Merrett Cleared

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Once we were warriors

Edited August 4, 2014 by iv'a worn smith

[nutbean 8,838]

It is the inconsistency that really pisses people off, myself included.

The contact was high, the impact was significant, and it was late.

The bloody maggot didn't even give a 50 m for late contact after the mark had been taken. One sees a hell of a lot of 50 for far less than that.

Compare this with Dawes getting two weeks (down to one) for a high chest late arm contact that rode up to the chin, with no consequences to the 'victim'

Can anyone say the MRP is consistent? I can only think of another word starting with co.....!

The Dawes incident was one i was going to point to as well.

Dawes attempt was very clumsy - was Merretts any different ?

It's just the freakin consistency ( or lack thereof) that does my head in

[jnrmac 20,055]

It is the inconsistency that really pisses people off, myself included.

The contact was high, the impact was significant, and it was late.

The bloody maggot didn't even give a 50 m for late contact after the mark had been taken. One sees a hell of a lot of 50 for far less than that.

Compare this with Dawes getting two weeks (down to one) for a high chest late arm contact that rode up to the chin, with no consequences to the 'victim'

Can anyone say the MRP is consistent? I can only think of another word starting with co.....!

This

[monoccular 17,413]

The Dawes incident was one i was going to point to as well.

Dawes attempt was very clumsy - was Merretts any different ?

It's just the freakin consistency ( or lack thereof) that does my head in

Well the outcome certainly was.

Pedersen went off with a broken nose, may mss a week.

Whoever Dawes "connected with" wasn't effected at all.

But one is cleared, the other two (down to one).

Corrupt!!!!

Edited August 5, 2014 by monoccular

[Dr. Gonzo 24,192]

He has already taken the mark before dog merret leaves the ground. It was after the mark.

Not even a 50m penalty.....

He did get a 50, the mark was in our backline.

[Mydee 288]

The decision is a disgrace, Merrett's action was an act of pure thuggery from the eighties, when his father, another thug played. It was late and at a minimum reckless andmost likely deliberate Yes Merrett probably had his eye on the ball, after he had lined up Pederson's face and the ball was well and truly in Pederson's possession..

Not entirely coincidentally, the incident was a turning point in the game which together with MacDonald's injury lead to imbalance on the backline.

But we all learn, provided you get your timing right and the ball is near enough you can take someone's head off. Perhaps we could employ a specialist coach in the area.

[jazza 1,323]

2 blokes going for the footy,move on.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

2 blokes going for the footy,move on.

Of course, that was what it was!!!!. Tell that to Nat Fyffe. Whether anyone here likes it or not, the MRP guidelines have been provided and therefore should be applied in a consistent manner.

[jazza 1,323]

Of course, that was what it was!!!!. Tell that to Nat Fyffe. Whether anyone here likes it or not, the MRP guidelines have been provided and therefore should be applied in a consistent manner.

Are we going to talk about every incident for this year?

Every year?

Or the merret one?

Play on,go for the footy and forget about it,weve got bigger probs than a broken nose.

[nutbean 8,838]

2 blokes going for the footy,move on.

I don't have a problem with that if similar incidents are assessed the same way - bottom line is that they are not. Dawes should feel very aggrieved.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Are we going to talk about every incident for this year?

Every year?

Or the merret one?

Play on,go for the footy and forget about it,weve got bigger probs than a broken nose.

Someone began this topic and its going to be discussed whether you want to or not. Fact remains that yes, a bloke has had his nose broken and it was as a result of an incident that previously and clearly would have attracted a sanction. Or do you subscribe to any employer being able to say, yeah well, it was an unfortunate accident, which just an occupational hazard? It is simply about applying the rules in a fair and consistent manner and while you obviously see it as a non-issue, I as a footy follower am outraged by it.

[jazza 1,323]

. Or do you subscribe to any employer being able to say, yeah well, it was an unfortunate accident, which just an occupational hazard? It is simply about applying the rules in a fair and consistent manner and while you obviously see it as a non-issue, I as a footy follower am outraged by it.

Just a game.

No i dont get the outrage,All organisations and especially the AFL have had their fair share of double standards,Its just today you may have forgotten a few of them.

Next year it will be another issue and pedders broken nose will be chip wrapper.

And all the squealing just makes other clubs laugh at you,they all have copped an unrealistic decision over the years.

Pass the beer nuts and play ball.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Just a game. .......................

Pass the beer nuts and play ball.

Sorry, I would rather go to the snow, drink Sauv. Blanc and eat canapés

[jazza 1,323]

Sorry, I would rather go to the snow, drink Sauv. Blanc and eat canapés

Biff can get you a great deal on those things.

He must work for vicroads,because thats where most of his stuff falls of the back of a truck.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Biff can get you a great deal on those things.

He must work for vicroads,because thats where most of his stuff falls of the back of a truck.

Biff, over to you. I'll meet you at the tavern bar on Saturday. You know, the one that bridges between the smokers stand and the Olympic stand

[ijbfossil 77]

Yet again the Demons are a soft target. Have to start making strong statements which is very hard when the list is so inadequate.

Would be good if the Club were to leak that Merrett should feel for his safety whenever he plays against the Demons again.

MFC have been the "whipping boy" for far too long.

[Moonshadow 17,675]

Once we were warriors

Nice footage of Steven Stretch getting stuck into a Bris Bears player. Took Ishenko (I think) to pull him away. Does his son has a bit of mongrel in him? Different era, I guess...

Geez, Grinter liked a barney as well. Has he got any sons?

[Juicebox 628]

Meanwhile fyfe can't win a brownlow this year...

MRP is a shambles

[monoccular 17,413]

Meanwhile fyfe can't win a brownlow this year...

MRP is a shambles

You are being far too polite or PC

It is a bloody disgrace.

[hardtack 10,514]

Meanwhile fyfe can't win a brownlow this year...

MRP is a shambles

That is it in a nutshell. It is NOT a conspiracy against the MFC, it was NOT an act of thuggery by Merrett, it is NOT a corrupt MRP... it is simply an inept MRP who apparently do not keep track of past decisions and hence have no standards in place.

[McQueen 17,864]

I don't have a problem with that if similar incidents are assessed the same way - bottom line is that they are not. Dawes should feel very aggrieved.

Merret's was much better disguised than the Dawes whack.

Dawes should watch it over and over again so he can become better at it.

[Bitter but optimistic 22,219]

I can't believe the defence of Merret he is a [censored] sniper.

However, the inept MRP are the real villains of this show. It simply beggars belief that that incident is not, at the very least, made the subject of tribunal review.

[Return to Glory 8,412]

I can't believe the defence of Merret he is a [censored] sniper.

However, the inept MRP are the real villains of this show. It simply beggars belief that that incident is not, at the very least, made the subject of tribunal review.

Absolutely, he has form for exactly the same thing.

[Toorak 108]

What annoys me is Watts fisted the ball clear of the goal and on the follow through made contact with a Port player. He was penalised and cost us the game. This is in direct contrast with Merrets attack on Pederson.

[solly21 91]

The AFL brought a new rule in at the start of the year. They have the right to challenge a Match Review decision this is the perfect time as this is a clear mistake. The Match Review deemed he hit the ball first before Pederson's head that is rubbish if that was the case Pederson wouldn't have marked the ball he had a firm grip on the ball. I have replayed it over & over and there is no way he hit the ball before Pederson's head. Does anyone remember Chris Dawes getting suspended in Round 9 for Rough Contact On Alex Rance that was Reckless but no wear near as Reckless as Merrett.