44 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

As if we needed any further excuses to hate Carlscum.

The club from which Brock McLean started the "fine the club for an undefined crime" "scandal" that had been prototyped and perfected by the Blues?

2 hours ago, america de cali said:

Has anyone ever gotten suspended for an open palm slap before?

Cam Mooney did I think.

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

As opposed to " palming" off the MRP inconsistency.

Nice punchline, Redleg. That penalty is a real slap in the face for consistency. It strikes me as very harsh. Knock me over with a feather.

As annoyed as I am I think all this talk amounts to very little as we've accepted the suspension. The only thing I would say is that I'd be very happy for a coach or someone from the club saying the only reason they accepted it was because of the risk of the additional week, and further point to inconsistencies with the fact that Thompson got off easy with a week. 

I would almost cop Hogan's if Thompson had been given a fair whack but the MRP have basically said, "go ahead and elbow someone in the head as long as the ball is within 5m, but don't you dare open palm a guy off the ball." FWIW I still think Hogan should be suspended, it was a silly act off the ball that gave us zero value and just made him look like a [censored]. But 3 down to 2 is such an over the top verdict. 

At least Lewis's might have affected Cripps in our favour. Hogan's just cost us a shot on goal and him for two weeks. 

Edited April 4, 20178 yr by Pates

Bad enough Barry Prendergast and Brock McLean dobbing us in for tanking! Now this!

We need a new enemy. Collingwood was getting boring. 

So during last week, the media was calling for independent doctors for concussion assessments because of a club doctors conflict of interest in wanting to keep good players on the field. Now we come to MRP and it's the Carlton doctors who are solely responsible for having two of players outed for maximum lengths of 2+ weeks. Bit fishy if you ask me. How about the AFL has an independent doctor that verifies each reported injury on match day? And then follows any injuries up over the next day or two. This society acts as if Doctors are above and beyond bias and corruption, i'm sure it's probably lower in the medical profession, but it's certainly not zero.

Edited April 3, 20178 yr by DominatrixTyson

5 hours ago, Krazy Jaeger O'Smeara said:

As angry and annoyed I am about this one, the "open palm" defence won't do anything...

Does this mean I can go out and, with an open hand, smash my palm into the nose of my opponent, shattering it all in the thought that I will get off due to not having a closed fist?

I think not...

this sort of argument pisses me off.

Did he use an open hand to squeeze his opponents balls?

Did he use an open palm to strike his opponent in the back of the head, in a surprise attack.

 

No, he open palmed the side of his face. nothing more, nothing less, so the "smash my palm into the nose of my opponent, shattering it all in the thought that I will get off due to not having a closed fist?" is a complete waste of time, in addition to being completely over the top hyperbole.

Think prior to posting.

Interestingly, one of the media outlets today mentioned the actual MRP rules on how they assess an incident.  The rules have been deliberately written to provide them with leeway in their interpretation so that they can make the judgement fit the penalty they want to give.  They have essentially written their laws specifically to allow them to be inconsistent with their judgements and hand out different verdicts for the same acts. 

I'm aligned with all who question the severity of the hit given the lack of immediate medical oversight, and symptoms surfacing in the rooms afterwards.

i wonder if Rowe drove home from the ground, or whether his doctors advised him against it given his "condition"

Lets see what happens to the next open hand to the face.

Two weeks for that incident, which was clearly miked, seems grossly unjust to me.

MRP looks to have defined what an open hand to the face is worth.

Thank god he didn't punch him.

 

It is clear that these players have been dealt with severely, solely because of the Carlton Doctor's reports. ( This has its own dangers if left this way, as imagine a GF where the star player is put out by the opponent's Doctor's report.) 

Everyone agrees that the Thomson elbow was far worse, but luckily for him Danger was not hurt. Same with the Preust knee to the back. They were cowardly, thuggish and dangerous acts, yet because no injury, treated very leniently.

Strangely though, Lynch hit Birchall with a forearm and broke Birchall's jaw. In that case the MRP deemed it not intentional though most media said he would go.

As I posted earlier, the main reason people are unhappy with the MRP is because of inconsistency.

They can decide the case first and then make the ingredients fit later. That is the problem here. 

The same acts can be treated differently, even on the same monday afternoon, as the MRP can effectively do what they want.

Personally on what I have seen and based on previous decisions,  Lewis deserved 2 weeks with his record and Hogan deserved a fine or at worst 1 week.

I think we would all have accepted that. 

Anyway it's history now given we are not appealing, so I hope the siege mentality is used to a degree by Goodwin and we bring our A game and beat the Cats this week.

Edited April 3, 20178 yr by Redleg

I guess neither qualified for the 'good bloke' discount.

43 minutes ago, Choke said:

I guess neither qualified for the 'good bloke' discount.

Good blokes don't have bad hair and are clean shaven. 

