On 21/04/2013 at 12:20, Cards13 said:

Didn't recall the previous report. Bugger will be 3 at least for sure. Left his feet, high, intentional, late, medium contact.

left his feet has nothing to do with the rule it's only a comment. It was high, reckless or negligent not intentional, in plan and low impact the guy got straight up. That's presuming every high bump is a suspension, which it shouldn't be. Only the really malice ones should be the rest are like high tackles, they aren't all punishable

Three pages of plaudits for an undisciplined act which cost us a goal at a crucial time of the game, and will cost Jetta his spot in the team.

Go figure

Grapeviney... the plaudits aren't all about Jetta's undisciplined act, many are about what he brings to the table. I objected to cheerleading regarding his imminent ban and a slur on his character. Clark also cost us a goal with an 'undisciplined' act. Are you suggesting that we drop Clark (if he is fit) because of a lack of discipline? If the umpire had protected Jetta from having his head ripped from his shoulders a little earlier he might not have thought he had to take matters into his own hands.

  On 21/04/2013 at 23:56, waynewussell said:

Grapeviney... the plaudits aren't all about Jetta's undisciplined act, many are about what he brings to the table. I objected to cheerleading regarding his imminent ban and a slur on his character. Clark also cost us a goal with an 'undisciplined' act. Are you suggesting that we drop Clark (if he is fit) because of a lack of discipline? If the umpire had protected Jetta from having his head ripped from his shoulders a little earlier he might not have thought he had to take matters into his own hands.

Wayne - I'm a fan of Jetta's and what he brings to the table, and controlled aggression is important. We need more of it.

But his 'bump' put us three goals down on the cusp of 3/4 time.. it was inexcusable, even taking into account the umpire's failure to protect him from the earlier head high tackle.

As for the Clark reference - I wasn't suggesting Jetta should be punished at the selection table, rather that he will be at the tribunal.

  On 21/04/2013 at 13:25, the master said:

left his feet has nothing to do with the rule it's only a comment. It was high, reckless or negligent not intentional, in plan and low impact the guy got straight up. That's presuming every high bump is a suspension, which it shouldn't be. Only the really malice ones should be the rest are like high tackles, they aren't all punishable

We will agree to disagree on the intentional bit and wait to see what the MRP say.

There's a difference between 'undisciplined' and 'reckless'.

Jetta was doing what Neeld surely asked of us: bumping, shepharding, harrassing, pressuring. He could have done what he did better, I don't think anyone would deny that, but that doesn't make it undisciplined, it makes it poorly executed. That's why he's going to get suspended.

  On 22/04/2013 at 00:33, Cards13 said:

We will agree to disagree on the intentional bit and wait to see what the MRP say.

Its very very wishful thinking to get him let off but to me you can't call it intentional and it has to be in play (Barry Hall rule) and if the guy gets up and keeps playing why isn't it low impact.

Ok Grapeviney... I follow

He'll get a short break from games for the bump, but i dont think it was a cheap shot or blatantly reckless.

Jetta needs to get involved in the game more than he does, however when he gets the ball or is part of the play he generally does good things IMO

Jetta didn't need to go to that length by leaving the ground and hitting him high. He'll find himself in trouble and miss some weeks. Agree with Cards13, but I don't think it will be "at least" three. 2 weeks.

And look I'm not saying I don't like the agro, but the floppers at HQ have mandated that kind of thing out of the game. Players know this, I think he would be disappinted in himself (if he gets rubbed out) as he was getting some consistency.

2 weeks if he accepts it.

MRP report is up.

Neville Jetta, Melbourne, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence (225 demerit points, two-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Lachlan Whitfield, GWS Giants, during the third quarter of the Round Four match between Melbourne and the GWS Giants, played at the MCG on Sunday April 21, 2013.

In summary, due to his existing poor record, his two-match sanction must remain at two matches even with an early plea.

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the GWS Giants Football Club, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has 87.50 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 312.50 points and a three-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 234.38 points and a two-match sanction.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2013-04-22/jetta-offered-two-matches-by-mrp

  On 22/04/2013 at 06:02, bing181 said:

2 weeks if he accepts it.

MRP report is up.

Neville Jetta, Melbourne, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence (225 demerit points, two-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Lachlan Whitfield, GWS Giants, during the third quarter of the Round Four match between Melbourne and the GWS Giants, played at the MCG on Sunday April 21, 2013.

In summary, due to his existing poor record, his two-match sanction must remain at two matches even with an early plea.

Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the GWS Giants Football Club, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has 87.50 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 312.50 points and a three-match sanction. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 234.38 points and a two-match sanction.

What is his previous poor record??

