Toby Greene boot to Luke Dahlhaus face.

[Sherrinator]

Players clear the space with feet when going for speccies and it is OK? Poor body protection from Dalhaus. Should know better by now.

 

[coniglio_number1]

Players can quite often put their leg straight out during a vertical jump as displayed by this dogs player

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Huh? You've never heard of being reported for unduly rough play?

Or, as it is now:
19.2.2 Specific Offences Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:
(a) intentionally or carelessly:
(vi) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable

Why don't people consult the rules before commenting? (You will note that the word "reckless" doesn't even appear any more..... ).

It's an opinion forum, not going to look up a rule book every time.
And as for rough play, just running next to someone now is considered rough play.

 

[Jean Claude Vas Deferens]

He was receiving a high, looping handball. Happens numerous times in every game.

I've seen players raise their arms in an effort to handball as the oncoming player tackles them.
I've seen players tap or punch the ball on to team-mates in their area.
I've seen players attempt to either shrug off or go under the oncoming tackler.
I've seen players attempt the Dusty Martin fend-off on the oncoming tackler.

I do not remember seeing a player taking the high hand-pass and raising their boot, studs-out to the oncoming tackler.

Forget that it's Greene. And forget that it's a player from my side. That's nothing to do with my opinion on it.
It was a dangerous thing to do and there's no place for it.

 

[Andrew Mc]

View attachment 402853
Players can quite often put their leg straight out during a vertical jump as displayed by this dogs player

No, that's clearly photoshopped. Only Greene would do such a thing.

 

[DrMike]

Any head high contact that is deemed forceful enough is a reportable offence. I would have though that was obvious. The contact was of moderate severity as it knocked him to the ground and drew blood.

Show me where it says this in the rules. That's all I'm asking for.

There are a lot of emotions on this discussion. I'm trying to ignore them so I can have an informed opinion.

 

[Substance]

View attachment 402853
Players can quite often put their leg straight out during a vertical jump as displayed by this dogs player

That's coming down not going up. Post vid pls

Edit: and it's a ruck contest...LOL.

 

[coniglio_number1]

That's coming down not going up. Post vid pls

Edit: and it's a ruck contest...LOL.

So raising the leg to head height is ok in certain situations in your eyes but if someone is moving towards you and you are looking elsewhere then it's a different story

 

[Frank Gallagher]

This was not a marking contest.
It was a handball receive. Fending off a tackle with a straight leg and the studs of a boot is so far out of the normal for footy its mind boggling that anyone can choose to defend him. Not only that, its clear that Greene was using the fend off as a means to turn his body so he could play on, running towards his forward line. The contact was deliberate. Contact to head instead of body may have been careless.

My mistake, i thought it was a marking contest, it's certainly an interesting one, can't say i've seen anything similar.

One thing though, it shouldn't be deemed as deliberate IMO.

 

[Marc_Remillard]

Great player and he's probably a decent bloke if you got to know him but comes across as a low life scumbag on the field

 

[Substance]

So raising the leg to head height is ok in certain situations in your eyes but if someone is moving towards you and you are looking elsewhere then it's a different story

He was looking at dahls direction thats where the ball was. Easily knew he was there which is why he tried to fend off.

If it happened in a ruck contest it's a free kick as well. If you intentionally fend off and get a player in the head drawing blood, your goneski

Pretty simple actually don't know why so many people need it explained

 

[DrMike]

Nathan Schmook somewhat to the rescue
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-12/analysis-five-toby-questions-for-the-mrp-to-consider


TOBY Greene's boot to the face of Western Bulldogs midfielder Luke Dahlhaus will be one of the strangest cases the Match Review Panel has assessed.

For the majority of the Panel, including first-year members Jimmy Bartel and Michael Jamison, it'll be a case with no real precedent. So what questions do the Panel ask when they sit on Monday to decide Greene's fate?

1. Did Greene intend to make contact to Dahlhaus's face?
Replays suggest Greene's eyes were on the ball and he takes possession cleanly. It is a leap to accuse the forward of intentionally planting his foot into Dahlhaus's face, and it would be difficult to sustain that grading on the MRP table of offences. Without vision of Greene watching Dahlhaus as the action was carried out, the answer to this question has to be no. In the unlikely event the MRP decided his actions were intentional, Greene would be looking at a three-week suspension.

2. Was his action unreasonable in the circumstances?
This is the question that will decide if the MRP proceeds with a charge. Greene was receiving a handball and was likely to be crunched in a tackle if he didn't protect his space. He chose to do that with one leg while he was in the air taking possession. What the MRP might decide is unreasonable is how high Greene's leg elevated, making contact with Dahlhaus's face. It was "not a football action", Paul Roos said on Fox Footy, and "you cannot allow that to happen on a football field". Former Tribunal member Daniel Harford said: "Most fair-minded people would think it wasn't unreasonable to protect himself". Greene knew Dahlhaus was closing in and he used the studs of his boots to protect himself. If the MRP think that is reasonable the case is closed here.

3. What specific charge is he guilty of?
If the MRP proceed there is the technical matter of what charge he is guilty of. The 23-year-old was reported on the spot for rough conduct, but that can be adjusted by the MRP on Monday. Rough conduct is appropriate, while kicking is another option. Then there is misconduct. Misconduct is described in the Tribunal guidelines as "any conduct which would be regarded as unacceptable or unsportsmanlike by other participants in the match". Misconduct can be punished with a fixed financial sanction determined by the MRP, skipping the grading process.

