The AFL spin: http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/match-review-panel-member-nathan-burke-explains-cyril-rioli-fine-after-bump-on-clayton-oliver/news-story/8c5c77a2922deb898deeb4187a7d3742

Nathan Burke:  “The player (Clayton Oliver) didn’t go off the ground and didn’t require any medical treatment out on the ground. That all leads up to the low impact to the head grading.”

Sorry, but Hawkins got 1 week for his tap on Davis's chin...'the charge was graded as intentional conduct with low impact to the head'.  Davis barely flinched yet Olliver went down hard.

Burke would have been on firmer ground if he had have said Cyril got off because it was classed as 'careless conduct' (the Hawkins one was classed as 'deliberate') as that is the only difference in the two situations. 

Point of the matter is that had cyril crashed into glass jaw dangerfield hed have got 3 weeks because the bloke would have got concussion.

Or

Next time we drag him and write up a fake medical report so the opponent gets suspended

 

Should be on action and action alone, not the damage caused.

18 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Should be on action and action alone, not the damage caused.

This.

At the end of the day, the aim is to prevent players from doing stupid things to each other in the interest of safety. A player can control his action, but he can't control the outcome because the same action may lead to different outcomes in different situations.

On 8/8/2016 at 5:16 PM, hemingway said:

yes agree with this assessment, definitely aimed to hurt and would have seriously hurt most players. It was head high and designed to take out Oliver. I think other actions by Rioli during the match gives you a pathology that suggests that many of his tackles were not legitimate or fair. In my day, they would have been labelled dirty and the player would have had the dirty label.

But because Cyril is special he will probably get off.

Cyril is a player who tries to hurt just like his mates podge and Mitchell

I cannot wait to see some young buck take them on and clean them up in the same way

They are a blight on good footy and they continue to get away with it. Please some one at North fix these guys up

Meh. Wasn't much in it. Move on. Remember when we were all complaining about Viney being suspended for bumping? This isn't a conspiracy.

To me, the bigger issue is the 3 dangerous tackles Roili did that weren't even brought up by the MRP.

 

Just now, stuie said:

Meh. Wasn't much in it. Move on. Remember when we were all complaining about Viney being suspended for bumping? This isn't a conspiracy.

No, it was proven that he didn't bump, Rioli bumped.

On 8/8/2016 at 9:03 PM, 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.

If Clarry had cleaned up Cyril in exactly the same manner he would have been given  3 or 4 week rest

That's the reality and the papers would be full of outrage Think about it

Sends bad messages on a number of levels

Just now, Clint Bizkit said:

No, it was proven that he didn't bump, Rioli bumped.

Yep, he did, but there wasn't much contact that was high. Move on.

10 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

This.

At the end of the day, the aim is to prevent players from doing stupid things to each other in the interest of safety. A player can control his action, but he can't control the outcome because the same action may lead to different outcomes in different situations.

spot on...

I understand that the medical report may have a bearing but you need to look at incidents of this particular nature and penalise on the injury that could have been caused. If the head is sacrosanct then this type of bump should have a mandatory 2-4 weeks holiday ( you can debate what the minimum should be). Then you refer to the medical report and if it has a broken jaw or severe concussion result you add weeks on.

But to give no suspension because he got back up is just  wrong and is sending a message that your outcome will depend on pure luck.

As an aside - How they can call that bump low impact also has me bemused. I pray i never get a low impact bump like that 

 

Edited August 10, 20168 yr by nutbean

I think maybe the point you guys are missing in the "low impact to the head" part is that they're basically saying the bump was hard, but the amount of impact from that bump (which was 90% body impact) to the head was minimal. Given that bumps to the body are allowed then the judgment is fine.

 

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

I think maybe the point you guys are missing in the "low impact to the head" part is that they're basically saying the bump was hard, but the amount of impact from that bump (which was 90% body impact) to the head was minimal. Given that bumps to the body are allowed then the judgment is fine.

 

But don't you think it's getting into dangerous territory when one low-impact-bump-to-the-head (Hawkins) is deemed more suspendable than another? Particularly when, as has been argued, the suspendable one had much less effect on the bumpee at the time?

Like many other things AFL-related, it's the lack of any consistency, and the fact that there are some players and clubs who are protected species.

Edited August 10, 20168 yr by Akum
clarity

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

I think maybe the point you guys are missing in the "low impact to the head" part is that they're basically saying the bump was hard, but the amount of impact from that bump (which was 90% body impact) to the head was minimal. Given that bumps to the body are allowed then the judgment is fine.

 

I have heard this mentioned a few times and don't necessarily disagree with it and on viewing you can certainly argue that but the MRP should have actually stated that was the case and all this goes away .The problem is that "they basically didn't say that".

