MRO Thread

[Bulldog4life]

Re: MRO Thread

Wow. Two separate actions, with the second action knocking a player out. Must be a clause in his contract as AFLPA spokesman that he is no longer allowed to get suspended.

Agree. Figjam was the reason I was barracking for Richmond. Hate the way he throws himself forward to get frees. Bad habit. Got worse over time.

[EasternWest]

Re: MRO Thread

It's like watching two great baseline tennis players.

It's Lendl to Lendl. You recognise the years of training gone into getting to that level, but you're still bored by it.

[GVGjr]

Re: MRO Thread

It's Lendl to Lendl. You recognise the years of training gone into getting to that level, but you're still bored by it.

Are you kidding me? Jeemak is a lock to have had the Borg headband and double handed backhand

Lendl to Borg or Agassi to Wilander is about what I envisaged.

[jeemak]

Re: MRO Thread

Don't rope me into this.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

* Western Bulldogs defender Taylor Duryea has been charged by the AFL Match Review Officer for striking Collingwood’s Josh Thomas on Friday night.

Duryea has been fined $3000, but he can accept a $2000 sanction with an early guilty plea.

* Danger straight to tribunal

[GVGjr]

Re: MRO Thread

Anyone care to predict how many weeks for Danger? Intentional contact, high contact and severe impact should equal 3 weeks but is there a Dangerfield clause that gets it down to two weeks?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Re: MRO Thread

Anyone care to predict how many weeks for Danger? Intentional contact, high contact and severe impact should equal 3 weeks but is there a Dangerfield clause that gets it down to two weeks?

I reckon he’ll get 1 week.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Re: MRO Thread

Anyone care to predict how many weeks for Danger? Intentional contact, high contact and severe impact should equal 3 weeks but is there a Dangerfield clause that gets it down to two weeks?

This has all the hallmarks of a high powered team of lawyers doing their thing.

I think they will play a video of Danger surfing in a suit with Happyland’s “Don’t you know who I am” playing in the background. Tribunal members will all get three weeks for daring to challenge him.

[chef]

Re: MRO Thread

1 for Danger.

[divvydan]

Re: MRO Thread

Danger will either get 3 weeks or nothing.

[Bulldog Joe]

Re: MRO Thread

I think Dangerfield will get off.

The bump was not to the head as it was a clash of heads.

I know he chose to bump so the result is his responsibility, but it is Dangerfield.

The tribunal option is simply to allow the MRO to bypass a decision.

[comrade]

Re: MRO Thread

I think Dangerfield will get off.

The bump was not to the head as it was a clash of heads.

I know he chose to bump so the result is his responsibility, but it is Dangerfield.

The tribunal option is simply to allow the MRO to bypass a decision.

May be right but the media/commentary has been all leaning towards a multi week suspension. You can’t introduce a medical sub, concussion protocol and make a big song and dance about player welfare and then let Danger get away with that.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Re: MRO Thread

I think this is in the same realms as when you tackle someone and they hit their head. Nobody intends to make their opponent hit their head, but if you do and they are knocked out you have a holiday coming your way. It should come down to poor technique rather than intentional, but surely he couldn’t get off.

[GVGjr]

Re: MRO Thread

May be right but the media/commentary has been all leaning towards a multi week suspension. You can’t introduce a medical sub, concussion protocol and make a big song and dance about player welfare and then let Danger get away with that.

Spot on, I think most of us understand (but not agree with) that there are rules some players can break and get away with. Danger is one of those players but as a competition if you implement a rule at late notice given it's being regarded as a serious one then he should receive 3 weeks given the impact to the player.

[Bornadog]

Re: MRO Thread

I think Dangerfield will get off.

The bump was not to the head as it was a clash of heads.

I know he chose to bump so the result is his responsibility, but it is Dangerfield.

The tribunal option is simply to allow the MRO to bypass a decision.

I agree with you BJ - I see this as accidental in a game that is physical and bodies clash.

I think Adelaide Connection is right in that it may be viewed the same as a dangerous tackle.