Collingwood's Sophie Casey has been handed a two week ban (reduced from three for guilty plea) for rough conduct against Meg Downie.

How this was adjudicated as rough conduct is beyond me. Should have been intentional high contact, striking, with a high impact and been 4 or 5 weeks.

My only guess is umpire number 5 sits on the MRP as well!

42 minutes ago, Chris said:

Collingwood's Sophie Casey has been handed a two week ban (reduced from three for guilty plea) for rough conduct against Meg Downie.

How this was adjudicated as rough conduct is beyond me. Should have been intentional high contact, striking, with a high impact and been 4 or 5 weeks.

My only guess is umpire number 5 sits on the MRP as well!

I agree Chris she got off with a light penalty IMO.

I thought it was about right.

 

2 weeks in a 7 week season seems fair.

Tom Jonas got 6 weeks or so for knocking out Gaff last year, there really is little difference once you look at the intention and the outcome. Vince got 1 week for almost making contact with an elbow!

Maybe it is the length of the season that comes into it. Jonas got around 25% of the season as did Casey. Not a fan of that though as what would be 1 week in the mens (5%ish) is also 1 week in the womens (15%ish) so the worse the incident the more time relative to the season you are let off. 

 

No doubt length of season is considered

8 minutes ago, loges said:

No doubt length of season is considered

It shouldn't.

Regardless, they graded it as careless! 

A hit to the head after the ball was long gone seems rather intentional to me. 

47 minutes ago, loges said:

No doubt length of season is considered

So you would basically need to murder your opponent to get seven weeks, 6 with an early plea

Meg will miss something similar and has the chance of permanent damage.

It's a joke.  She should have got the season. 

50 minutes ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Meg will miss something similar and has the chance of permanent damage.

It's a joke.  She should have got the season. 

Watered down umpiring and watered down penalties probably don't help promote the comp

What a joke. 

At least 4 weeks

she was out cold for at least 5 minutes....

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

What a joke. 

At least 4 weeks

she was out cold for at least 5 minutes....

The AFL have shot themselves in the foot here. Two weeks for knocking an opponent out leaves them absolutely nowhere to go. You could smash an elbow into the back of an opponents head and if she's not concussed expect a week tops.  A player can now ko an opponent and challenge anything over three weeks reduced to two. Big mistake when you consider they are trying to appeal to the next generation of girls (and nervous mums)

35 minutes ago, Return to Glory said:

The AFL have shot themselves in the foot here. Two weeks for knocking an opponent out leaves them absolutely nowhere to go. You could smash an elbow into the back of an opponents head and if she's not concussed expect a week tops.  A player can now ko an opponent and challenge anything over three weeks reduced to two. Big mistake when you consider they are trying to appeal to the next generation of girls (and nervous mums)

Agreed 100% 

Very, very light. Absolute minimum she could get. Chance to send a message and they go soft.

She went past the ball, made no attempt to avoid contact and it could easily be argued she changed direction to intentionally hit her victim who was in a vulnerable position, raised her elbow and knocked her out. Meg had no chance of returning to the field and further will not play this week and was in hospital till 2am the next morning.

It is an absolute disgrace. An absolute disgrace.

It should be appealed. Disgrace.

Pathetic light sentence.  She ran past the ball, took two more steps straight at Downie and hit her with an elbow to the head.  How that can be anything but Intentional High Contact and High impact is a mystery for the ages.  Possibly even for Eddie.  There needs to be an avenue for cubs to appeal these insane decisions. 

18 hours ago, Vogon Poetry said:

Meg will miss something similar and has the chance of permanent damage.

It's a joke.  She should have got the season. 

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2017-02-14/downie-de-bortoli-out-for-season

Edit:
Note: she is out for a hamstring as well not just the concussion 

I really think in a short season to apply the 22 round rules to an eight week one is not sensible. A two week suspension in percentage terms of the whole season is equivalent to 5-6 weeks. In men's footy, for this crime I think that is about right. Let's move on and see our very talented women's team slay them for the rest of the season.

what a great beginning to the demon revival!

