MRO Thread

[soupman]

Re: MRO Thread

The careless charge would have been because this is an action that happens every game, the cheap shot to a players midriff, and almost never has any consequences for either party. From Merretts pov it would have been almost inconceivable that it could cause such damage, hence he didn't intentionally hurt him, he was just trying to cause him discomfort.

For the record I want to be clear that I draw a clear line between ok physical actions (like bumps and blocking, basically most stuff which doesn't involve actually using your limbs as weapons) and bullshit actions where the player is just being a dick. Merrett is absolutely being a dick in this scenario and I am happy for him to cop any suspension he gets. The above explanation is just on how the AFL grades stuff, which as we all know is self serving and in no way reflects what would be a reasonable judgement in real life.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: MRO Thread

The careless charge would have been because this is an action that happens every game, the cheap shot to a players midriff, and almost never has any consequences for either party. From Merretts pov it would have been almost inconceivable that it could cause such damage, hence he didn't intentionally hurt him, he was just trying to cause him discomfort.

For the record I want to be clear that I draw a clear line between ok physical actions (like bumps and blocking, basically most stuff which doesn't involve actually using your limbs as weapons) and bullshit actions where the player is just being a dick. Merrett is absolutely being a dick in this scenario and I am happy for him to cop any suspension he gets. The above explanation is just on how the AFL grades stuff, which as we all know is self serving and in no way reflects what would be a reasonable judgement in real life.

I understand what your saying and do not disagree with you.

However, it is inconceivable that a reasonable person could consider the action of Merrett anything other than deliberate.

The fact that the game has tolerated this type of action forever, is no justification for it to be allowed to continue.

If the AFL want to clean up the game they should make a statement that the type of action from Merrett will be graded intentional and have a minimum 1 match suspension regardless of impact.

[soupman]

Re: MRO Thread

If the AFL want to clean up the game they should make a statement that the type of action from Merrett will be graded intentional and have a minimum 1 match suspension regardless of impact.

I think they tried to take the first baby step towards that with any closed fist contact to another player is a free kick, the best examples being in our comeback win against Hawthorn at the MCG last year.

I would be comfortable with what you are suggesting, but can imagine incidents like Bailey Dale's failed spoil are the new grey area.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: MRO Thread

I think they tried to take the first baby step towards that with any closed fist contact to another player is a free kick, the best examples being in our comeback win against Hawthorn at the MCG last year.

I would be comfortable with what you are suggesting, but can imagine incidents like Bailey Dale's failed spoil are the new grey area.

Unfortunately there will always be grey areas, regardless of what rules are in place.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

Merrit has accepted the one match ban

Conor McKenna has been given a one match sanction by the AFL for a minor breach of Covid protocols.


In good news for Essendon, he served the one match against Carlton.


Free to play when out of quarantine.

[GVGjr]

Re: MRO Thread

Merrit has accepted the one match ban

Conor McKenna has been given a one match sanction by the AFL for a minor breach of Covid protocols.


In good news for Essendon, he served the one match against Carlton.


Free to play when out of quarantine.

I think Essendon and Merrett know that it wouldn't want to make it to the tribunal. They got a good deal

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

Hayden Crozier has been offered a one-match suspension for engaging in rough conduct, for a dangerous tackle on opponent Jack Mahony in the final quarter of Saturday night's win over North Melbourne.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

Charges Laid:

Hayden Crozier, Western Bulldogs, has been charged with engaging in Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) against Jack Mahony, North Melbourne, during the fourth quarter of the Round Five match between the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne, played at Marvel Stadium on Saturday July 4.

In summary he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact and High Contact. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction.

Jack Redden, West Coast Eagles, has been charged with Striking (Fixed Financial Sanction) Josh Kennedy, Sydney Swans, during the first quarter of the Round Five match between the West Coast Eagles and Sydney Swans, played at Metricon Stadium on Saturday July 4.

In summary he can accept a $750 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Striking (Fixed Financial Sanction). The incident was classified as a $1250 sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a $750 sanction with an early plea.

Shaun Higgins, North Melbourne has been charged with Forceful Front-On Contact against Hayden Crozier, Western Bulldogs, during the first quarter of the Round Five match between the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne, played at Marvel Stadium on Saturday July 4.

In summary he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Low Impact and High Contact. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.

Jy Simpkin, North Melbourne, has been charged with Striking Mitch Wallis, Western Bulldogs, during the second quarter of the Round Five match between the Western Bulldogs and North Melbourne, played at Marvel Stadium on Saturday July 4.

