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

Different activation points bring different sanctions for each type of offence. So Schultz's 5 results in a lesser penalty as striking is seen as a less dangerous offence than forceful front on contact. Which as a basic rule I believe is right, a tummy punch isn't going to cause as much damage as a hit into a head with potential to snap a neck.

The problem is Moloney's action was not forceful front on contact. The forceful contact was delivered straight down the side, he may have collected the front with a loose arm but it isn't the type of contact the AFL should be worried about. It shouldn't be a reportable action.

Best bit of that article

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

At least proof read your work you flogs.

Edited May 24, 201015 yr by the master

This does nothing but confirm that the MRP needs an overhaul. The inconsistency is ridiculous.

This should have been thrown out. He clearly turns his body to attempt to avoid contact (so how is it possibly 'reckless'?), and there is no contact to the head.

I think we SHOULD appeal.

I think we SHOULD appeal.

understand the sentiment but it really doesn't matter.

Take a rest vs Geelong, smash CFC the following week.

MRP have been rubbish for ages, ceased being shocked well before now.

understand the sentiment but it really doesn't matter.

Take a rest vs Geelong, smash CFC the following week.

MRP have been rubbish for ages, ceased being shocked well before now.

I think it would matter to Moloney, yes?

understand the sentiment but it really doesn't matter.

Take a rest vs Geelong, smash CFC the following week.

MRP have been rubbish for ages, ceased being shocked well before now.

Why not try & take it right up to Geelong? If we lay down against Geelong we will get smashed by carlton as well.

I reckon Beamer would kill to play against his old cats-so let's try and get him off this Rubbish-and that's what it is.

Must appeal. The MRP's conclusion that it was 'head-high' is what pushed him into the next category. I have watched the replay over and over again. There is nothing 'head-high' about the hit. He ends up bumping him in the shoulder blade. No where near his head.

I think MFC must challenge. IF they can convince the tribunal that it was not a head high hit, 2 points are reduced and he gets off. There is no way, having viewed the incident again, that it can be deemed 'head-high' contact.

The guy he hit felt contact and knew it was front on, so staged as though he was hit in the head. He throws his head back, acts as if he has been knocked out then hears the whistle and is straight to his feet.

Even Tony Shaw, who doesn't always have much positive to say about Melbourne, said he he was uncertain whether the incident was reportable at the time. The Ox said last night that we should definately appeal.

The MRP is a dead set farce.

On a side note, wasn't Beamer due to play his 100th this weekend against his former Cats?

Edited May 24, 201015 yr by Redleg_24

It's a shocker of a decision but he's got form for being rubbed out for bugger all.

They clearly don't like him.

He will be sorely missed. Mature bodies are needed to take on the likes of Chapman. Beamer was the man.

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

May as well appeal, if they lose Beamer still only gets 1 week, due to an existing good record.

The charge is outrageous, and I'm sure the club feels the same way, especially after the Kennedy/Sylvia fiasco.

On a side note, wasn't Beamer due to play his 100th this weekend against his former Cats?

He sure was.

I also have watched the replay over and over and it looks to me it was a low hit. It bemuses me that Jason Davenport get one game for PUNCHING Garland in the stomach, and Moloney get 1 weeks for a bump whilst contesting for the ball, and Barry Hall $3k or $4k fine for what he did. Joke and a disgrace.

Not happy Jan

A friend of mine who is married to Beamer's cousin spoke to him last night and Beamer told him they will be looking at challenging the decision, should be announced at some stage today.

The HUN seems to intimate that he'll be contesting it, but it seems that decision hasn't been made officially yet.

AFL

Brent Moloney will contest his Level Two bumping charge at the tribunal at 5pm tonight. All other players have accepted their sanctions.

from Twitter about 2 mins ago.

from Twitter about 2 mins ago.

Good news. I reckon he will be successful. If not it truly is a joke.

Seeing this makes me question why I bother with AFL to be honest. My love for the Dees is the only reason I still watch footy. I used to watch 3 or 4 games a weekend now I only watch Melbourne games.

And how the f ing hell can Hille get of 3 charges this season while Beamer gets done for this is mind boggling!!!

It makes me wonder if some day someone is going to quit AFL during there prime because they have had enough of the AFL regime and it's inconsistancies. I would love to see it but the money is too good in footy.

Edited May 25, 201015 yr by Cards13

He sure is... "Moloney to contest one match ban" 5pm will bring the results. Fingers crossed.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/94976/default.aspx

Gee wizz I am irritated now. I hope the review panel have some common sense on it and not get mired down by the wording of the 'charge' especially as Hille has escaped sanction for worse actions.

I hope the review panel have some common sense on it and not get mired down by the wording of the 'charge' especially as Hille has escaped sanction for worse actions.

I can't recall us ever being successful at the tribunal.

I can't recall us ever being successful at the tribunal.

There is a first for everything. I hope the tribunal see's sense and gives the MRP a rap over the knuckles.

There is a first for everything. I hope the tribunal see's sense and gives the MRP a rap over the knuckles.

I understand that Beamer feels upset and wants to contest the charge, but a week's rest after a hard game last week and the chance to play your 100th in front of 50000 at the G against the scum, instead of at Skilled with few demon fans present, is not a bad alternative.

Great to hear Beamer's contesting it! Just hope good sense will prevail at the Tribunal, and he gets to really serve it up his old club in his 100th!!

I understand that Beamer feels upset and wants to contest the charge, but a week's rest after a hard game last week and the chance to play your 100th in front of 50000 at the G against the scum, instead of at Skilled with few demon fans present, is not a bad alternative.

He has 2 alternatives now

he gets off and plays in front if his family and western victorian mates at his old home ground

OR cops the 2 because we lose and has his 100th in front of 70K+ at the 'G on Queens birthday

both scenario's wouldn't be all that bad for the Beamer

This will be a test case for the MFC. We must stand our Ground & fight this one.

No more Belly up acceptance. This club is a whipping post no more.

He has 2 alternatives now

he gets off and plays in front if his family and western victorian mates at his old home ground

OR cops the 2 because we lose and has his 100th in front of 70K+ at the 'G on Queens birthday

both scenario's wouldn't be all that bad for the Beamer

Jacko13 - I dont think he gets 2 if he loses. My understanding, from the info I heard from The Ox on SEN last night, was that it is basically a free hit. Its one or one.

He also got a discount for a five year good behaviour record. Unlike that ca'rnt Hille from the Scum who just keeps lining smaller blocks up. It's a mad mad world!!

Jacko13 - I dont think he gets 2 if he loses. My understanding, from the info I heard from The Ox on SEN last night, was that it is basically a free hit. Its one or one.

If that's correct, he would have been stupid to NOT appeal!