was unintentional? Pretty easy to argue that if you intended to hit you knew that making head high contact was a potential outcome. A but like firing a rifle into a crowded place - you didn't intend to hit someone, but chances are pretty good that you're gonna.

Analogies are usually a terrible way of getting your point across, and this is no different

 

[JamFrank]

You make a decent point, but it's a pretty slippery slope. Fyfe/SJ's bump was intentional but the head high contact was unintentional? Pretty easy to argue that if you intended to hit you knew that making head high contact was a potential outcome. A but like firing a rifle into a crowded place - you didn't intend to hit someone, but chances are pretty good that you're gonna.

I think there is a distinction that needs to be made between acts such as Vickery and Conca, and bumps that result in head high contact. I would argue that one is a mistake, easily made, the other there is no hiding the intent.

I don't think players are weighing up every potential outcome of their actions on the footy field; they act on instinct. So I disagree with your analogy to firing a rifle in a crowded place.

I can understand punishing a player under the guideline you mentioned: "if you intended to hit you knew that making head high contact was a potential outcome" as the AFL doesn't want law suits from brain damaged players bankrupting them 10 years down the track. However, I do not feel that because of an act like this, a player should be further punished beyond the initial sentence as a result of carry over points/disqualification from the brownlow etc.

 

[manboob]

"One can meaningfully speak of tolerating—i.e., of allowing or permitting—only if one is in a position to disallow."

Don't quite get your point...

 

[manboob]

I can understand punishing a player under the guideline you mentioned: "if you intended to hit you knew that making head high contact was a potential outcome" as the AFL doesn't want law suits from brain damaged players bankrupting them 10 years down the track. However, I do not feel that because of an act like this, a player should be further punished beyond the initial sentence as a result of carry over points.

I guess my question is how do you judge what is deliberate. Conca's is easy cause he chased a bloke down. But after that it becomes a pretty grey area.
"Rough conduct" anyone?

And you **** you all my analogy is awesome

 

[Rainfall]

He did it on purpose for the safety of both Balla and Crow

 

[JamFrank]

I guess my question is how do you judge what is deliberate. Conca's is easy cause he chased a bloke down. But after that it becomes a pretty grey area.
"Rough conduct" anyone?

And you **** you all my analogy is awesome

Well the match review panel already do this. Fyfe's bump charge was labelled "Negligent" not "intentional".

Therefore under my proposed system, he would not receive carry over points, as there was clearly no malice in the act.

 

[Docker82]

In before two week suspension for striking Crowley*.

*If not Ballantyne

 

[PurpleGreenRed]

In before two week suspension for striking Crowley*.

*If not Ballantyne

Im going for both...Both Crowley and Ballantyne to niggle SJ. SJ to fire up...get reported and give away at least 1 fifty metre penalty.

I'm hoping.

 

[Allikat]

Yeah Stevie J's just delaying his ban by a week.

In the past couple of weeks from the MRP I've learnt:
1. Kneeing your opponent is not cool - unless he's already got a broken rib then knee him harder next time.
2. King hitting your opponent is severely frowned upon - unless you chase him half way across the field and hit him from behind.

 

[UFO Tatsu]

Yeah Stevie J's just delaying his ban by a week.

In the past couple of weeks from the MRP I've learnt:
1. Kneeing your opponent is not cool - unless he's already got a broken rib then knee him harder next time.
2. King hitting your opponent is severely frowned upon - unless you chase him half way across the field and hit him from behind.

3. Use your elbow not your fist

 

[manboob]

3. Use your elbow knee not your fist

 

[UFO Tatsu]

EDIT:

3. Use your elbow or your knee not your fist

 

[electricfeel]

I'm glad Stevie J has been let off. We get to see Crowley v Johnson again! Bring some more spice to the game!

 

[UFO Tatsu]

I'm glad Stevie J has been let off. We get to see Crowley v Johnson again! Bring some more spice to the game!

same ... i dun like relying on the opposition fortunes for my team's wins ... best team on the field please

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Thing that has me confused is why did they call in Thompson to give evidence? i thought the tribunal didn't take that into account anymore at least thats what i heard with the Petrie/Lake incident.

 

[manboob]

Thing that has me confused is why did they call in Thompson to give evidence? i thought the tribunal didn't take that into account anymore at least thats what i heard with the Petrie/Lake incident.

I guess cause they saw a medical report that mentioned broken rib?

 

[willoblue]

Excuse my ignorance who is Cletus?

not ignorance at all, really
it is just me persisting with my private nickname for johnson who reminds me of the Simpsons character.

 

[Freofalcon]

F$&k it. Over trying to understand the appropriate penalties for indiscretions committed in the field of play and how the MRP works. What's done is done . One thing I do understand is that if we don't win this weekend, fertilising your garden with rocking-horse shit may be easier to do than go all the way this year. Top two is essential .

 

[yoong]

Thing that has me confused is why did they call in Thompson to give evidence? i thought the tribunal didn't take that into account anymore at least thats what i heard with the Petrie/Lake incident.

It is to give additional evidence. He is there to explain when SJ knee him, Thompson's rolling in pain is due to the broken rib injury and not caused by the force applied.

 

[StingBitten]

I guess my question is how do you judge what is deliberate. Conca's is easy cause he chased a bloke down. But after that it becomes a pretty grey area.
"Rough conduct" anyone?

And you **** you all my analogy is awesome

Isn't it refreshing to post on an opposition board that tolerates your comments and is willing to argue your point without threats of Mod reprisal? (within reason).

Something your board could learn from...

 

[Kram]

Isn't it refreshing to post on an opposition board that tolerates your comments and is willing to argue your point without threats of Mod reprisal? (within reason).

Something your board could learn from...

Carlton are the worst, I got 3 points for calling their posters and mods 'marshmallows' on a gameday thread not even over there but on the main board ffs.