Cam Pedersen - anything to worry about?

[daisycutter 29,892]

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

You Beauty Full side Round one

haha Daisy Thomas not only useless but he cops 2 weeks

Onya Mick

yes wyl, i've sent mr. thomas an email asking if he would be kind enough to refer to himself in the future as dale, and inform the media

there are standards to maintain

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

Good news indeed.

Now we need Cameron to miss, Stevie J to do a hammy, Dylan Shiel a groin, Mumford the same ankle and Griffen to do his knee to be a strong chance.

[Sir Why You Little 37,302]

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yes wyl, i've sent mr. thomas an email asking if he would be kind enough to refer to himself in the future as dale, and inform the media

there are standards to maintain

Hahaha but of course...

[Seraph 1,824]

11 minutes ago, Elusive Tunbridge said:

Cameron sent directly to the tribunal.  Two weeks minimum, I guess.

He fractured the cheekbone of the opposing player. 

I expect he'll get at least 3.

[jnrmac 20,272]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Pedersen has only been fined.

I still dispute that he made contact to the head, but it's a good result for us.

What a [censored] ruling. Charged with rough conduct. WTF is that? A bump is now rough conduct? What are the custodians of our game doing....

[daisycutter 29,892]

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

What a [censored] ruling. Charged with rough conduct. WTF is that? A bump is now rough conduct? What are the custodians of our game doing....

revenue raising? we live in an economy driven by the fine 'em for anything and everything mentality. big gov everywhere

[nutbean 8,838]

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

What a [censored] ruling. Charged with rough conduct. WTF is that? A bump is now rough conduct? What are the curtodians of our game doing....

The fine print on the AFL site says that it was low impact to the head. Question is - was it to the head? 

[Cards13 9,117]

6 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

But if you do hit him high then it appears as if your intent was to whack rather than get the ball.

Don't they have "a duty of care" for their fellow players now? Not if you are a coach, Doc or board member at Ess but fellow players do now days, don't they? I'm sure over heard Dill Trott this line out before. 

[Cards13 9,117]

13 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

What a [censored] ruling. Charged with rough conduct. WTF is that? A bump is now rough conduct? What are the custodians of our game doing....

Finally trying to protect players from brain injuries thus indemnifying the AFL from future law suits like Bellys?

[RalphiusMaximus 6,102]

29 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

What a [censored] ruling. Charged with rough conduct. WTF is that? A bump is now rough conduct? What are the custodians of our game doing....

IF that is rough conduct, there was a similar hit on Kennedy that was much more forceful a little later in the game.  Where is the rough conduct charge for that one? 

[Barney Rubble 1,576]

MRP

Cameron Pedersen, Melbourne, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Nathan Wright, St Kilda, during the fourth quarter of the Round Four NAB Challenge match between Melbourne and St Kilda, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday March 13, 2016. 

In summary, his $1500 sanction can be reduced to a $1000 sanction with an early guilty plea. 

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the St Kilda Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1000 sanction. 

[dee-luded 2,959]

Cameron Pedersen, Melbourne, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Nathan Wright, St Kilda, during the fourth quarter of the Round Four NAB Challenge match between Melbourne and St Kilda, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday March 13, 2016.
 
In summary, his $1500 sanction can be reduced to a $1000 sanction with an early guilty plea.
 
Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the St Kilda Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1000 sanction.

Pedo is a clean skin according to this...  I think maybe we should fight it. to keep his clean record.  who wants points or carryover record for that.  lets not take the soft option.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-03-14/pedersen-charged-by-mrp

[Adam The God 30,602]

I'd take the fine and run. $1k is fair.

[Bigred 494]

All good points Dee Luded

Take the fine

Lucky in the current cremate

[bing181 9,421]

3 minutes ago, Bigred said:

Lucky in the current cremate

If it keeps on getting warmer, pretty much what it's going to feel like.

Anyway Pedo, pay the fine. Lucky.

[Biffen 12,949]

21 hours ago, stuie said:

Radio coverage mentioned it a fair bit. SEN saying he will miss at least the first round.

 

Yes they get it wrong quite often.

 

[old dee 24,000]

4 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Good news indeed.

Now we need Cameron to miss, Stevie J to do a hammy, Dylan Shiel a groin, Mumford the same ankle and Griffen to do his knee to be a strong chance.

We will win no matter who they play.

[dee-luded 2,959]

4 hours ago, nutbean said:

The fine print on the AFL site says that it was low impact to the head. Question is - was it to the head? 

challenge it

 

[Demonland 73,468]

5 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Good news indeed.

Now we need Cameron to miss, Stevie J to do a hammy, Dylan Shiel a groin, Mumford the same ankle and Griffen to do his knee to be a strong chance.

I've never liked this line of thinking. If we can't beat them at their best then do we deserve to win?

[daisycutter 29,892]

30 minutes ago, Demonland said:

I've never liked this line of thinking. If we can't beat them at their best then do we deserve to win?

well considering no-one is ever at their best, it's a bit academic. i always take the 4 points. the rest evens out over time 

[monoccular 17,642]

7 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Pedersen has only been fined.

I still dispute that he made contact to the head, but it's a good result for us.

Fined....for a bump to the shoulder !!    FCS the MRP are unbelievable  

6 hours ago, nutbean said:

The fine print on the AFL site says that it was low impact to the head. Question is - was it to the head? 

No.  

[hardtack 10,851]

6 hours ago, nutbean said:

The fine print on the AFL site says that it was low impact to the head. Question is - was it to the head? 

I think it was, but certainly not by design.  But in saying that, it was clear that both players were going hard at the ball and only had eyes for the ball.

[Akum 2,660]

5 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:

MRP

Cameron Pedersen, Melbourne, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Nathan Wright, St Kilda, during the fourth quarter of the Round Four NAB Challenge match between Melbourne and St Kilda, played at Etihad Stadium on Sunday March 13, 2016. 

In summary, his $1500 sanction can be reduced to a $1000 sanction with an early guilty plea. 

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the St Kilda Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1000 sanction. 

Beginning to get annoyed about how medical reports are "used" in situations like these.

[DeeSpencer 26,268]

38 minutes ago, Akum said:

Beginning to get annoyed about how medical reports are "used" in situations like these.

They are always used and the doctors have some responsibility to get them right. I don't hate the medical report, I hate how much they count the impact. 

Anyway, in this case the medical report was obviously all clear so it's worked for us.

[dee-luded 2,959]

7 hours ago, nutbean said:

The fine print on the AFL site says that it was low impact to the head. Question is - was it to the head? 

 

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

I think it was, but certainly not by design.  But in saying that, it was clear that both players were going hard at the ball and only had eyes for the ball.

surely someone around these parts,  has the skill to record this part of game & blow it up,  & put it on youtube so we can see it up close ?