MRO Thread

[GVGjr]

* WEST Coast forward Willie Rioli has been offered a one-match ban for rough conduct on Gold Coast midfielder Matt Rowell, compounding the Eagles' early-season injury crisis.

I found this very strange as a suspension as Rowell was not hurt, and there was no head contact?

Rowell was the one focused on the ball and I dispute that he wasn't hurt. It knocked the stuffing out of him for a minute or two.
It's one of those line ball decisions but I couldn't believe the commentators didn't challenge it more during their call. It could easily be overturned.

[soupman]

I thought it was pretty reckless at the time and would much rather it gets punished than a football action where a player happens to get accidentally injured.

[Jeanette54]

* WEST Coast forward Willie Rioli has been offered a one-match ban for rough conduct on Gold Coast midfielder Matt Rowell, compounding the Eagles' early-season injury crisis.

I found this very strange as a suspension as Rowell was not hurt, and there was no head contact?

The hit was late, high, and there was no way that you could argue that the Eagles player was making the ball his sole object. Why wouldn't you suspend him. This sort of hit has the potential to cause serious injury to the player whose sole intent is the football.

[Mantis]

The hit was late, high, and there was no way that you could argue that the Eagles player was making the ball his sole object. Why wouldn't you suspend him. This sort of hit has the potential to cause serious injury to the player whose sole intent is the football.

You can’t suspend someone for what might’ve happened.

If it’s not worth a free kick… which was how the incident was viewed by the 3 umpires, then it can’t be reportable.

[bornadog]

The hit was late, high, and there was no way that you could argue that the Eagles player was making the ball his sole object. Why wouldn't you suspend him. This sort of hit has the potential to cause serious injury to the player whose sole intent is the football.

I don't believe it was a high hit.

[Bulldog Joe]

You can’t suspend someone for what might’ve happened.

If it’s not worth a free kick… which was how the incident was viewed by the 3 umpires, then it can’t be reportable.

Sorry Mantis, but I fundamentally disagree with this point.

Many instances where the umpires miss stuff.

I also believe that we should be reporting based on intent and not outcome.

This is not a comment specifically on the Rioli incident as I didn't see it. However, the Robinson one should never have been cited as Mitch just braced himself for the contact.

I don't want to see players let off (such as Selwood last year) simply because there is no injury of note.

[Mantis]

Sorry Mantis, but I fundamentally disagree with this point.

Many instances where the umpires miss stuff.

I also believe that we should be reporting based on intent and not outcome.

This is not a comment specifically on the Rioli incident as I didn't see it. However, the Robinson one should never have been cited as Mitch just braced himself for the contact.

I don't want to see players let off (such as Selwood last year) simply because there is no injury of note.

You haven't even seen the incident so how can you make comment on it?

I watched it at the time and have seen numerous replays and it was probably worth a free kick, but nothing more.

[bornadog]

You haven't even seen the incident so how can you make comment on it?

I watched it at the time and have seen numerous replays and it was probably worth a free kick, but nothing more.

On the hand the Robinson one was a suspension. He could have avoided the hit but choose to try and bump him when his head was over the ball.

West Coast are appealing the suspension.

[Bulldog Joe]

You haven't even seen the incident so how can you make comment on it?

I watched it at the time and have seen numerous replays and it was probably worth a free kick, but nothing more.

My comment was that a free kick not being paid is irrelevant to whether a suspension is justified. The umps miss plenty of incidents or just cop the wrong view.

[Bulldog Joe]

On the hand the Robinson one was a suspension. He could have avoided the hit but choose to try and bump him when his head was over the ball.

West Coast are appealing the suspension.

How could Robinson have avoided the hit. He simply braced for contact. To avoid it he would need to have vacated the area. Not sure we are ready to have our players step aside and provide free access to the opposition.

[Happy Days]

An interesting perspective on the Robinson one is that he clearly didn’t make contact with the head (because Duursma broke his damn collarbone). The Rioli one, too, whilst clumsy, doesn’t seem to have resulted in any head injury.

So given that both have been suspended, does this mean the policy has shifted from “if you elect to bump and cause head injury” etc to “don’t bump”? Which is *fine*, they just probably should have advised the players on it (assuming we’re all finding out together).

[bornadog]

How could Robinson have avoided the hit. He simply braced for contact. To avoid it he would need to have vacated the area. Not sure we are ready to have our players step aside and provide free access to the opposition.

I took another look at the video, it is hard to tell what the hell he was doing.

see here

[bornadog]

Willie Rioli has been cleared to play after having his one-match ban for rough conduct on Matt Rowell overturned by the tribunal.

Edit: Mitch Robinson ban stays

[bornadog]

When is a slap in the face worth a week off? Buddy has copped it

[jeemak]

When is a slap in the face worth a week off? Buddy has copped it

Yeah I reckon that one was borderline. Bit stiff, but also probably either way.

Will Smith has been suspended from the Academy for a slap, so there's precedence.