Of Course, Cyril gets off

[daisycutter 29,296]

13 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Rioli gets away with murder  but his bump on Clarry was perfect. Shouldn't have been cited,

The real story is that a kid in his first season and 11th game got up immediately from a huge hit and was one of the best players on the ground and continued to attack every contest like it was his last - and this week, Cyril, you are the loser.

how can a front on charge (going past the ball) be judged perfect? it's not 1980

[bush demon 1,989]

14 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

Rioli gets away with murder  but his bump on Clarry was perfect. Shouldn't have been cited,

The real story is that a kid in his first season and 11th game got up immediately from a huge hit and was one of the best players on the ground and continued to attack every contest like it was his last - and this week, Cyril, you are the loser.

the ball player should always be rewarded, gutless sniping like this should not. it was only good fortune that Oliver's head was not impacted and even better fortune he didn't end up in a neck brace 

[In Harmes Way 7,699]

I'm [censored] off as well with the outcome - but we need Hawthorn to beat North this weekend to keep us in the race (presuming we can beat Port). 

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

It reminded me a bit of the Micheal Long hit in the 2000 granny....Im on te side of reducing concussions, the game is very fast now.....if Rioli had of hit Brayshaw instead?

Edited August 8, 2016 by Wadda We Sing

[jnrmac 19,890]

Rioli is a dog. Just watched the replay again and at the start of the 2nd he does another spear tackle - on Brayshaw. The Langdford kicks it away and there is no 50m penalty.

The AFL need to send a message to Rioli. They missed two opportunities and now the dog will think he can get away with it.

[Earl Hood 6,057]

9 minutes ago, bush demon said:

the ball player should always be rewarded, gutless sniping like this should not. it was only good fortune that Oliver's head was not impacted and even better fortune he didn't end up in a neck brace 

If the hit had been on a hard surface such as Etihad or MCG in early season I think Clarrie's medical report might have been worse. His head hit the deck pretty hard but the ground is soft. The duty of care is on the tackler these days, everything depends on the medical assessment. One of the camera angles certainly makes the hit look high, the other doesn't but as has been said earlier the two spear tackles were potentially much worse but not even picked up on the radar. Surely the Dawks would be talking to Cyril about the spear tackles before he gets rubbed out for over stepping the mark and missing finals. 

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,762]

He hit Oliver in the chest. I think Cyril could have gone the ball instead but nothing in the rules stopping that kind of bump.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Rioli is a dog. Just watched the replay again and at the start of the 2nd he does another spear tackle - on Brayshaw. The Langdford kicks it away and there is no 50m penalty.

The AFL need to send a message to Rioli. They missed two opportunities and now the dog will think he can get away with it.

Saw that too, but i thought it was Weeds?....kinda made me think he was sniping the younger players.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Wadda We Sing

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

12 minutes ago, WAClark said:

He hit Oliver in the chest. I think Cyril could have gone the ball instead but nothing in the rules stopping that kind of bump.

Well ok if he hit him in the chest, how come they said it was low impact to the head? Thats where im confused.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Wadda We Sing

[titan_uranus 24,559]

The MRP says Rioli's bump hit Oliver in the head.

The AFL has continually said if you elect to bump and you make contact to the head, that is an offence.

Rioli was found guilty of an offence.

I'm happy with the above.

The penalty being $1,000 is the only issue - I can live with it.

The spear tackles are a bigger issue, IMO.

[Willmoy1947 3,957]

I would think the little fellah has been well warned. If not so be it....

[monoccular 17,305]

1 hour ago, Scoop Junior said:

I remember a few weeks ago Cyril flying for a mark and getting very high. He didn't take the mark. They showed the replay and he basically used his hands to climb all over the man in front in order to get up so high. It was a clear free kick yet all the Channel 7 commentators did was fawn over him and say how high he got and how incredible the mark would have been. "Oh Cyril this, Cyril that" They did not mention once that it was a clear free kick to his opponent.

After Saturday I wonder if the umpires suffer from the same Cyril obsession as Bruce and his fellow Channel 7 commentators. No free kick for flattening Oliver high and then he receives a free kick himself. Later in the quarter he then basically jumped on Neville Jetta and put an arm around his neck - no free for Jetta. Then later on again, Rioli clearly ducked into a tackle and incredibly received a free for too high.

Are they all just drooling over Cyril that they can't see him do any wrong?

For what it's worth I love watching Rioli and he's a sensational footballer. But I can be objective and recognise when he clearly infringes.

I saw that missed mark, missed hands on shoulders free and had exactly the same thoughts as you.

Clearly a free kick against just about anyone else, but the maggots seem as obsessed as Bruce in particular. 

Similarly the 'mark of the week' contender by Cyrrrriiiiillltll vs the far better, gutsy mark by Pedersen.

Cyrrrriiiiillltll can do no wrong, both regarding free kicks for and against, and by the MRP and tribunal.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,075]

59 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The MRP says Rioli's bump hit Oliver in the head.

The AFL has continually said if you elect to bump and you make contact to the head, that is an offence.

Rioli was found guilty of an offence.