I'd take it and move on. You can't hit a player in the head, so even if not intended, he collected him. He left the ground and got him in the head and it was unlucky he got him in the head. If he got him in the arm/shoulder it would've been a free/50 metre penalty for being late, but since he got him in the head he's penalized. Take the 2 weeks and move on.

The more I think of it, Jetta is a massive loss as he is our only genuine small defender.

Toughness isn't a dog act behind play, it's beating your player to a loose ball or backing back with the flight. Can't believe some think Jetta's act of 'toughness' was good for the team. It was a disgrace and undisciplined and the reason he can't get a game. He got beaten by an 18 year old, took his revenge and sits out 2 weeks.

Good on you Neville, how pathetically weak.

  On 22/04/2013 at 23:01, Demon Land 7 said:

Toughness isn't a dog act behind play, it's beating your player to a loose ball or backing back with the flight. Can't believe some think Jetta's act of 'toughness' was good for the team. It was a disgrace and undisciplined and the reason he can't get a game. He got beaten by an 18 year old, took his revenge and sits out 2 weeks.

Good on you Neville, how pathetically weak.

wake up on the wrongside of the bed did we?

I think that is going overboard on youg Nev. Wrong call by him for sure and he would regret it. Learn from it and move on.

  On 22/04/2013 at 23:01, Demon Land 7 said:

Toughness isn't a dog act behind play, it's beating your player to a loose ball or backing back with the flight. Can't believe some think Jetta's act of 'toughness' was good for the team. It was a disgrace and undisciplined and the reason he can't get a game. He got beaten by an 18 year old, took his revenge and sits out 2 weeks.

Good on you Neville, how pathetically weak.

Come on. That was not "behind play." It was not a disgrace. It was simply an undisciplined mistake. He left the ground before the kick took place and hit the guy a little late. He deserves what he got, but don't beat it up into anything more than it is.

You're entitled to your opinion, but by god is it a shitty opinion.

  On 22/04/2013 at 23:01, Demon Land 7 said:

Toughness isn't a dog act behind play, it's beating your player to a loose ball or backing back with the flight. Can't believe some think Jetta's act of 'toughness' was good for the team. It was a disgrace and undisciplined and the reason he can't get a game. He got beaten by an 18 year old, took his revenge and sits out 2 weeks.

Good on you Neville, how pathetically weak.

Toughness also isn't getting your facts wrong and berating a young player for a friggin mistake.

It wasn't 'behind play', it was a second after Whitfield kicked it. He didn't get 'beaten', he was trying to chase down and was, again, fractionally too late.

It was a poorly executed bump, but it wasn't a disgrace and it wasn't undisciplined. It's also got absolutely nothing to do with why he 'can't get a game'.

  On 22/04/2013 at 23:01, Demon Land 7 said:

Toughness isn't a dog act behind play, it's beating your player to a loose ball or backing back with the flight. Can't believe some think Jetta's act of 'toughness' was good for the team. It was a disgrace and undisciplined and the reason he can't get a game. He got beaten by an 18 year old, took his revenge and sits out 2 weeks.

Good on you Neville, how pathetically weak.

Congratulations. You are now in line for the worst post on Demonland of 2013.

Tell him what he can win RR!

  On 22/04/2013 at 23:01, Demon Land 7 said:

Toughness isn't a dog act behind play, it's beating your player to a loose ball or backing back with the flight. Can't believe some think Jetta's act of 'toughness' was good for the team. It was a disgrace and undisciplined and the reason he can't get a game. He got beaten by an 18 year old, took his revenge and sits out 2 weeks.

Good on you Neville, how pathetically weak.

That is a very poor post

  On 22/04/2013 at 23:25, Tall Defence said:

Congratulations. You are now in line for the worst post on Demonland of 2013.

Tell him what he can win RR!

We won a game of footy against the worst side in the AFL and he let his team down because for the next two weeks he's sitting in the stands. He's bloody lucky he only got him with his forearm 1 inch left and it was the point of his elbow and he breaks a jaw and sits out 6 weeks. He worked bloody hard to get in the team and now he may be out of it for good, is that pathetic... Bloody oath it is.

Good player Nev, good bloke too, but there's no excuse for that poor effort.

  On 23/04/2013 at 00:42, Demon Land 7 said:

He worked bloody hard to get in the team and now he may be out of it for good, is that pathetic... Bloody oath it is.

Absolute rubbish!

Yes it was an undisciplined act and yes it was stupid, but there is no way he will be out of the team for good... he is exactly what Neeld wants if we are to be the "hardest team to play"... he will learn the error of his ways, Neeld will have given him a stern talking to and a pat on the back and on the strength of the rest of his game, he will be back when available for selection. We need players who are prepared to go in hard and Nev fits the bill... he will be given the opportunity to redeem himself and he will have learnt from that experience.