that was his first decent game. up until now its been face in palms material.

I wouldn't be surprised if Simpkin's hit was thrown out because there wasn't enough force to constitute a reportable offence.

The MRP loves going off medical reports and nothing happened to Dawes.

Meanwhile, whatever degree of injury McEvoy got will work against Spencer, who is going to cop 2-3 weeks you'd think. Really disappointing given he needs game time in the seniors to cement his spot on our list.

I think Simpkin should be out for at least as long as Spencer is, but I don't think it's going to happen.

Been a bit of a spencer basher in my time. However yesterday I looked at it in terms of what we've had previously. I reckon he is a bit of a diamond in the rough. Isn't actually costing is anything on the list. He had 17 touches yesterday, if he can just get some awareness with his taps, and look to be a bit more proactive going forward, he could be a very competent ruck man. Shane Mumford like.

Only one way to test that. Smack BT in the ear when he isn't looking and see how he reacts.

I thought it was a low, weak act and the very thing the AFL hates. We will see what he gets. It's certainly worse than a sling tackle in play and that has been getting 3 weeks lately.

I like your thinking, Redleg. I suspect that there would be a queue around the block for volunteers, and a stadium full of people wanting to watch ...

This kind of dirty act should get about 6 weeks, in my opinion. It is all about intent, and whacking someone behind play should be treated like the criminal assault that it is.

I wouldn't be surprised if Simpkin's hit was thrown out because there wasn't enough force to constitute a reportable offence.

The MRP loves going off medical reports and nothing happened to Dawes.

Meanwhile, whatever degree of injury McEvoy got will work against Spencer, who is going to cop 2-3 weeks you'd think. Really disappointing given he needs game time in the seniors to cement his spot on our list.

I think Simpkin should be out for at least as long as Spencer is, but I don't think it's going to happen.

And that's what's wrong with the system. A king hit from behind when the player's not expecting it is the act of a low dog and the impact shouldn't affect the outcome. The AFL is right in trying to stamp out negligent and reckless actions against a player's head but there should also be zero tolerance and heavy penalties for cowards who attack when it's not expected by the victim.

I believe they say in boxing that the hit to that part of the jaw it the perfect knockout, that's why he went down.

Embarrassing for the competition that this could result in a suspension. Just makes me care even less.

Embarrassing for the competition that this could result in a suspension. Just makes me care even less.

Simpkin or Spencer?

I tweeted Simpkin trying to dig it in, no swearing, no abuse, just a chuckle at his "misfortune" as a reminder how his clubs name is already tarnished and he now can join the list of disgraced clubman for such a unprovoked cowardly act. Surely he will feel shame as he "has let down the boys" - player terminology.

Simpkin or Spencer?

Spencil. Barely moving while his opponent lunges head first at his crotch. I sound like a broken record when I talk about this stuff but I've never understood the weird obsession in the AFL community with suspensions. We give out suspensions with idiotic regularity.

Spencil. Barely moving while his opponent lunges head first at his crotch. I sound like a broken record when I talk about this stuff but I've never understood the weird obsession in the AFL community with suspensions. We give out suspensions with idiotic regularity.

I agree with you. I think that contact was initiated by McEvoy bending over to pick it up. Spencer's only alternative appears to me to have been to do the same, causing a headclash.

The thing that is going to go against Spencer is that he turns his body, which makes it look a bit like he bumped McEvoy.

There was no way Spencer meant to hit McEvoy and the rest of the players knew it, otherwise there would have been a blue, but he did hit him and I agree with your assessment, he will get three with two for an early plea.

Footballers from previous decades must be bemused by the current head contact rule. Gee, Spencer was not in any way trying to take out his opponent. Merely trying to win the ball. Netball is getting rougher!! If the AFL are really serious about preventing head injuries then make helmets for all players compulsory. They are fast converting our great game into a no contact sport. Spencer will be suspended but he shouldn't.

Edited June 23, 201312 yr by Bobby McKenzie

I agree with you. I think that contact was initiated by McEvoy bending over to pick it up. Spencer's only alternative appears to me to have been to do the same, causing a headclash.

The thing that is going to go against Spencer is that he turns his body, which makes it look a bit like he bumped McEvoy.

That's it unfortunately. He's protected himself from what looked like being an incoming headbutt to the Niagras and it will cost him a couple of weeks. If he was to try to defend his actions it will cost him the early plea. Unfair.

spencer 3.

simpkin 2.

Footballers from previous decades must be bemused by the current head contact rule. Gee, Spencer was not in any way trying to take out his opponent. Merely trying to win the ball. Netball is getting rougher!! If the AFL are really serious about preventing head injuries then make helmets for all players compulsory. They are fast converting our great game into a no contact sport. Spencer will be suspended but he shouldn't.

not bemused STUNNED and AMAZED

the player turning his hip and shoulder is penalised for something every footy player learns in under 10s

I understand people not wanting big hits taking place , but approaching the AREA with hip and shoulder ready is not reportable,marc murphy escaped being reported in my mind, he blatantly exposed himself front on going,instead of turning the shoulder. 4 weeks suspension for stupidity.

as for simpkin 1 week for hitting dawes

6 weeks for being a pure COWARD

3 with an early plea.

Challenge.

Stevie J had more intent, Simpkins flat our whacked a bloke and Embley kneed a guy on the ground. All of them got less than Spencil.

I am outraged.

Change the Demonland banner to, 'Save Jake'.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-24/mrp-full-statement-round-13

The MRP system is a joke. Simpkin intentionally hits Dawes in the head, and gets two weeks. Embley intentionally drops his knees into a defenceless player on the ground and gets one week. Spencer negligently (i.e. not even recklessly) bumps McEvoy in the head and he gets three weeks.

Why? All incidents were assessed using the medical reports. MRP once again using the effect instead of the cause.

The system is a farce.

That's a joke. He could not have possibly done anything else except led with his own head...

The reason there are intentional, reckless and negligent for a reason. If the contact is accidental, or unavoidable those categories don't apply and there should be no report.

I hour we challenge, but as usual we'll get pulled into line. Times like this make me wonder if the afl take over is worth it...

Surely you take this to the tribunal! Not sure it can be downgraded through the points but just to show how rubbish the system is!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-24/mrp-full-statement-round-13

The MRP system is a joke. Simpkin intentionally hits Dawes in the head, and gets two weeks. Embley intentionally drops his knees into a defenceless player on the ground and gets one week. Spencer negligently (i.e. not even recklessly) bumps McEvoy in the head and he gets three weeks.

Why? All incidents were assessed using the medical reports. MRP once again using the effect instead of the cause.

The system is a farce.

Paul Gallen wants to play AFL now.

Another problem:

Simpkin's was intentional (three points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is six points, which led to a 'Level Two offence' and 225 points.

Spencer's was negligent (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is also six points, but it led to a 'Level Four offence' and 400 points.

Why? Because the AFL views Spencer's charge, 'Making Forceful Contact from Front-On' as worse than Simpkin's charge, which was striking.

In other words, the same consequence is considered worse by the AFL if you cause it by bumping as compared to punching.

What a joke.

The only thing he cab argue at the tribunal is that it wasn't actually forceful front on contact but an accidental collision.

I doubt common sense will prevail.

Once again but not for the last time I just have to shake my head in disbelief.

There was no malice in it!

Simpkin's was intentional (three points), low impact (one point)

Low impact - a punch to the face....so Barry should have got off a few.

A world where a negligent act gets penalised more harshly than an intentional act, regardless of the outcome, is one that is truly backwards in my view.