"I don't care that he didn't necessarily hit him"

That comment is so damned depressing.

What i don't understand is the difference between these two.I must be missing something. Both have 5 activation points resulting in a level 2 offence. Moloneys draws 250 demerit points but Schulz's only gets 125.

Moloney's

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 250 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has an existing five-year good record, reducing the sanction by 25 per cent to 187.50 points and a one-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 140.63 points and a one-match sanction.

Schulz's

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. He has a five-year good record which reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 70.31 points towards his future record.

The AFL have reached a crisis with their inconsistency.

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but I thought he deserved it. I don't care that he didn't necessarily hit him, but it was undisciplined and at a crucial point in the game. I thought he lead with his shoulder and it was a dangerous piece of play. That said, I've seen players do worse and get off.

Sorry mate but people like you have been brainwashed into believing these diluted rules. The head is sacrasanct yes. The shoulder was i thought ok (But not this week obviously)

Moloney got him slightly high. He was always in trouble.

Wow, that's a really, really poor decision. Chrystal Meth use on the rise amongst tribunal.

Appeal!!!!!!

Um, when did the AFL become netball?

Unlucky Beamer, unlucky. Can use a week to rest up, then come back fiercer than ever.

Each week I realise more and more that if it wasn't for my intense love of the MFC, I would loath this competition and never ever watch another game.

The inconsistencies, discrepancies and incompetencies of the AFL make Al Qaeda look like a fair organisation.

How the f#$% can making non-malicious contact to the head during a very intense contest be worth the same penalty as deliberately and maliciously punching a bloke in the stomach meters off the ball and causing him to come off the ground?

Appeal!!!!!!

If we weren't playing the mortal enemy that is Carlton next week, in what should be a winnable game for us, I would agree.

But we need Beamer to defeat possibly the greatest evil in the AFL... CFC.

A little extra for everyone to ponder:

Contact between Port Adelaide’s Chad Cornes and Melbourne’s Jack Watts from the first quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. The contact was not seen as a striking motion. No further action was taken.

Imagine if Moloney had led with an elbow and hit someone in the throat. He'd be out for the season!

Jaded is right, let's just take our medicine. Beamer will have a nice little mid season refresh and comes out breathing fire vs Them Carlton Vultures.

He was always going to be in trouble for what he did, it looked pretty ordinary imo.

why wasn't the port squib cited for staging. hit the deck like a squelling pig and bounced up after the free was given

If we weren't playing the mortal enemy that is Carlton next week, in what should be a winnable game for us, I would agree.

But we need Beamer to defeat possibly the greatest evil in the AFL... CFC.

If his name was David Hille, he could do it three time and still get off!

Kennedy gives Sylvia broken jaw - Walks away

Moloney gives Port player not-so-high bump leaving no injury whatsoever - 1 week

Tell me what's wrong.

watching the replay it did not look that high, looked like he hit him well below the head.

This may make room for Gysberts.

This is a travesty of justice but at least it gives Brent Moloney the opportunity for a week's rest and to be ready for Carlton in a fortnight's time!

Very confused by this finding

Who is on this MRP these days

Please dont tell me Jill Lindsay or Adrian Anderson is their BOSS ? LOL

So that indicates what Moloney did was worse than Hall Headlock ?

1 week V a Fine

Still confused LOL

Very confused by this finding

Who is on this MRP these days

Please dont tell me Jill Lindsay or Adrian Anderson is their BOSS ? LOL

So that indicates what Moloney did was worse than Hall Headlock ?

1 week V a Fine

Still confused LOL

Considering Hall's crap record, he should have had 1 weeks at a minimum for that... Me thinks that the AFL is out for the Demons, just unfair.

Match Review Panel Findings

Gys to debut?

I'd say contest it.

Why?. Because i don't think he got him in the head at all, So I believer this is a crock & we should fight to keep his good name as an hard but fair player intact!

If we don't win, thats badluck, but at least we can say we tried to do the right thing. Stand by our principles & our good men.

Fight It.

Sorry mate but people like you have been brainwashed into believing these diluted rules. The head is sacrasanct yes. The shoulder was i thought ok (But not this week obviously)

Perhaps I'm still a little corrupted by my annoyance at him diving in that way at all. At the time I thought it was going to cost us. It was a clumsy, stupid thing to do.

We do have to protect the head and I'm not sure Moloney shouldn't have been tackling instead of bumping anyway.

I think they passed it off as forceful front on contact. Was anything actually said about the head? If so that's absolutely amazing. Moloney has been penalised twice now for nothing but being bigger than the opposition.

And in both cases, he actually didn't make contact with anyone's head?!!!!!

Unbelievable. That's two on a row!!!

Are we going to appeal? I would be in support if we did... even if we lost it and he got two.

Perhaps I'm still a little corrupted by my annoyance at him diving in that way at all. At the time I thought it was going to cost us. It was a clumsy, stupid thing to do.

We do have to protect the head and I'm not sure Moloney shouldn't have been tackling instead of bumping anyway.

The Head was not contacted. It was a fair bump. We should contest this one.

Twice now in 2010 we have been shafted, imagine if this was a filth player, Eddie would be frothing from the mouth.

What i don't understand is the difference between these two.I must be missing something. Both have 5 activation points resulting in a level 2 offence. Moloneys draws 250 demerit points but Schulz's only gets 125.

Moloney's

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 250 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has an existing five-year good record, reducing the sanction by 25 per cent to 187.50 points and a one-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 140.63 points and a one-match sanction.

Schulz's

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. He has a five-year good record which reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 93.75 points towards his future record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 70.31 points towards his future record.

Looking for the answer to this puzzle as well- how do 5 activation points vary from Brett to Jay? Go figure?

The only point in appealing would be if the MRP were consistent and reasonable and objective.