MRP / Trib. Thomas bump

[Old Spice]

I think its fair enough contesting bumps and charges like those against Maxwell on McGinnity for example, as that was side on, but this was just daft play by Daisy. If you didn't think or say 'FCUK Daisy' straight after I'd be surprised.

Just need to keep our powder dry. Some battles you can't win and you have to know when to retreat, lest you do more damage.

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

Yeah, but if we sent him today or tomorrow and we did happen to lose the first final, he could always come home next Tuesday or Wednesday and still be right to go, and he still would have gotten some benefit out of 4-5 days at altitude.

Would be worth the risk IMO.

CFC Football dept will not assume they will win the Qual against WC. They will factor in all possibilities, hence Thomas has to be ready to go week 2 of finals. The club shud accept the 2 week ban (doubt they can downgrade from reckless - as he jumped into him & made some high contact), they (MRP) have medical report from Freo (hence are convinced of high yet low impact). Thomas had choices, tackle front on or smother or pull out - hence considered reckless not negligent.
Keep him in Melbourne, fresh for week 2 or 3 of finals. Doubt that a late season long haul flt to Arizona & back will improve his aerobic capacity - his fitness ifs fine.

 

[KissStephanie]

That's different, he got suspended for attempted striking. I'm pretty sure there's no rule for attempted hip and shoulder.

Yes there isn't a rule against attempting to bump another player in the head, so the Alistair Lynch breakdown against Daryl Wakelin in the 2004 Grand Final is completely irrelevant of course.

Thomas still got Ibbotsons head

The video that you posted actually shows that Daisy missed Ibbotson, and again, it is the video that Collingwood should be using in an appeal. I have forwarded it to the club! Thanks again!

I've looped the relevant portion of the video for you. Just pause it and unpause it to see it slower.

Yes and it does not show that Daisy's shoulder made contact with Ibbotson's head either. It seems it's possible that his shoulder was to the side of his head and he turned his head away to avoid possible contact.

It shows, the point of Thomas's shoulder his Ibbotson in the face/head and his elbow hits Ibbotsons shoulder.

No it doesn't show that at all. It's inconclusive no matter how many times it is looped and paused.

Ibbotson's head recoils from the bump.

It actually appears to me that Daisy's shoulder is to the side of Ibbotson's head as a previous video shows, and he has turned his head away to avoid possible frontal contact.

 

[jonbe54]

I think its fair enough contesting bumps and charges like those against Maxwell on McGinnity for example, as that was side on, but this was just daft play by Daisy. If you didn't think or say 'FCUK Daisy' straight after I'd be surprised.

Just need to keep our powder dry. Some battles you can't win and you have to know when to retreat, lest you do more damage.

Too right spicey, wasn't at the game as was up country but watching the telecast I had that sinking feeling as soon as I saw him leap at him, knew he was gone there and then. Stupid, reckless brain fade.

2 weeks is a fair cop, move on and concentrate on winning the war instead of getting caught up in the battles.

 

[Ed D]

http://endlessvideo.com/watch?v=XyNJNKrz8ys&start=0m16s&end=19s

I've looped the relevant portion of the video for you.

Just pause it and unpause it to see it slower.

It shows, the point of Thomas's shoulder his Ibbotson in the face/head and his elbow hits Ibbotsons shoulder.

Ibbotson's head recoils from the bump.

I think that video shows head high contact for sure. The shoulder isn't hitting his head though which you can see going past his head on the reverse angle, it's his bicep that makes contact. It's also hard to tell if it's the force of his arm or Ibbotson reacting to Thomas that makes his head turn, but the fact that Thomas' arm remains straight even after the hit as well as Ibbotson's head didn't go flying back, plus he got up straight away means contact was minimal, which is what the MRP ruled it as.

 

[KissStephanie]

Too right spicey, wasn't at the game as was up country but watching the telecast I had that sinking feeling as soon as I saw him leap at him, knew he was gone there and then. Stupid, reckless brain fade.

I thought he might get a week, but I don't agree that it was reckless. It was negligent and contact is definitely inconclusive.

2 weeks is a fair cop, move on and concentrate on winning the war instead of getting caught up in the battles.

Two weeks (reduced to one) would have been reasonable considering the inconclusiveness of the contact. Three weeks (reduced to two) is ridiculous.

I think that video shows head high contact for sure. The shoulder isn't hitting his head though which you can see going past his head on the reverse angle, it's his bicep that makes contact.

I have looked and paused and looked and I didn't see any definite contact, even with his bicep. To consider it reckless instead of negligent is inaccurate and I hope the club challenge it.