4. If charged, how should it be graded?
This might be the easiest question for the Panel to answer if they get this far and charge Greene with rough conduct or kicking. Greene's conduct would surely be deemed careless rather than intentional, given he is in the act of play and his eyes don't appear to be on Dahlhaus. Contact is made to Dahlhaus's head, while the impact sits somewhere between low and medium. That Dahlhaus was cut and had to leave the ground to have stitches suggests a grading of medium impact is more appropriate. Once Greene's bad record and an early guilty plea are applied, that would result in a two-match suspension.

5. Would this be an issue if it didn't involve Greene?
It would be an issue for the MRP to address, but with nowhere near the same "hysteria", as GWS coach Leon Cameron described it. Greene has been charged four times this season, with another headbutt going unpunished because of insufficient force. He has missed four games through suspension, carries a bad record loading for the next two seasons, and is a key player in a premiership-contending team. Greene's record also means he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of some. All he can ask from the MRP is to be treated as any other player would when the Panel sits on Monday.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Except it wasnt a mark he was recieving a handpass. Either way I think the point still stands that he is allowed to protect his space.

Could have protected his space by sticking his knee out. Chose to protect his space by fully stretching his leg and putting his studs into an opponent's face. I look it as the equivalent of a ruckman going studs up at the bounce, or a player with the ball going for a fend off with a closed fist or elbow and connecting with his opponent's head.

 

[Frank Gallagher]

Looking at it again, i just don't think there's anything it, if Dahlhaus was backing into Greene and copped a boot to the back of the head it probably would've been called play on, IMO it wasn't a deliberate act, just an accident IMO and should be let go.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Does Greene raising his leg mean that he's the one initiating contact or is Dahlhaus by running into it the one initiating it?.

The leg needs to be raised before Dalhaous can run into it.

There is no reason for him to expect a boot to be thrown in his direction, even less so one aimed at the head.

Completely iditioc to blame Dalhous for being at blame in any way . He was running at the player about to receive the ball.

 

[Orange Agent]

Pretty obvious further extension of the leg there during the twist. That's a kick.

If Dalhaus is facing the opposite way what is the call here?

 

[Frank Gallagher]

So if a player in possession of the ball fended off another player with a fist to the face causing blood to be spilled, you would be happy for no suspension?
This is clearly worse than a fist to the face, because it involves boot studs and a boot.

Should using your foot to protect yourself in marking contests be reportable?

 

[Outback Footy]

This was not a marking contest.
It was a handball receive. Fending off a tackle with a straight leg and the studs of a boot is so far out of the normal for footy its mind boggling that anyone can choose to defend him. Not only that, its clear that Greene was using the fend off as a means to turn his body so he could play on, running towards his forward line. The contact was deliberate. Contact to head instead of body may have been careless.

Agree with all of this except the potentially careless part. Have a good look at the replay, he looks at Dahl before the final action, the extension.
Deliberate, high, severe. With his record should be 3 no discount

 

[bobby2]

Should using your foot to protect yourself in marking contests be reportable?

It wasn't a marking contest. The ball was handballed to him.

 

[earlsta]

Great player imo.
Love the fact that whenever he plays the tip of his chin points to the sky, just imagine how good he'd be if the tip of his chin was pointed straight ahead?

 

[Lockyer24]

Two weeks. Knew what he was doing. If you are still fooled by this mutt and his "attempted punches" etc, can't help ya.

 

[Clems Knee]

In what situation though, and a fist is a bit more intent don't you think?
My argument is he was in a situation where he could of been hurt, he protected himself, got it wrong and was penalised with a free against.
He was also reported, but i think, and it's just my opinion, that he has every right to defend himself, he couldn't use his hands, he was getting the ball with them.

I don't agree that a fist shows more intent. Greene had to extend his leg further than a fist would, and as Roos as said, what we saw is not normal for a footy field. That takes intent.

If he was only raising his leg to protect himself, he would not have used his leg in the way that he did. The straightened leg was clearly there to push against Dalhaus so as to pivot his body. The actions show this.

Lastly, I disagree that a player has every right to defend himself if the way he defends himself has the potential to cause serious damage. The tribunal eventually realised this with Sam Mitchell's raised knee.

Should using your foot to protect yourself in marking contests be reportable?

Irrelevant. The rule for marking contests allow contact that would in any other situation be deemed illegal.

Agree with all of this except the potentially careless part. Have a good look at the replay, he looks at Dahl before the final action, the extension.
Deliberate, high, severe. With his record should be 3 no discount

Yeh I'd be okay either way - deliberate or careless. this is one of those rare cases that Reckless would be a better description than careless or negligent.

 

[Outback Footy]

Notably the short people fans have disappeared from here

 

[class78]

pretty funny how bulldogs supporters think he should get 8-10 weeks. must be something in the water out west.

 

[happy_eagle]

Agree with all of this except the potentially careless part. Have a good look at the replay, he looks at Dahl before the final action, the extension.
Deliberate, high, severe. With his record should be 3 no discount

The slo-mo replay, or the real time replay ?
Incidents like these shouldn't be decided using slow motion replays.