I'm not saying the hit was good or justifying the penalty, but Downie pinged the the hamstring just prior to the point of contact, and got herself into an awkward position when the hit came, I thought she was reaching for the hammy at the time or impact, quite possibly making her more vulnerable as a result.

8 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

I really think in a short season to apply the 22 round rules to an eight week one is not sensible. A two week suspension in percentage terms of the whole season is equivalent to 5-6 weeks. In men's footy, for this crime I think that is about right. Let's move on and see our very talented women's team slay them for the rest of the season.

what a great beginning to the demon revival!

I disagree.  I love that womens footy is taking off.  I would imagine one of the last things anyone wants is to see acts of brutality like this tarnish the development of the WAFL.  Downie was seriously hurt.  She spent the night in hospital.  It was a shocking look for the game and a strong message should have been sent.

But I do understand where you're coming from.

17 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

I really think in a short season to apply the 22 round rules to an eight week one is not sensible. A two week suspension in percentage terms of the whole season is equivalent to 5-6 weeks. In men's footy, for this crime I think that is about right. Let's move on and see our very talented women's team slay them for the rest of the season.

what a great beginning to the demon revival!

I agree. As you say, 2 weeks (down from 3) is equivalent to 5-6 weeks in the men's game, which I think is a fair penalty for an act like this. In fact, when I saw the incident at the time, I made a quick calculation with this in mind and said "that deserves 3 weeks". As in, that's an appalling act, and deserves a harsh suspension. The penalty is meant to be punishment, but also a deterrent, and if players aren't deterred by the possibility of missing out on 25% of a season they've waited a lifetime for, I don't think anything would. I think the strong reaction to it is partly because in our minds 2 weeks is a paltry penalty in the men's game. But that's not the case here.

Good luck to Downie with her recovery and look forward to seeing her out there next year.

DIO, I totally agree. The deterance is there with this penalty, but it doesn't decimate the women's game for the rest of the short season. Having said that, serious injury did happen, and the administrators of the women's game need to reinforce these act will not be tolerated in future, as they have done in the mens' game.

Go Demon W's. I love your style and commitment to great footy!

57 minutes ago, Dees2014 said:

I really think in a short season to apply the 22 round rules to an eight week one is not sensible. A two week suspension in percentage terms of the whole season is equivalent to 5-6 weeks. In men's footy, for this crime I think that is about right. Let's move on and see our very talented women's team slay them for the rest of the season.

what a great beginning to the demon revival!

I don't really have an issue for this but it falls down with lesser penalties. What the men get 1 week for the women are getting one week for, that in essence makes the penalty for the women a lot harsher than it is for the men. Unless we start penalising for percentages of games then that approach doesn't really work. 

5 hours ago, Chris said:

I don't really have an issue for this but it falls down with lesser penalties. What the men get 1 week for the women are getting one week for, that in essence makes the penalty for the women a lot harsher than it is for the men. Unless we start penalising for percentages of games then that approach doesn't really work. 

This is a good point and one I can't really see a solution to, especially since fines are off the table. You can't really suspend someone for half a game. The half game could be applied cumulatively for repeat offenses although that kind of happens already with carry over points...

Oh wait, there is one solution, make the season longer! Then it'll be apples and apples with the men's penalties, which as we all know are shining examples of reason, fairness and consistency!

It was a dog act and the [censored] should go for the proper time. Length of season is irrelevant.

Rules are rules. You want to grow the game ?...Then protect/punish player and aggressor accordingly.

Quite possibly Meg is out for the rest of season...not her fault.

The filthy one should miss same...IS  her fault.

That's like saying human life expectancy is irrelevant to the punishments given for crimes. A jail sentence is the amount of time the criminal will spend behind bars in relation to the average human lifespan. In footy, there isn't some inherent length of time that makes a penalty just. It's in proportion to a season, or a career.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a dog act or that this kind of play should be encouraged. But I think the penalty given is enough to deter others. It's not like players in the men's game are wiped out for the length of time the player on the receiving end is injured. That's way too arbitrary. And Meg's out for the hamstring as well anyway.

The implication that the MRP are somehow going lightly on the women's competition is one that shouldn't be perpetuated.