MRP / Trib. The MRP thread

[grimlock]

Thought we had one, couldn't find it. Anyhoo,

Ted gets a reprimand for rough conduct against Lindsay Thomas. Can't remember the incident, will have to watch the replay for it.

Kizza cleared for his contact to Swallow's head.

Also, Thomas charged with negligent, severe impact to the body and gets a 3 game suspension down to 2 with an early plea. Wasn't expecting that but at least they're consistent.

 

[Danair]

I said on the North board that fair or not Thomas won't be playing next week.

 

[SM]

Was saying to Vonn today that they had to suspend Thomas from what I saw of it, glad they did. Also glad that it proved her wrong. I enjoy it when Vonn is wrong.

 

[AG]

MRP has lost it with all this sliding business. Neither Goodes or Thomas should have been suspended. Bad luck for Rohan but what Thomas did was fine imo.

 

[scottwade]

MRP has lost it with all this sliding business. Neither Goodes or Thomas should have been suspended. Bad luck for Rohan but what Thomas did was fine imo.

I think what they are saying is that it has the potential to cause injury and obviously did with Gary.

By sliding neither Goodes nor Thomas intended to cause injury, but imagine the potential consequences if either player had contacted a neck.

Maybe my mind is going but I don't remember sliding being a means of gathering the ball in years past. It seems to me it is something that has crept into the game only in recent seasons.

In this instance I don't think it is 'softening' the game. Players don't need to slide to take possession and if it has the potential to cause injury then I don't object to the attempts to take it out of the game.

Surprised to see KJ cleared.
MRP determined "...that Jack had no realistic alternative way to contest the ball and no further action was taken."

 

[giantsully]

Pretty bizarre IMO but I guess at least they're consistent. Very harsh for Thomas for what to me was just a tragic accident.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Consistency, finally, the MRP gets it.

 

[replicant]

Was ted's the one late in the game, where he went up to spoil, and dropped an elbow in the back of Thomas' head on the way through?

I remember the incident, but not the players involved. If so, then yeah, he deserved the reprimand. It was pretty obvious, and pretty deliberate. Glad he did no damage.

 

[grimlock]

No the report said it was from the 2nd quarter.

 

[Sanecow]

It was bad luck for the MRP that the two incidents were in consecutive matches. If they'd had a month or so in between, they could have ignored consistency in the traditional fashion.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Precedent has been well and truly set.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Watch Thomas get off at the tribunal because of all the whinging going on by non-Norf and Norf supporters.

Where were these hypocrites that defending Thomas tonight, last week? oh wait.....

Thomas shouldn't have been rubbed out, but NEITHER SHOULD HAVE GOODES LAST WEEK!!!

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Watch Thomas get off at the tribunal because of all the whinging going on by non-Norf and Norf supporters.

Where were these hypocrites that defending Thomas tonight, last week? oh wait.....

Thomas shouldn't have been rubbed out, but NEITHER SHOULD HAVE GOODES LAST WEEK!!!

He wont get off it was a accident and i dont believe Thomas is a dirty player but rules have been set.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

I have a bad feeling he will, but i hope you're right JohnG. The AFL have set the precedent on this issue.

 

[mark121]

I dont really want him to get suspended for the injury to Gary but imo it was worse than the incident where Goodes was suspended for just last week.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I keep thinking that if Goodes wasn't suspended last week Rohan would have been in a different position and wouldn't have been injured. A butterfly effect of sorts.

These what ifs will be in my head until Rohan returns

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I keep thinking that if Goodes wasn't suspended last week Rohan would have been in a different position and wouldn't have been injured. A butterfly effect of sorts.

These what ifs will be in my head until Rohan returns

Is Rohan break any different from what Ziebell suffered? he came back from two breaks at a similar age so hopefully it isnt the end of the world for him.

 

[AG]

Don't think Ziebell's were compound fractures? From memory his second break was down at Geelong and didn't even look bad at all.

 

[CAS79]

I have a bad feeling he will, but i hope you're right JohnG. The AFL have set the precedent on this issue.

Why do you have a bad feeling. It no longer effects us.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Why do you have a bad feeling. It no longer effects us.

Because I just want to see consistency in the MRP and tribunal, but consistency is not a strong point with them. Doesn't matter that it doesn't effect us, they have set the precedent and they should stick to it, rather than fall back on their word.

 

[CAS79]

Because I just want to see consistency in the MRP and tribunal, but consistency is not a strong point with them. Doesn't matter that it doesn't effect us, they have set the precedent and they should stick to it, rather than fall back on their word.

When a mistake is made I don't like to see it repeated.

