If Cyril Rioli's sling tonight doesn't incur the same wrath as Trengove's infamous Dangerfeild tackle I will lose it.

Exactly the same action thus incurring the same sanction. I bet the MRP will clear him.

Won't even be looked at.

I missed it.

Who did he sling and did it result in the player leaving the field?

The MRP react to more to the effect than the actual cause.

  On 09/08/2013 at 14:23, McQueen said:

I missed it.

Who did he sling and did it result in the player leaving the field?

The MRP react to more to the effect than the actual cause.

And that right there is the basic flaw in their system. The same ct needs to have the same punishment regardless of consequence. If Player A knocks someone into the fence and they get up and keep playing but player B does it and they break their leg, it has to be treated the same as the result was an unforeseeable event. Either both players are let off or both are suspended. If they keep going with this idiocy of an injury makes the act illegal then tackles that result in ACLs will be up on charges. What about Nathan Brown breaking Nathan Brown's leg? That should have been a season long suspension according to the current system. Not only is it idiotic, but the current system is leaving them wide open to legal action should a player decide to stand up to them.

Just watched the footage, 3-4 weeks... Oh, it was Rioli.

1 week, or points if early plea.

  On 09/08/2013 at 15:04, RalphiusMaximus said:

And that right there is the basic flaw in their system.

I think the flaw is in your understanding of the situation.

If the outcome is a direct consequence of the actions of one player on another then the impact on the recipient of the tackle is indeed relevant.

And Nathan Brown's broken leg was caused by inadverent action taken to smother the ball off the boot by Mathew Whelan. Ironically Whelans lunge neither connected with the ball or the kicking leg.

FWIW, have not seen Rioli's tackle but Trengove's case should be a precedent. I think there have been other cases where the sling tackler has been pinged.

  On 09/08/2013 at 15:04, RalphiusMaximus said:

And that right there is the basic flaw in their system. The same ct needs to have the same punishment regardless of consequence. If Player A knocks someone into the fence and they get up and keep playing but player B does it and they break their leg, it has to be treated the same as the result was an unforeseeable event. Either both players are let off or both are suspended. If they keep going with this idiocy of an injury makes the act illegal then tackles that result in ACLs will be up on charges. What about Nathan Brown breaking Nathan Brown's leg? That should have been a season long suspension according to the current system. Not only is it idiotic, but the current system is leaving them wide open to legal action should a player decide to stand up to them.

The same issue arises in general law. If you take a swing at someone and they fall over and don't hit their head, you will be charged with assault. If by unlucky chance the head of the guy you hit lands on something hard and he dies, you will be up for manslaughter. Same action, different result, different charge. A difficult issue, but in the case of the AFL I htink it is simpler. The game requires and sanctions 'assault', so they should judge only on intent and degree of reckless force, not outcome (except to the extent it reveals degree of force).

IMO the whole reporting system was inrpt when I saw an umpirer reported the wrong player for an incident what would have meant he hit his own player (the report was drop at the end of the game) gave the free kick to the person who should have been reported which resulted in a goal being scored and his team went on to win the game by less then a goal.

When Big Barry Hall was allowed to play in a GF after hitting someone in the game before was another classic moment.

Then there was a Freo player who punched another player and was let off because he claimed the other player said someting about his tattoo which was of his daughter.

Another incident was when a play could be seen giving a head butt to another player full video of the incident was shown on the TV for all to see but no video report was ever made.

What the AFL does is make a statement early in a season by giving a large penalty for say a sling tackle but by the middle or the end of the season similar incidents are not reported or attract much lessor penalties.

I dont think anyone can expect a fair and consistent decisions from the AFL on this incident or any matter relating to a potential report. It simply not going to happen as the process is too political.

  On 09/08/2013 at 23:25, Rhino Richards said:

If the outcome is a direct consequence of the actions of one player on another then the impact on the recipient of the tackle is indeed relevant.

That said, the Trengove case wasn't so clear cut. The original penalty rested, partly, on the negative medical rating given by the Adelaide medical staff.

They subsequently altered their rating of Dangerfield's injury - but this adjustment was ignored by the Panel during the appeal. Dangerfield played the next game and kicked 6 in a BOG performance. The extent of his injury was a cloudy issue even at the time yet Trengove's penalty was still enforced.

That's why the Trengove case should be a precedent for the MRPs interpretation.

  On 10/08/2013 at 00:41, 45HG said:

That said, the Trengove case wasn't so clear cut. The original penalty rested, partly, on the negative medical rating given by the Adelaide medical staff.

They subsequently altered their rating of Dangerfield's injury - but this adjustment was ignored by the Panel during the appeal. Dangerfield played the next game and kicked 6 in a BOG performance. The extent of his injury was a cloudy issue even at the time yet Trengove's penalty was still enforced.

Exactly.