17 minutes ago, stuie said:

To me, the bigger issue is the 3 dangerous tackles Roili did that weren't even brought up by the MRP.

 

You mean the same dangerous type tackles that Clarrie got fined for during the NAB ?

It is going to take a broken neck or similar before they seriously crack down on these tackles. 

10 minutes ago, stuie said:

I think maybe the point you guys are missing in the "low impact to the head" part is that they're basically saying the bump was hard, but the amount of impact from that bump (which was 90% body impact) to the head was minimal. Given that bumps to the body are allowed then the judgment is fine.

 

an intentional shoulder charge to the front of the body is not allowed. It is at least a free kick. A push (except in marking) to the chest is ok

Edited August 10, 20168 yr by daisycutter

13 minutes ago, nutbean said:

I have heard this mentioned a few times and don't necessarily disagree with it and on viewing you can certainly argue that but the MRP should have actually stated that was the case and all this goes away .The problem is that "they basically didn't say that".

Yeah agree with that, they've not explained this one very well at all.

11 minutes ago, nutbean said:

You mean the same dangerous type tackles that Clarrie got fined for during the NAB ?

It is going to take a broken neck or similar before they seriously crack down on these tackles. 

Yep! Picked players up by the legs and drove them head first into the ground.

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

an intentional shoulder charge to the front of the body is not allowed. It is at least a free kick. A push (except in marking) to the chest is ok

Yep, my thoughts on it were it should have been a free, nothing more.

 

17 minutes ago, Akum said:

But don't you think it's getting into dangerous territory when one low-impact-bump-to-the-head (Hawkins) is deemed more suspendable than another? Particularly when, as has been argued, the suspendable one had much less effect on the bumpee at the time?

Like many other things AFL-related, it's the lack of any consistency, and the fact that there are some players and clubs who are protected species.

I think for there to be consistency then all the incidents need to be exactly the same, and they're not.

 

Just now, stuie said:

Yep, my thoughts on it were it should have been a free, nothing more.

 

except in this case he did make head contact (imo) so it had to go to the mrp. the mrp agreed on the head contact too. they erred in dismissing it as low impact. it should have been medium impact with no apparent damage and rioli given the chance to accept 1 week. failure to do this has sent a bad (and inconsistent) message and precedent plus enhanced the perception that there are protected species in the afl

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

except in this case he did make head contact (imo) so it had to go to the mrp. the mrp agreed on the head contact too. they erred in dismissing it as low impact. it should have been medium impact with no apparent damage and rioli given the chance to accept 1 week. failure to do this has sent a bad (and inconsistent) message and precedent plus enhanced the perception that there are protected species in the afl

I agree with them that the impact to the head was low though. Most of the force was to the body.

 

1 minute ago, stuie said:

I agree with them that the impact to the head was low though. Most of the force was to the body.

 

lol - is that a new definition of impact? virtually all shirtfronts have most of the force to the body.....

serious head and/or neck damage are not necessarily a factor of just force. the actual point of contact (e.g. temple), angle of impact and subsequent impact on head hitting the turf can all play a role in head and/or neck injury damage. the afl 2 years ago were much harsher on head contact but lately seem to have gone back to the bad old days. It will probably take a serious head injury before they wake up 

9 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

lol - is that a new definition of impact? virtually all shirtfronts have most of the force to the body.....

serious head and/or neck damage are not necessarily a factor of just force. the actual point of contact (e.g. temple), angle of impact and subsequent impact on head hitting the turf can all play a role in head and/or neck injury damage. the afl 2 years ago were much harsher on head contact but lately seem to have gone back to the bad old days. It will probably take a serious head injury before they wake up 

Sooooo you're saying now that he landed on his temple? Fairly sure he didn't land on his head. So, impact from the bump to the head = very minimal, impact from the ground to the head = pretty much nil.

 

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Sooooo you're saying now that he landed on his temple? Fairly sure he didn't land on his head. So, impact from the bump to the head = very minimal, impact from the ground to the head = pretty much nil.

 

sooooo now you are making it up. i never said he got hit on the temple. you need remedial classes in comprehension.

what i was explaining is that (1) the % of force to the body versus the head is a rubbish argument and (2) that pure force alone is not the only cause of serious head/neck injuries. Any low force head impact can be serious if connected to the right place. Clarrie was very, very lucky he didn't sustain a serious injury and the mrp has been too lenient to what was a very dangerous and deliberate act

50 minutes ago, stuie said:

I think for there to be consistency then all the incidents need to be exactly the same, and they're not.

 

It's a matter of consistency in the application of the parameters & penalties that exist, though.

The thing that bugs me was that the two incidents referred to the Mrp and found guilty were not awarded free kicks to us and to rub salt in the Rioli one ended up with a soft free to him and a goal . Let's not even mention the fifty metres