 

[jmac70]

This is a disgrace...pure and simple. The incident in isolation is nothing more than a free kick. How can contact be reckless and impact low? The points system is totally flawed.

 

[Old Spice]

This is a disgrace...pure and simple. The incident in isolation is nothing more than a free kick. How can contact be reckless and impact low? The points system is totally flawed.

Intent and impact. They needn't marry up.

 

[jmac70]

Well they bloody well should!

 

[Matz]

Of course he got him in the head, wasn't much but it's a no no, been that way for a fair while actually.
He left the ground, hit the bloke when the ball was gone and hit him high what the **** did anyone think was going to happen to him?

Take the 2 and count your blessings and don't be so ****ing stupid next time Daisy.

Totally agree with the above

what did you expect? i wouldn't appeal as he could miss another week.
Its not worth it. We can beat West Coast without him, Wellingham and Heater to come back we have him covered.

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

I thought he might get a week, but I don't agree that it was reckless. It was negligent and contact is definitely inconclusive.Two weeks (reduced to one) would have been reasonable considering the inconclusiveness of the contact. Three weeks (reduced to two) is ridiculous.I have looked and paused and looked and I didn't see any definite contact, even with his bicep. To consider it reckless instead of negligent is inaccurate and I hope the club challenge it.

The video evidence maybe considered inconclusive however if the Freo medical report indicates some high yet low impact then the MRP will base their verdict on that. Then it is a matter of reckless v negligent. MRP probably considered that Thomas was reckless to jump into him when he had choices (tackle or smother).

 

[speedytiger]

I think its fair enough contesting bumps and charges like those against Maxwell on McGinnity for example, as that was side on, but this was just daft play by Daisy. If you didn't think or say 'FCUK Daisy' straight after I'd be surprised.

Just need to keep our powder dry. Some battles you can't win and you have to know when to retreat, lest you do more damage.

Spot on. The club embarrassed themselves contesting Daisy's last charge when he simply belted Jones in the head. Instead of everyone getting behind him and telling him how stiff he is how about someone sit him down and let him know he's stuffed up and cost the team. Maybe if they did that then we wouldn't be in this situation

 

[conodie05]

Anyone who cannot see the head high contact is living in the land of sugar plum fairies, where everybody is named after flowers and live in toadstoools.

 

[PieBeast]

Spot on. The club embarrassed themselves contesting Daisy's last charge when he simply belted Jones in the head. Instead of everyone getting behind him and telling him how stiff he is how about someone sit him down and let him know he's stuffed up and cost the team. Maybe if they did that then we wouldn't be in this situation

Yep, two brain snaps in a space of a year is way too much for a usually a ball player like Daisy, maybe the contract negotiations are making him a bit edgy.....

Three down to two is about right, pretty lucky he didn't connect all that well with Ibbotson's scone.

Amirite in thinking if didn't have that idiotic challenge for his whack on Armo Daisy wouldn't have any carry over points and would have only got one week?

And KS, give it a rest, there's clear high contact.

 

[danielnajdek]

I'm more pissed off at the Lower decision TBH.

They classified that as reckless. You gotta be ****ing kidding me. He lined up Daisy and charged at him while he had his head over the ball. I would've thought that was intentional. Lower should've got 6-8 weeks. That was a dog act.

 

[jmac70]

Spot on. The club embarrassed themselves contesting Daisy's last charge when he simply belted Jones in the head. Instead of everyone getting behind him and telling him how stiff he is how about someone sit him down and let him know he's stuffed up and cost the team. Maybe if they did that then we wouldn't be in this situation

I agree that the club should not have contested the charge earlier in the season but to say that Daisy stuffed up on this occasion is a bit rich. He had a split second decision to make and miss timed the bump. It is the MRP that has stuffed up!
We will have a very fit and motivated Daisy ready for the prelim.

 

[KissStephanie]

The video evidence maybe considered inconclusive however if the Freo medical report indicates some high yet low impact then the MRP will base their verdict on that.

I don't know what the Freo medical report said, only that it was taken into account. It may not have suggested contact was made.

Then it is a matter of reckless v negligent. MRP probably considered that Thomas was reckless to jump into him when he had choices (tackle or smother).

I disagree with that finding though, which is definitely not the first time. It is not reckless to jump and bump a player in the chest. I think the fairest outcome would have been negligent according to the inconclusive footage because there is no way anybody could definitely say that contact was made with Ibbotson's head.

I hope they appeal the penalty because two matches reduced to one with the 68.75 carry over points and an early plea would have been the fairest outcome according the all of the different angles I have seen. I'm confident they will get the penalty reduced if the club decides to challenge it.