In summary he can accept a $1500 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct with Low Impact and Body Contact. The incident was classified as a $2500 sanction as a second offence. The player can accept a $1500 sanction with an early plea.

[FrediKanoute]

Re: MRO Thread

Think Crozier is a little stiff. It was borderline. Question is whether we roll the dice!

[Ozza]

Re: MRO Thread

Just doesn't seem right that two players got fines for striking, and a player gets a week for a tackle. Tackling is a football action, striking is not. I think we've lost our way on this.

[Grantysghost]

Re: MRO Thread

Just doesn't seem right that two players got fines for striking, and a player gets a week for a tackle. Tackling is a football action, striking is not. I think we've lost our way on this.

If we are looking at the result also instead of the action we have incredible inconsistencies. Any player you talk to will tell you the Marvel surface is harder than most grounds. To me that really didn't seem like a super forceful sling and the North player ended up with a laceration which I was surpised with. MCG it's just a good tackle maybe? I saw a few instances where that same action resulted in a free to the tackler with no subsequent suspension. If we are going off the blood, then maybe we have it all wrong.

So the player has to put into his tackle calculations : this is marvel, I need to tackle at 75% intensity and measure the angle of the head against the perpendicular times by mass of the player indexed against the cone penetration test.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: MRO Thread

If we are looking at the result also instead of the action we have incredible inconsistencies. Any player you talk to will tell you the Marvel surface is harder than most grounds. To me that really didn't seem like a super forceful sling and the North player ended up with a laceration which I was surpised with. MCG it's just a good tackle maybe? I saw a few instances where that same action resulted in a free to the tackler with no subsequent suspension. If we are going off the blood, then maybe we have it all wrong.

So the player has to put into his tackle calculations : this is marvel, I need to tackle at 75% intensity and measure the angle of the head against the perpendicular times by mass of the player indexed against the cone penetration test.

Actually we need to get all players to understand, that a tackle resulting in an opponent's head hitting the ground is totally out.

I do want to see it applied consistently, but I felt Crozier was gone as soon as I saw the tackle. The fact that other players have avoided suspension does not make it wrong for Crozier to cop a week.

We do need every tackle to be judged just as harshly so the players will get the message.

[jazzadogs]

Re: MRO Thread

Actually we need to get all players to understand, that a tackle resulting in an opponent's head hitting the ground is totally out.

I do want to see it applied consistently, but I felt Crozier was gone as soon as I saw the tackle. The fact that other players have avoided suspension does not make it wrong for Crozier to cop a week.

We do need every tackle to be judged just as harshly so the players will get the message.

As much as tackling needs to be safer, players also need to learn to protect themselves when being tackled. Crozier's tackle looked worse because Mahony tried to break through, flung his body in the direction of the ground to get momentum for his handball, and didn't brace for contact because he was more interested in getting the ball moving forward.

When the tackler has not pinned the arms, then some responsibility MUST fall on the player being tackled to protect themselves.

[Grantysghost]

Re: MRO Thread

Actually we need to get all players to understand, that a tackle resulting in an opponent's head hitting the ground is totally out.

I do want to see it applied consistently, but I felt Crozier was gone as soon as I saw the tackle. The fact that other players have avoided suspension does not make it wrong for Crozier to cop a week.

We do need every tackle to be judged just as harshly so the players will get the message.

Agree with you regarding consistency, however personally I feel the tackle Crozier laid was fair, where the player tackled had the option to brace for impact but decided to handball instead. In the same game you can fairly knee someone in the back of the head with force whilst attempting a mark, another traditional part of our game; personally I view them the same but I am aware the laws are different for the two. I think the two actions where arms are pinned then player slung certainly should be outlawed.
If we are talking head injuries in tackles a case could be made Atley was negligent in his tackle on Smith which lead to a far more serious injury.

[Mitcha]

Re: MRO Thread

It's time for us to roll the dice on this one and not keep meekly surrendering. Was nowhere near as violent as what Burgoyne dished out earlier in the year and got off (good bloke excuse notwithstanding). The North player had BOTH arms free and should have been somewhat responsible for protecting himself. Regarding Jack Redden's punch to Blakey while on the ground, didn't Lachie Hunter get a week for the exact same thing round one last season. Different sets of rules for different players and different clubs and about time we stood up for ourselves and highlighted the inconsistencies.