MRO Thread

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Wasn't Taylor concussed

No he returned to the field.

Theoretically according to the AFL you could punch someone in the back of the head and so long as they don't get concussed then nothing to see here

[bornadog]

No he returned to the field.

Theoretically according to the AFL you could punch someone in the back of the head and so long as they don't get concussed then nothing to see here

The whole thing is a disgrace

[comrade]

No he returned to the field.

Theoretically according to the AFL you could punch someone in the back of the head and so long as they don't get concussed then nothing to see here

I swear he came back on the field for a short period after the hit and then was ruled out later in the game.

Can anyone confirm that?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I swear he came back on the field for a short period after the hit and then was ruled out later in the game.

Can anyone confirm that?

Everything I've read has said he was able to play out the match. But everything in the media is pro essendon so who knows.

[Topdog]

He is listed as having 71% time on ground and had a possession in the last so it would seem like he played out some more of the match.

[bornadog]

In summary - the bump

Dylan Shiel: 2 match ban
Brad Ebert: 1 match ban
Marlion Pickett: Fine
Gary Rohan: Fine & other charge thrown out
Ben Long straight to tribunal

[Bulldog Joe]

Shiel contesting two weeks as Taylor cleared of facial fracture. Lets hope the tribunal judges this the same as Crozier when the chairman said there was potential for injury.

Shiel's bump was actually worse than Long.

Shiel was intending to bump only and caught him high.

Long was looking to take a position to get the ball.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I bet he gets downgraded to 1 week. So his bump was as bad as Croziers tackle

[The Adelaide Connection]

Long plead guilty and got three. The Shiel case is currently being heard and they opened with “9 years of clean record” etc etc (which didn’t matter for Crozier). Now, despite the AFL’s lawyers protests, they have been allowed to show the 2017 footage where Cotchin knocks him out.

I don’t have a good feeling about this.

Edit: Now claiming that being knocked out (and having a number of shoulder injuries) led to lots of training from coaches and has made him change the way he enters a contest.

Shiel: "It changed the way I needed to approach contesting the ball in a 50-50 contest. I received a lot of coaching in my remaining time at the Giants from Lenny Hayes and Leon Cameron in how to best approach that contest, and not leaving my head exposed to contact from the opposing player. I've spent a lot of time on improving my technique, in protecting myself from an incident like that not happening again. I've also had to make an adjustment due to three significant shoulder operations during my career."

Shiel: "The knock on me prior to the contest was there's been times I've decided not to contest the ball when I felt the opponent or myself would be in danger of contact. I've received a lot of training and improvement to enable to put myself in a position to contest."

Shiel says his instinct in the incident with Curtis Taylor was to protect himself and not leave himself vulnerable.

[1eyedog]

What? That's insane it's all me, me, me at Essendon if the Tribunal do not uphold this decision they are nothing more than a theme park. What rot from the Essendon defence it's laughable.

I'm more inclined to believe that the knock has confused Shiel into thinking that it's ok to bump like that so he did.

Isn't he married to the daughter of some influential AFL figure? Maybe he's phone a friend.

[The Adelaide Connection]

AFL argues Shiel could have protected himself by positioning himself differently and went "way beyond that" and "executed a high bump at force".

And the best bit:

AFL argues Taylor wasn't in Shiel's peripheral vision but right in front of him. Shiel says he "can't confirm that I directly looked at him as shown on the vision there".

[1eyedog]

Uphold the 2 and give him a 3rd because it's Essendon.

[The Adelaide Connection]

More from the Shiel feed: *Warning: blood may boil*

Essendon is pointing to specific examples in the AFL guidelines surrounding the level of impact in rough conduct charges, including Charlie Cameron on Zac Williams in last year's finals.

We're running through quite a few examples here. Adrian Anderson, Essendon's representative, of course helped create the Match Review system and therefore knows quite a bit about how it works.

Zak Jones on Kyle Langford shown as an example of high impact. Bombers say there was greater force and more impact, resulting in a shoulder injury. AFL objects to those latter elements being used - Gleeson says they should only be showing the incidents, not explaining what happened as a result. "It opens up a whole bunch of questions about what happened in that matter."


AFL: The only issue here is whether this is high impact. The matters you should take into account include what is said in the guidelines about impact ... and you must give strong consideration to the potential to cause injury.

AFL argues the speed and distance at which Shiel came from must be taken into account.

AFL: "This is not anything other than full, flush contact. It's not a glancing blow like the other examples shown earlier. This was a full, square hit, right down the middle. You'll see from the vision the players is immediately in pain, in some distress, feeling for his mouth and jaw ... there was a considerable concern there had been a facial fracture."

Essendon: "We agree bumps to the head have potential to cause injury. Every one of those examples we referred to, which the AFL has selected to provide clear-cut evidence, are there so we can give some consistency.
"Every one of them had the potential to cause serious injury, but moreso in those cases where the player is not even contesting the ball and cleans up a player who's not ready for the contact. That's different to this scenario."

Essendon points to the medical evidence, which shows Curtis Taylor was cleared of concussion and allowed to return to play.

Essendon also argues that the Match Review Officer when he reviewed the incident only knew there was a potential jaw fracture - but that we now know there was no jaw fracture and that Taylor can play this week.

Essendon: "I'd ask you to judge the case on the Match Review table and the examples as we see them tonight", rather than what was known on Monday.

AFL is arguing Essendon can't use medical reports from previous incidents involving Bombers players, but it needs to be consistent and only using the video available. Tribunal chairman "has sympathy for what Mr Gleeson is submitting".

Tribunal chairman saying to add all of that extra evidence into this case would be too much to look at.

*Jury have headed off. Decision now pending*

[comrade]

WOOF needs a vomit emoji.

[The Adelaide Connection]

2 weeks.

BRB. Off to Bombersblitz.