 

[doppleganger]

I thought he might get a week, but I don't agree that it was reckless. It was negligent and contact is definitely inconclusive.

AFL Definition of reckless

A player recklessly commits a reportable offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable player would realise may result in the reportable offence being committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the reportable offence.

Clearly was reckless by Daisy, he opted to take out Ibbotson.

AFL definition of contact

The AFL is determined to protect the health and welfare of players by specifying strict sanctions for illegal, head-high contact and contact to the groin.
Contact can be classified as high, groin or body contact. High contact is not limited to contact to the head and includes contact above the shoulders.

Contact is clearly made to shoulders and head, and therefore is high contact.

Two weeks (reduced to one) would have been reasonable considering the inconclusiveness of the contact. Three weeks (reduced to two) is ridiculous.I have looked and paused and looked and I didn't see any definite contact, even with his bicep. To consider it reckless instead of negligent is inaccurate and I hope the club challenge it.

Daisy was given 5 points, which equals 225 points.

If Dale had a clean record take an early plea and he gets his one week suspension.

The fact that the tribunal adds his carry over points from his whack earlier in the year, and then gives a loading for a poor record is what turned it into 3.

Daisy cant complain, he has been stupid twice this year now and needs to cop his right whack.

 

[Ed D]

AFL Definition of reckless

A player recklessly commits a reportable offence if he engages in conduct that he realises or that a reasonable player would realise may result in the reportable offence being committed but nevertheless proceeds with that conduct not caring whether or not that conduct will result in the commission of the reportable offence.

Clearly was reckless by Daisy, he opted to take out Ibbotson.

I don't know. Thomas didn't go to bump him in the head not caring about the consequences. It's probably still reckless but out of interest do you have the AFL definition of negligent?

AFL definition of contact

The AFL is determined to protect the health and welfare of players by specifying strict sanctions for illegal, head-high contact and contact to the groin.
Contact can be classified as high, groin or body contact. High contact is not limited to contact to the head and includes contact above the shoulders.

Contact is clearly made to shoulders and head, and therefore is high contact.

Above the shoulders means neck and head, it doesn't include the shoulders. I still think Thomas made contact to the head but I'm not sure it was with enough force to be reportable.

Again I don't think Thomas should be contesting this charge. He's just as likely to get three weeks than get it reduced to one.

 

[KissStephanie]

Clearly was reckless by Daisy, he opted to take out Ibbotson.

It's not bloody clear at all! Why is it that so many are saying this incident is "clear?" It isn't! I don't believe he "opted to take out Ibbotson." I believe he decided to legally bump him within five metres of the footy, so therefore if the charge is reduced from reckless to negligent, and that high contact is inconclusive, then his penalty will definitely be reduced by one match.

 

[Yidaki]

Can someone tell me, what the chances are that CFC challenge and actually get away with less than 2 weeks?

 

[Yidaki]

It's not bloody clear at all! Why is it that so many are saying this incident is "clear?" It isn't! I don't believe he "opted to take out Ibbotson." I believe he decided to legally bump him within five metres of the footy, so therefore if the charge is reduced from reckless to negligent, and that high contact is inconclusive, then his penalty will definitely be reduced by one match.

Whats the chances that we will charge the MRPs decision and actually get away with it? Is it too big of a risk?

 

[PieBeast]

Can someone tell me, what the chances are that CFC challenge and actually get away with less than 2 weeks?

ZERO

6 zeros

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

I don't know what the Freo medical report said, only that it was taken into account. It may not have suggested contact was made.I disagree with that finding though, which is definitely not the first time. It is not reckless to jump and bump a player in the chest. I think the fairest outcome would have been negligent according to the inconclusive footage because there is no way anybody could definitely say that contact was made with Ibbotson's head. I hope they appeal the penalty because two matches reduced to one with the 68.75 carry over points and an early plea would have been the fairest outcome according the all of the different angles I have seen. I'm confident they will get the penalty reduced.

I am not disagreeing with your assessment, however I fear if we challenge then we may lose Thomas for the prelim (which would be a disater).
We are putting our finals future in the hands of lawyers (arguing reckless v negligent), which could go either way.
Assume we (club) get access to all reports etc & can digest & know how strong our case is & the chances of a successful challenge. We shud only challenge if extremely confident of a downgrade.
The club will be heavily critised if they challenge & lose.

 

[KissStephanie]

Whats the chances that we will charge the MRPs decision and actually get away with it? Is it too big of a risk?

I don't know what the chances are of them challenging of course, but I hope they do because the penalty will be reduced if they do.