MRP / Trib. Which Useless campaigner Gave Wines 3 weeks?

[Orange crush]

He really hasn’t. Based on a precedent he probably could have done with a week for the contact on wines and even that was accidental while trying to spoil a handball of all things. The only other times anything has ever been brought up was the rarely invoked (ie. it isn’t at all because it doesn’t exist) ‘he hit him too hard’ rule for his bump into the ribs of a Suns player this year, and last year when he clearly tried to collect the ball and Krueger went for it as well and he threw himself on the ground, didn’t get concussed, played out the game and even Luke Hodge said Krueger played for the free kick.

So when has he been protected? Ok so he maybe dodged a one week holiday for a fairly incidental and certainly accidental attempt to stop a handball. Wow he’s the first player ever to get the better of a 50-50 MRO decision.

The one clear cut case he’s had he got his right whack and sat down for a month.

Neale is paying for the sins of Stewart

 

[StackedHunch]

Can you cite more than 1?

The hit on Noah Anderson in June.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

The hit on Noah Anderson in June.

Ok that's the one I thought you would say, hence asking for more than one.

Noah wasn't caught high btw but on the standard of wines getting 3 for concussing Lord i guess the rules should give him a retrospective 2 weeks

 

[PhatBoy]

Ok that's the one I thought you would say, hence asking for more than one.

Noah wasn't caught high btw but on the standard of wines getting 3 for concussing Lord i guess the rules should give him a retrospective 2 weeks

They would have given him a 1 week discount for the lack of concussion and the lack of high contact and left the two on there on the grounds that he didn’t get him high/low enough.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Ok that's the one I thought you would say, hence asking for more than one.

Noah wasn't caught high btw but on the standard of wines getting 3 for concussing Lord i guess the rules should give him a retrospective 2 weeks

2 weeks for a bump to the body with no resulting concussion?
I didn’t realise that’s a reportable offence.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

2 weeks for a bump to the body with no resulting concussion?
I didn’t realise that’s a reportable offence.

Neither did I until I looked at Wines getting 3 weeks

 

[kickazz]

Sorry but he should know better. He chose to bump when he could have just as easily attempted to stick his fingers up his opponent's arse, thereby escaping any MRO scrutiny

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Sorry but he should know better. He chose to bump when he could have just as easily attempted to stick his fingers up his opponent's arse, thereby escaping any MRO scrutiny

Really should go to a game next week with a cardboard sign saying "inappropriate touching is not a crime "

 

[TheThunderboltKid]

One of the most bizarre decisions I can recall. A regulation bump in the back/side to pressure a kicker, resulting in no injury, no free kick, where the player didn't even go off the ground.

Graded SEVERE IMPACT.

Tom Stewart hit wines in the head 2 weeks ago with a flying hip to the head. Graded low impact.

Mind bogglingly inconsistent and stupid.

Not saying I agree with the suspension, but literally everything you said here is incorrect.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Unfortunately, those words 'elected to bump' automatically make you responsible for the outcome these days, and we all know it. I think the AFL teams, coaches and players are way ahead of the fans in terms of acceptance. I'm a fan who doesn't think that outcome should determine the penalty more than action, and I think this should be made clearer, but if we see a bump and an injury, we just have to start thinking weeks, rather than arguing a thousand other cases.

The bump is a massive risk and is all but dead. But hey, maybe it does protect the sport in general. This litigation side of things is a minefield.

 

[Antzzz]

Port has to challenge this AFL Madness !

 

[soafraid]

Not saying I agree with the suspension, but literally everything you said here is incorrect.

He had 54% TOG and the wines bump happened 10 minutes into the second quarter.
Can't have been very concussed if he played another half an hour.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Unfortunately, those words 'elected to bump' automatically make you responsible for the outcome these days, and we all know it. I think the AFL teams, coaches and players are way ahead of the fans in terms of acceptance. I'm a fan who doesn't think that outcome should determine the penalty more than action, and I think this should be made clearer, but if we see a bump and an injury, we just have to start thinking weeks, rather than arguing a thousand other cases.

The bump is a massive risk and is all but dead. But hey, maybe it does protect the sport in general. This litigation side of things is a minefield.

I think this video package all but confirms your point.

Absolutely farcical.

https://www.theroar.com.au/afl/video/bulls-t-sun-couldnt-care-less-about-dissent-sprays-ump-after-third-borderline-free-against-him-1445636/

 

[TheThunderboltKid]

He had 54% TOG and the wines bump happened 10 minutes into the second quarter.
Can't have been very concussed if he played another half an hour.

That's not how concussions work...

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

He had 54% TOG and the wines bump happened 10 minutes into the second quarter.
Can't have been very concussed if he played another half an hour.

Concussion symptoms can show immediately or up to 48 hours later.

 

[Stopher]

I'm sorry, but a player spending another quarter's worth of footy on the ground after an incident should not be allowed to claim said incident is solely responsible for a concussion.

 

[soafraid]

That's not how concussions work...

And so you can conclusively say the concussion happened from wines bump, and not any other physical contact in the next 30 minutes of game time?

 

[TheThunderboltKid]

And so you can conclusively say the concussion happened from wines bump, and not any other physical contact in the next 30 minutes of game time?

No, I can conclusively say that every statement you made was incorrect.

 

[soafraid]

No, I can conclusively say that every statement you made was incorrect.

Ok

Still not worth 3 weeks.

 

[The Hobo]

That's not how concussions work...

Sure, but he didn't even go off for a HIA at the time. He didn't hold his head.

How are we so sure that this incident was the reason for his concussion if he didn't react in any way to it.

 

[The Hobo]

And so you can conclusively say the concussion happened from wines bump, and not any other physical contact in the next 30 minutes of game time?

or prior to it as well.

 

[TheThunderboltKid]

Sure, but he didn't even go off for a HIA at the time. He didn't hold his head.

How are we so sure that this incident was the reason for his concussion if he didn't react in any way to it.

Not sure, don't really care.

 

[kickazz]

Not sure, don't really care.

That's a pretty stupid comment. Don't we all care that people don't get suspended for things they didn't do?

 

[TheThunderboltKid]

That's a pretty stupid comment. Don't we all care that people don't get suspended for things they didn't do?

I don't think you've followed the conversation, I simply replied to someone who said 'no injury, no free kick, where the player didn't even go off the ground'. I've made no comment on the suspension.

 

[SC_Power]

Well done AFL, great outcome, was going to be anything from 0-5 games and I was right.
Wines should have jumped in the air pretending to smother and turned his body and made glancing contact to the head and knocked him over and then caused a delayed concussion and argued he had no option until it was too late, and he was duty bound to go for the body contact because the coach would have been upset if he didn’t,

and he would have gotten off.

It’s worked a number of times already this year. I’d almost get upset if I really cared about the AFL anymore, but the EPL season has started now and even their refereeing somehow looks professional compared to this sport.