A week is fair enough , but I can’t stand the impact element of a suspension .
How many times does a player get off because of minimal impact ?
The impact was minimal , but be certain there will be a player who gets off under “ minimal impact “
Printable View
A week is fair enough , but I can’t stand the impact element of a suspension .
How many times does a player get off because of minimal impact ?
The impact was minimal , but be certain there will be a player who gets off under “ minimal impact “
That is hard to fathom. I watched it twice because I thought I’d missed an act of thuggery. Compare it with Toby Greene and Dahl. You instinctively flinch and feel it’s such a dangerous act, compared to this bit of silliness.
Again, the u pure was right there and chose not to report him, nor reverse the free kick. More responsibility needs to be placed on the umpire to make the report, rather than have someone scour video for opportunities to justify their existence.
That was poor discipline from Hunter. But 1 week is a harsh penalty when allowing for the scenario and stacking it up against other reportable incidents. Why does an elbow into the back/kidneys before the ball is bounced not generate the same penalty? JJ was assaulted for weeks, intentionally, off the ball and forcefully enough to put him on the ground, for no free kick, no penalty. Dahl was killed kicked in the face, and everyone did gymnastics to conceive it as anything but.....
"Rough conduct" strikes again. The deliberately vague charge with which the league can apply arbitrarily to make an example of some players, without really having to justify it. For when media pressure or the imaginary soccer mum hysteria makes the brand manager a little queasy. It's a shit charge and this is another example.
If that is the threshold for a suspension, then we may as well not have free kicks anymore.
Hunter deserved to be suspended for that, I can't see any argument for that. To forcefully put your hands on a defenseless players face unprovoked is a shit act, much like Rance's slap to Watts head a couple of years ago was as well.
The issue is obviously when you compare it to other suspensions and their lengths. 1 week for Hunter seems bad when someone else cops one week for something with greater potential to hurt. This is more down to the fact that it is so difficult to assign variety of suspension terms to players. When 90% of the suspension you hand out are between 1 and 2 weeks it means that a great variety of actions cop the same penalty.
Suspension plus fine is the way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by soupaman
Hunter has accepted 1 week, Jack Graham to challenge his suspension.
Western Bulldogs AFLW captain Katie Brennan free to play round one next season. League changing the rules to mean suspensions for women are same as for men. Human Rights Commission action has been dropped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Axe Man
Thanks to WB and the actions of Katie, the AFL has now changed this stupid and unfair punishment to be more equitable with the men's game.
Was stupid, but Papleys acting was first rate - did Hunter even get him in the face? it looked like contact was to the chest and then Papley grabs his faceQuote:
Originally Posted by ledge
If Hunter was going to hit Papley then I would have much preferred he hit him really hard. Papley is such a grub
Hunter absolutely gets his face.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldog Revolution
I have said it a million times, MRP is a joke. How Burton gets away with knocking out Higgins is beyond me, accidental clash of heads or not, he chose to bump, and the consequences was Higgins knocked out
The other one is Mitchell getting away with elbowing Goldstein to the head. Cordy got a week for the same thing.
AFL really don't have any idea.
What is the difference between that one and Macrae lying on his back and a Freo player pressing his forearm into Jack's neck - that would have hurt - didn't even get sited. The Hunter one is just a fine not a week off. Papley is a spoilt brat acting out as if he was punched hard to the face - weak as piss.Quote:
Originally Posted by westdog54
Christian must have money on Mitchell for the Brownlow.
Cordy did not raise an elbow. Hooker's jaw made some contact with his bicep. It was a much more innocent action than the one by Mitchell.Quote:
Originally Posted by bornadog
I can’t see any difference between Cordy getting 1 week for his strike on Hooker and Mitchell for his strike on Goldstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by bornadog
Mitchell’s somehow assessed with the softer misconduct whilst Christian deems Cordy’s as striking.
Striking inconsistency.
Mitchell was very soft, I'm happy to see that not given weeks but when you compare it to Hunter getting a week it is laughable.
Burton getting off is incredible. Choose to bump and as a result Higgins was knocked out. He had the option of tackling but chose to bump, just staggering. It's like the last 5 years haven't existed.
