Brad Ottens just got 1 week after deductions for good behaviour and a guilty plea, for an elbow to the back of Nicoski's head, 50 metres behind play. Nicoski fell to the ground and was distressed. It was a cowardly attack from behind, well behind play and had the potential to cause a serious head injury. Andersen and Demetriou will no doubt commend the MRP as having done a brilliant job. The experts are calling it a disgrace. Wecome to Wonderland Alice.

but lay a perfect tackle, and look out!!!

One week??

You are Kidding....The MRP continue their on going acid trip.

3 weeks.

Ottens has been playing for 12 years and has never been suspended. Worst thing he's done is copped a fine for melee. So he deservedly gets a discount for good behaviour. Then if he pleas guilty he reduces it to one week.

3 weeks is appropriate. It was classified as intentional (correct), high contact (correct) and medium impact (correct). Stop complaining.

3 weeks reduced.

I'm thinking there should be a good behaviour introduced for first-year players based on their junior record.

3 weeks.

Ottens has been playing for 12 years and has never been suspended. Worst thing he's done is copped a fine for melee. So he deservedly gets a discount for good behaviour. Then if he pleas guilty he reduces it to one week.

3 weeks is appropriate. It was classified as intentional (correct), high contact (correct) and medium impact (correct). Stop complaining.

You miss the point. He is getting 1 week not 3. Of course he will plead guilty as it is the most blatant act and caught on cameras from several angles. He couldn't win the case in a million years and he gets another week off for pleading guilty. That is the point, there should not be a guilty plea discount on behind the ball incidents like this. The good behaviour 1 week discount is ok but not the other one. This penalty is a joke and I don't even need to mention Jack's 3 weeks for a tackle, in play, that most people think was ok, but for an alleged injury to the victim that really was not what it was said to be, as later confirmed by his doctors.

You miss the point. He is getting 1 week not 3. Of course he will plead guilty as it is the most blatant act and caught on cameras from several angles. He couldn't win the case in a million years and he gets another week off for pleading guilty. That is the point, there should not be a guilty plea discount on behind the ball incidents like this. The good behaviour 1 week discount is ok but not the other one. This penalty is a joke and I don't even need to mention Jack's 3 weeks for a tackle, in play, that most people think was ok, but for an alleged injury to the victim that really was not what it was said to be, as later confirmed by his doctors.

Did Nicoski get injured? Don't think so, so the impact can't have been that strong.

I know what you're saying, but if Ottens was a repeat offender he'd be getting 2 weeks, which is fair enough for a strike which wasn't that strong. I know it was off the ball and intentional, but it didn't look terribly forceful to me.

I guess I'd prefer to see him out for 2 weeks than 1, but I understand the reasoning for guilty pleas, we don't need cases like these going to the tribunal. And I also agree with the discount for good behaviour, especially for someone who's been in the system as long as Ottens with no suspensions.

Can't use the Trengove case as a comparator; that was an appallingly bad decision that is just so far removed from what most people consider appropriate.

Did Nicoski get injured? Don't think so, so the impact can't have been that strong.

I know what you're saying, but if Ottens was a repeat offender he'd be getting 2 weeks, which is fair enough for a strike which wasn't that strong. I know it was off the ball and intentional, but it didn't look terribly forceful to me.

I guess I'd prefer to see him out for 2 weeks than 1, but I understand the reasoning for guilty pleas, we don't need cases like these going to the tribunal. And I also agree with the discount for good behaviour, especially for someone who's been in the system as long as Ottens with no suspensions.

Can't use the Trengove case as a comparator; that was an appallingly bad decision that is just so far removed from what most people consider appropriate.

A Behind the play incident deserves more than one week, that is all i wish to say..i don't care what the sugar coating is....it was off the ball. one week is a complete joke.

A Behind the play incident deserves more than one week, that is all i wish to say..i don't care what the sugar coating is....it was off the ball. one week is a complete joke.

In many ways the scumbaggers ought to get double demerits etc for off the ball stuff. There's sport...and there's thuggery !!

Did Nicoski get injured? Don't think so, so the impact can't have been that strong.

I know what you're saying, but if Ottens was a repeat offender he'd be getting 2 weeks, which is fair enough for a strike which wasn't that strong. I know it was off the ball and intentional, but it didn't look terribly forceful to me.

I guess I'd prefer to see him out for 2 weeks than 1, but I understand the reasoning for guilty pleas, we don't need cases like these going to the tribunal. And I also agree with the discount for good behaviour, especially for someone who's been in the system as long as Ottens with no suspensions.

Can't use the Trengove case as a comparator; that was an appallingly bad decision that is just so far removed from what most people consider appropriate.

Well the boys on AFL 360, all 4 of them, agree with all the other experts, that behind the play incidents are deliberate and don't deserve the gulity plea reduction. This is even more so when the incident is captured by TV cameras. They seemed however to accept the good behaviour reduction.

Well the boys on AFL 360, all 4 of them, agree with all the other experts, that behind the play incidents are deliberate and don't deserve the gulity plea reduction. This is even more so when the incident is captured by TV cameras. They seemed however to accept the good behaviour reduction.

Not sure I agree with that. You could in theory lay a particularly crass bump or shepherd behind the play. I wouldn't call that deliberate.

Not sure I agree with that. You could in theory lay a particularly crass bump or shepherd behind the play. I wouldn't call that deliberate.

I should have added they were in fact talking about a strike to a bloke's head. In this case it was an elbow to the back of the head, 50 metres behind play. A particularly brave effort by Ottens.