-
09-09-2019, 04:58 PM
#631
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Topdog
I'm not so sure Greene will be dealt with. He has been either found guilty or pleaded guilty 16 times in 7 years. He really should miss 8 matches just due to the sheer volume of incidents
Apparently his defence will be the scars on Bont's face happened during the game and not with the incident he was involved in.
If I was at the tribunal as the prosecutor, I would say, Hey Toby, lie down on the ground and I will grab you by the hair and smash it into the turf and see if you like it.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
09-09-2019, 04:59 PM
#632
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
bornadog
Apparently his defence will be the scars on Bont's face happened during the game and not with the incident he was involved in.
How could he possibly know that? I hope our medicos crucify him.
Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.
-
09-09-2019, 05:09 PM
#633
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
comrade
How could he possibly know that? I hope our medicos crucify him.
read Giants to argue Greene not responsible for Bontempelli bruising
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
09-09-2019, 05:12 PM
#634
Re: MRO Thread
Intent. Intent. Intent.
This has been driving me insane for years. Intent should count for MUCH more than outcome. But instead the tribunal invariably judges it arse-about. This is how a legitimate bump, in the spirit of the game, that accidentally catches someone at a bad angle, can be assessed as more deserving of punishment than a deliberate punch in the face or kick in the jaw or a gouge to the eye, completely unnecessary to the game, which luckily happens to cause no serious damage.
What is the point of the MRO? Surely the aim should be to ALTER BEHAVIOUR. Any on-field action which is unnecessary to the playing of the game and which has the potential to cause injury (regardless of whether such injury actually occurred) should incur the severest penalty. Because you don't want players to do it again.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Likes
-
09-09-2019, 05:33 PM
#635
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Murphy'sLore
Intent. Intent. Intent.
This has been driving me insane for years. Intent should count for MUCH more than outcome. But instead the tribunal invariably judges it arse-about. This is how a legitimate bump, in the spirit of the game, that accidentally catches someone at a bad angle, can be assessed as more deserving of punishment than a deliberate punch in the face or kick in the jaw or a gouge to the eye, completely unnecessary to the game, which luckily happens to cause no serious damage.
What is the point of the MRO? Surely the aim should be to ALTER BEHAVIOUR. Any on-field action which is unnecessary to the playing of the game and which has the potential to cause injury (regardless of whether such injury actually occurred) should incur the severest penalty. Because you don't want players to do it again.
Totally agree. Take the Nic Nat Merrett incident - although Nic Nat was provoked by the hair pull what he did was really dangerous. Throwing someone much smaller than you into a fence could easily cause serious injury. By dumb luck Merrett wasn't hurt so he gets off with a fine.
-
09-09-2019, 05:36 PM
#636
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
Axe Man
Totally agree. Take the Nic Nat Merrett incident - although Nic Nat was provoked by the hair pull what he did was really dangerous. Throwing someone much smaller than you into a fence could easily cause serious injury. By dumb luck Merrett wasn't hurt so he gets off with a fine.
They both should have copped a week. Pulling hair is a low act
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
09-09-2019, 05:36 PM
#637
Re: MRO Thread
They are completely divorced from reality. No one can look at the footage without squirming. What exactly are they going to claim Greene was doing? If he missed Bont's eye it wasn't for want of trying. As for Bartel - just shut up, now.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
09-09-2019, 06:38 PM
#638
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
bornadog
but he's not being charged for the marks or bruises on Bont's face. He's being charged for the incident that everyone can see with their bare eyes.
Argument DISMISSED!
-
09-09-2019, 06:46 PM
#639
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
bornadog
And surprise surprise the AFL is happy to oblige this:
Gleeson says there is an "intensity" about the way in which Greene approached Bontempelli, though says he will make no submission about what Greene did with his hands.
Will be a wrist slap.
-
09-09-2019, 06:46 PM
#640
Re: MRO Thread
As bad as it looks not sure he gets suspended unless Bont says he was gouging.
Hair pulling has already been determined as just a fine, and if he gets the "making unnecessary contact to the face" charge then that's a fine as well.
I am prepared to be very dissapointed about the "punishment" dished out.
I should leave it alone but you're not right
-
09-09-2019, 06:47 PM
#641
Re: MRO Thread
JAY CLARK reports the AFL's legal counsel, Jeff Gleeson QC, says Toby Greene should be fined $5000.
-
09-09-2019, 06:49 PM
#642
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
soupaman
As bad as it looks not sure he gets suspended unless Bont says he was gouging.
Hair pulling has already been determined as just a fine, and if he gets the "making unnecessary contact to the face" charge then that's a fine as well.
I am prepared to be very dissapointed about the "punishment" dished out.
Yes it all comes down probably (rightly or wrongly) to Marcus' version of events, and I'd hazard a guess he wants to move on quickly.
-
09-09-2019, 06:55 PM
#643
Re: MRO Thread
Originally Posted by
soupaman
As bad as it looks not sure he gets suspended unless Bont says he was gouging.
Hair pulling has already been determined as just a fine, and if he gets the "making unnecessary contact to the face" charge then that's a fine as well.
I am prepared to be very disappointed about the "punishment" dished out.
But is wasn't just hair pulling, he slams his head into the ground whilst holding his hair. What a weak coward he is when he is on top and doing that. There was eye gouging alright, but AFL want their love child to win games.
FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
-
09-09-2019, 07:03 PM
#644
Re: MRO Thread
Gouging aside ... if $5k is the going rate for grabbing a prone opponents hair and repeatedly smashing his head into the ground I'm personally slipping PG a paper bag full of unmarked bills with an instruction note inside for Libba come our first game against this mob in 2020.
Bargain.
BORDERLINE FLYING
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Likes
-
09-09-2019, 07:08 PM
#645
Re: MRO Thread
I said yesterday, why do they keep doing this? Because there's never any serious consequence to their actions. This just emboldens them to keep doing it. Ironically, that team does the worst aggression/assault that puts off Western Sydney parents from having their kids take the game up.
Rocket Science: the epitaph for the Beveridge era - whenever it ends - reading 'Here lies a team that could beat anyone on its day, but seldom did when it mattered most'. 15/7/2023