 

[MarkEllis]

He had to go for consistency. Poor guy.

Why can't the AFL simply come out and say leaving your feet will carry consequences? They really need to say something and not "imply" it.

Don't take this the wrong way but if they had made a clear statement after Goodes maybe Thomas doesn't leave his feet - maybe Rohan is not injured.

Yeh if my Uncle was a woman she would be my aunty and all the rest BUT if the AFL is concerned about this and wants to get it of of the game for the love of Christ just say it and then all who leave their feet will be gone for weeks damage or not. Long stretch but I just have this itch that will not go away.

 

[liz]

Why do you have a bad feeling. It no longer effects us.

I think it affects everyone who enjoys the game because it is about setting boundaries of what is and what isn't acceptable in pursuit of a loose ball.

There were far too many horrendous injuries at the weekend. Most of them were unpreventable or no-one was culpable. But it is timely to have a discussion in the football world about what injuries can be prevented, or at least their risk of occurence reduced.

The footy public was up in arms about the banning of a hip and shoulder than results in even incidental high contact. And about the vigourous tackle that results in a head being slammed into the ground. But on the whole players have adapted over a period of a few years and we have probably been saved some serious head injuries as a result.

I don't know what the "right" answer is in the slide / attack ball on ground / keep your feet debate but I think it is debate that needs to be had if it can stop another player breaking his leg like that.

 

[Drew23]

I think it affects everyone who enjoys the game because it is about setting boundaries of what is and what isn't acceptable in pursuit of a loose ball.

There were far too many horrendous injuries at the weekend. Most of them were unpreventable or no-one was culpable. But it is timely to have a discussion in the football world about what injuries can be prevented, or at least their risk of occurence reduced.

The footy public was up in arms about the banning of a hip and shoulder than results in even incidental high contact. And about the vigourous tackle that results in a head being slammed into the ground. But on the whole players have adapted over a period of a few years and we have probably been saved some serious head injuries as a result.

I don't know what the "right" answer is in the slide / attack ball on ground / keep your feet debate but I think it is debate that needs to be had if it can stop another player breaking his leg like that.

I thought I would pop in here to see what swans fans thought of the incident. For the most part it is exactly what I thought. The mrp decision is a load of shit. Thomas won a free kick from the incident. Therefore this means the umpires don't even know what the rules are.any person who does not believe this ban is rediculus needs to follow another sport. Thomas did what you would expect any of your players to do. He went low and hard at the contest. He got to the ball first and didn't care about what happened to him. If Thomas leg had missed rohan, rohan probably would have gone on to shoulder him in the head. Yer I feel for rohan he will be a gun one day quick and skillful. I agree with the last paragraph from the above. There needs to be a way to stop people getting injured like that. Problem is, its just a bit of badluck you can't turn the blame on anyone. Kids are brought up to go hard at the footy and get there first. Thomas did both and as a north fan I'm proud of him for that as he is sometimes seen as soft. But our great game is turning into a laughing stock. My junior team are allowed to go harder at the footy than a bunch of professionals. Let them play and let all us fans enjoy our footy. No more crap around these suspensions. From where I see it there won't be marking contests by the end of the year. As we all know what happened to Robbie gray when he was going for a marking contest.


On a side note the goodes/Thomas incidents are uncompareable. Thomas had many more factors in his favour. Not that I believe Goodes should have been suspended but. Thomas was first to the footy, was lower than rohan, unlike Goodes contact was only ever going to be low, it was wet, the technique of sliding with feet rather than knees will cause less body impact, Goodes had a freekick against him for it while Thomas got a free kick for him, Gary rohan was coming at a ferocious speed, case of wrong place wrong time incidental contact, Thomas had eyes only for the ball. The last one is the killer, with Goodes both occasions looking at his opponent when sliding for the ball

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I think it affects everyone who enjoys the game because it is about setting boundaries of what is and what isn't acceptable in pursuit of a loose ball.

There were far too many horrendous injuries at the weekend. Most of them were unpreventable or no-one was culpable. But it is timely to have a discussion in the football world about what injuries can be prevented, or at least their risk of occurence reduced.

The footy public was up in arms about the banning of a hip and shoulder than results in even incidental high contact. And about the vigourous tackle that results in a head being slammed into the ground. But on the whole players have adapted over a period of a few years and we have probably been saved some serious head injuries as a result.

I don't know what the "right" answer is in the slide / attack ball on ground / keep your feet debate but I think it is debate that needs to be had if it can stop another player breaking his leg like that.

Leg injuries are the worst just horrendous thank god Ablett didnt have his leg planted on the ground with weight on it or it would of been another player with a broken leg