In cases such as this it's clear that the Crows lied about the extent of the injury. Therefore the flaw in the process is that if the length of suspension is dictated by the injury then the injured individual should be mandatorily out for at least half of the player suspended. This would at least limit the amount to which a player/club could or would exaggerate the injury for fear of missing games.

Trengove has never been the same player since.

A mere shadow.

  On 10/08/2013 at 06:27, why you little said:

Trengove has never been the same player since.

A mere shadow.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I know Trengove has not played like his first year but he has proven he has got it in him. He has shown some 'glimpses' of his ability again recently. I for one am not worried. We supporters aren't the only ones that want this season to be over. Some will be pleasantly surprised with young Jack in 2014 IMO.

  On 10/08/2013 at 06:32, Chook said:

You don't know what you're talking about.

It's fair to say he hasn't been as damaging. But will turn it around.

  On 10/08/2013 at 06:32, Chook said:

You don't know what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong and i will listen.

  On 09/08/2013 at 23:25, Rhino Richards said:

And Nathan Brown's broken leg was caused by inadverent action taken to smother the ball off the boot by Mathew Whelan. Ironically Whelans lunge neither connected with the ball or the kicking leg.

Was that Whelan? I've been thinking for years that it was Brown on Brown. Ah well.

As for the rest, I stand by my point. This is a contact sport and on occasion people get hurt as a result of entirely legal actions. Suspending a player for an act which is allowed within the rules solely because it results in a opponent being hurt is a disgraceful decision and I'm pretty sure it would be overturned in a heartbeat if a player took it past the tribunal to an actual court of law.

In you the one weekend three players deliver late bumps, otherwise perfectly legal except for a raised elbow, all the bumps are the same force, and from the direction and:

a) the elbow strikes the eye socket breaking in 3 places leaving the player or for 8 weeks

b) the elbow strikes the temple, knocking the player out: he gets up seconds later, runs of groggy and is subbed out but pays next week, or

c) the elbow glances off the side of the head, the player bounces up a bit shaken and remonstrates.

In all three cases the penalty should be the danger OR at least very similar. The potential to cause injury was just as bad in all three and the rain the penalty is the is because of the act, not the result that is punishable.

The reason bumping with a raised elbow is illegal isn't because we like to hand out penalties it is because there is a chance that the elbow will injure someone. The level of the injury is irrelevant to the charge.

  On 10/08/2013 at 07:46, RalphiusMaximus said:

As for the rest, I stand by my point. This is a contact sport and on occasion people get hurt as a result of entirely legal actions. Suspending a player for an act which is allowed within the rules solely because it results in a opponent being hurt is a disgraceful decision and I'm pretty sure it would be overturned in a heartbeat if a player took it past the tribunal to an actual court of law.

This is why I don't understand why a bump to the side is legal, but incidental and accidental contact to the head in that bump gets 3-4 weeks. What is wrong with paying a free kick for a sloppy bump? Side to side contact in congested situation with incidental had contact is significantly different to a Michael long Troy Simmonds head over the ball toe clean up but both are treated the same.

  On 10/08/2013 at 07:42, why you little said:

Prove me wrong and i will listen.

It would be harder to ever prove you right.

  On 10/08/2013 at 08:39, Rhino Richards said:

It would be harder to ever prove you right.

i wouldn't bother to prove anything tou you Rhino...it just aint worth it.

  On 10/08/2013 at 09:37, why you little said:

i wouldn't bother to prove anything tou you Rhino...it just aint worth it.

On the contrary WYL you proved a lot over time.

  On 10/08/2013 at 08:20, deanox said:

This is why I don't understand why a bump to the side is legal, but incidental and accidental contact to the head in that bump gets 3-4 weeks. What is wrong with paying a free kick for a sloppy bump? Side to side contact in congested situation with incidental had contact is significantly different to a Michael long Troy Simmonds head over the ball toe clean up but both are treated the same.

I think we have moved on significantly from the Michael Long days. Incidents like that would get you 10-12 weeks.

And I would not be so sure the bump is clear. One of the key issues in tackling another player is that if your tackle results in the o,Ayer receiving injury which even if not deliberate will be at risk with the MRPS.

  On 10/08/2013 at 12:00, Rhino Richards said:

As you have shown , you are unable to substantiate your views logically or sensibly and when your outbursts of stupidity are challenged you just come up a chump.

What???

What i said was that Trengove has not played a decent game since the sling tackle.

I stand by that.

You are just a social bully Rhino & that is a fact set in stone.

  On 10/08/2013 at 12:04, why you little said:

What???

What i said was that Trengove has not played a decent game since the sling tackle.

I stand by that.

You are just a social bully Rhino & that is a fact set in stone.

Trengove has hardly played a decent game before it. In 4 years of AFL, he's an honest hard working footballer but he's no star. I

You should try and look beyond the melodrama....for once.

If actually thought about the pressure of captaincy for a young guy in a poor club culture you might be on to something rather than grasping at silly straws.