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-08-08/...anct-mclachlan
If Joel Selwood gets off .... "I'll spew up".
How was Slobbo on AFL360 saying he should get off and sucking up to Chris Scott. It was sickening, I switched over to another channel.Quote:
Originally Posted by angelopetraglia
A while back when we were musing about the most loathed players in the game I suggested there was daylight between Toby Greene and second place.
James Sicily's taught me I was wrong.
Sicily is playing the role of a pantomime villain, thinking he is tough. Behaving disgracefully at the moment. The sort of stuff he is doing off the ball (trodding on downed opponent) should see him out for a few weeks. Not in play, not necessary, deliberate and unsportsmanlike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Science
Why won't the media point out the rubbish masquerading as the tribunal?
Probably because they have their noses in the trough as much as the players and admin. Betcha it's been years since Robbo paid for anything to do with football, free food at games, free entry. Why would he rock the boat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelopetraglia
There is nothing in Selwood's "strike". It's not dissimilar to Hunter's, more of a push than a strike. Hunter's should have been no more than a fine and neither should Selwood's. But just like Mitchell getting a fine and Cordy getting a week, if Selwood gets off the inconsistency will be glaring.Quote:
Originally Posted by bornadog
Agree. But we have not had any luck with the MRP of late. Anything borderline and we have been punished. If Hunter went for his and Selwood gets off .... I'll spew up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Axe Man
I love how many people fall over themselves to make excuses for this dickhead, much like they do for Toby Greene.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonofScray
Why can't we just admit these players are dickheads irrespective of how well they can play the game, and deride them because they are dickheads?
Selwood is a protected species :mad: .... “spewing up”
It never fails to plunge new, deeper depths of shoddiness. Just a joke.
He should never have been cited for it. What a joke of a suspension. Someone deliberately stands on someone and gets a week. Yeah they fixed the MRP this season. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by angelopetraglia
What a disgrace ! Hunter should have been cleared
So “ the look of the game” doesn’t matter this week ?
It did last week !! Chooklotto
We just took it on the chin though, we should have challenged. There was absolutely nothing in it at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Remi Moses
I think we should keep video evidence of all these players that get off and use it as our defence for simular or lesser infringements to get our players off.
If that fails leak it to the media.
The decisions make no sense whatsoever unless you believe in a conspiracy of an inner circle of “good blokes”, clubs continually favoured by the tribunal and mythology about some guys as heroic and untouchable... hang on...
Imagine if Thomas had done the same thing to Selwood. Thomas would have got three weeks!!!!!!
Bailey Williams cleared contact Z Fisher. A free kick was paid at time for dangerous tackle. Match Review said while tackle was careless and free correctly paid, it was his view there was not enough force in the tackle to constitute a charge being laid. No further action taken.
Luke Parker cleared from last night, so no charge to answer to.
Fyfe involved in a few incidents. One where he elected to bump and caused a head clash, the other where he knocked Carlisle out.
The latter was interesting as Carlisle was on the ground (head over the ball and wrapped up in a tackle) when Fyfe ran in and collected him with his knee. Accidental, but still knocked him out. Should it be careless or negligent as he has run into a vulnerable (stationary) player and collected their head?
I suspect the Brownlow market will keep him safe.
Yeo got cleared after seemingly doing exactly what Nic Nat did
Ed Curnow has copped one week at the AFL appeals board, while Charlie Curnow is free to play
Charlie's was borderline and part of a bigger melee. I'm not unhappy that he's been given the benefit of the doubt.
How Ed was cleared at the tribunal is mind boggling.
MRP gets worse every week. Hunter needs to be given an explanation how he gets a week and Menegola gets off for a dog act.
You can see the incident here
Quote:
Originally Posted by bornadog
Geekong at KP get everything from tge umpires and now the tribunal cheers them in.
I'm forgetting that Steve Hocking is in charge aren't I? You don't mind doing it hard, that's where the fun in achieving things is, as they say "if it was easy everybody would do it" but it's a discrace that this competition is now administered and umpired differently depending on which team you play for. That's not fair. And when teams like Geelong win its not fair on them because in reality they have acheived nothing-it's been handed to them on a plate.