I'm happy with the above.

The penalty being $1,000 is the only issue - I can live with it.

The spear tackles are a bigger issue, IMO.

The problem is that this is basically a non-decision. Either it was legal, in which case Rioli gets off, or it was not and hit him in the head, in which case he should be suspended. With a fine like this (which sounds like a lot in the headlines, but is probably about 10% of a week's pay for Rioli) the MRP can say they did something, but didn't do what would really penalise the Hawks, which is to have Rioli suspended. So rather than make a clear call one way or the either, they sort of do neither. What is worse is that this twaddle obscures the fact that they obviously thought the two spear tackles (as discussed earlier in this thread) are ok. So the MRP enhance their reputation as meddlers without a clue.

[buck_nekkid 5,818]

I look forward to the day when our 'superstars' are untouchables and get the 50-50s their way.

Cyril is a dirty, ball licking dog.  He also has flashes of brilliance.  I bet every hawk fan adores him.  He pushes the line and gets away with heaps - big hits, spear tackles, iffy frees.

the Hawks are so used to the umps being orally attached to their trouser appendages that Sam Mitchell whinges like a be-atch when things don't go his way. (Oh, and nice girly slap, Sam!  I bet the tribunal laughed at you instead of giving you a penalty...)

Tide is turning.  Our turn will come.

[daisycutter 29,296]

and i still say you can't charge a player with a front on bump (aka shirtfront) ignoring the ball, whether you make head contact or not. it's at least a free kick and potentially a chargeable offence

incidentally here is the actual mrp statement (not some media interpretation)

Quote

Charges Laid:

Cyril Rioli, Hawthorn, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Clayton Oliver, Melbourne, during the first quarter of the Round 20 match between Hawthorn and Melbourne, played at the MCG on Saturday August 6, 2016.

In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Melbourne 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.

 

[jnrmac 19,890]

1 hour ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Saw that too, but i thought it was Weeds?....kinda made me think he was sniping the younger players.

There were two separate incidents:

1. Rioli spear tackling Brayshaw - Free to Brayshaw Langford kicked the ball away and no 50 penalty. Brayshaw had the brainfade kick to the centre here Gunston or Bruest marked and goaled.

2. Rioli head butted Weideman and then spear tackled him into the turf. No free.

[DeeSpencer 24,683]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

The MRP says Rioli's bump hit Oliver in the head.

The AFL has continually said if you elect to bump and you make contact to the head, that is an offence.

Rioli was found guilty of an offence.

I'm happy with the above.

The penalty being $1,000 is the only issue - I can live with it.

The spear tackles are a bigger issue, IMO.

Agree with that.

The Brayshaw tackle looked particularly like it had a lot of lift in it and was very close to getting him in a dangerous position. Very surprised it wasn't looked at (or not really).

[DeeSpencer 24,683]

1 hour ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Saw that too, but i thought it was Weeds?....kinda made me think he was sniping the younger players.

He was and good luck to him. 

Nathan Jones doesn't mind finding a young player and giving them a bit of what for. Hopefully more of our players do. 

Although even better has been watching Clarry clean up some veterans of the game. 

[biggestred 4,773]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

There were two separate incidents:

1. Rioli spear tackling Brayshaw - Free to Brayshaw Langford kicked the ball away and no 50 penalty. Brayshaw had the brainfade kick to the centre here Gunston or Bruest marked and goaled.

2. Rioli head butted Weideman and then spear tackled him into the turf. No free.

Brayshaw should have had 50m too. Clear as day

[KingDingAling 3,737]

7 hours ago, sue said:

I recall there was a case that looked like kicking in danger that was ignored.  I haven't seen a close up of it, so not sure if it should have been paid.  They seem to let them through these days much of the time.  Doubtless there has been a rule change (/sarcasm)

I saw that. At the time it was just one of many that went unnoticed. But that one in particular really p*ssed me off. It was very obvious.

[Undeeterred 3,037]

#freekickhawthorn

I'm so sick of writing sentences along the lines of: 'Those pricks are the dirtiest, filthiest bunch of snipers'.

It's just absolutely ridiculous what they get away with.

[Undeeterred 3,037]

Cyril is just lucky Oliver didn't get carted off to hospital like a good number of players would have been after a dirty bump like that.

And we're much luckier that Oliver is an absolute frigging beast who is going to destroy the AFL for the next 12 years.

[Undeeterred 3,037]

As for Mitchell:

"Contact was made by Mitchell with an open hand in a pushing motion and it was the view of the panel there was no striking motion," the MRP said in its findings.

Are they actually joking?

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

2 minutes ago, Undeeterred said:

#freekickhawthorn

I'm so sick of writing sentences along the lines of: 'Those pricks are the dirtiest, filthiest bunch of snipers'.

How about a change of pace?

Try something like this: “A most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.”

Or this: “Methink’st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.”

Variety is the spice of life.

[Undeeterred 3,037]

2 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

How about a change of pace?

Try something like this: “A most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.”

Or this: “Methink’st thou art a general offence and every man should beat thee.”

Variety is the spice of life.

Gold.