12 hours ago, america de cali said:

Has anyone ever gotten suspended for an open palm slap before?

Yes. Neville Crowe was suspended for an open hand slap at John Nicholls in the 1967 preliminary final and missed the grand final. That wasn't the only miss. Footage proved Crowe's slap clearly missed Nicholls, who put on a massive act, then refused to admit it at the tribunal. No tv evidence was admissible back then and Crowe's suspension stood.

We haven't had a MRP decision go our way since Brent Moloney got 2 weeks in 2005 for a missed bump where the other bloke hit his head on the turf in an uncoordinated attempt to avoid body contact.

 

8 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

We haven't had a MRP decision go our way since Brent Moloney got 2 weeks in 2005 for a missed bump where the other bloke hit his head on the turf in an uncoordinated attempt to avoid body contact.

 

The MRP's decision on Viney's bump a few years back was overturned wasn't it?

That's the only one I can remember.

Just now, Choke said:

The MRP's decision on Viney's bump a few years back was overturned wasn't it?

That's the only one I can remember.

yes, but not by the mrp

15 hours ago, Brownie said:

all footy players should know by now that if you want to hit your opponent always use your elbow, not your palm

Or use the following excuses:

• I'm Josh Kennedy, and based on precedent, that makes me innocent
• I thought I was hitting Colin Sylvia, and based on precedent, that makes me innocent

5 hours ago, Dockett 32 said:

Lets see what happens to the next open hand to the face.

Two weeks for that incident, which was clearly miked, seems grossly unjust to me.

MRP looks to have defined what an open hand to the face is worth.

Thank god he didn't punch him.

 

As Redleg alludes to, the MRP haven't defined anything about the worth of an open palm, what they have defined is the worth of a delayed onset concussion report from the opposition doctor. Whether it was open palm, a closed fisted right hook or just a plain old kiss on the cheek, none of that matters one iota because they're judging purely on the opposition's account of the consequence, not the action.

Might as well just throw the footage in the bin, because that's the worth of it.

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

As Redleg alludes to, the MRP haven't defined anything about the worth of an open palm, what they have defined is the worth of a delayed onset concussion report from the opposition doctor. Whether it was open palm, a closed fisted right hook or just a plain old kiss on the cheek, none of that matters one iota because they're judging purely on the opposition's account of the consequence, not the action.

Might as well just throw the footage in the bin, because that's the worth of it.

I don't like that but would accept it if applied consistently throughout the season. I'm not holding my breath.

 

7 hours ago, Dockett 32 said:

Lets see what happens to the next open hand to the face.

Two weeks for that incident, which was clearly miked, seems grossly unjust to me.

MRP looks to have defined what an open hand to the face is worth.

Thank god he didn't punch him.

 

You're making the natural assumption that the MRP use this thing called "precedent".

They wouldn't know precedent if it slapped them in the side of the head, broke their jawbone clean off, and gave them delayed dementia.

Their past actions show that precedent means nothing to them.

Of all the arms of the AFL, they are the most guilty of making it up as they go.

7 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

You're making the natural assumption that the MRP use this thing called "precedent".

They wouldn't know precedent if it slapped them in the side of the head, broke their jawbone clean off, and gave them delayed dementia.

Their past actions show that precedent means nothing to them.

Of all the arms of the AFL, they are the most guilty of making it up as they go.

I've highlighted the particular point above. After finally getting around to see some more footage of the weekend's disgraceful attempts at umpiring last night I was talking with one of my employees today about the Puopolo in the back call. To show him I pulled up the footage from an AFL website video where a commentator was discussing some of the weekends more contentious decisions with the umpires coach. She the bought up the Hawks v Crows video and he proceeded to say the umpire on the field had to make a judgement call that the crow was lying on puopolo's back at the end of the tackle. The decision was an absolute disgrace and called as such by Roos during the live commentary. Clearly they make up justifications for decisions to suit their ends all the way through the system. (same can be said for the eagles v saints calls where almost exactly the same thing happened to both teams resulting in different on-field interpretations - that amazingly were all judged to be correct decisions in the post-game analysis)

15 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

You're making the natural assumption that the MRP use this thing called "precedent".

They wouldn't know precedent if it slapped them in the side of the head, broke their jawbone clean off, and gave them delayed dementia.

Their past actions show that precedent means nothing to them.

Of all the arms of the AFL, they are the most guilty of making it up as they go.

even more than umpires?........or the afl integrity unit?..........

28 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

You're making the natural assumption that the MRP use this thing called "precedent".

They wouldn't know precedent if it slapped them in the side of the head, broke their jawbone clean off, and gave them delayed dementia.

Their past actions show that precedent means nothing to them.

Of all the arms of the AFL, they are the most guilty of making it up as they go.

Precedent and dementia aren't really two things  that go together too well. 

3 hours ago, Nasher said:

As Redleg alludes to, the MRP haven't defined anything about the worth of an open palm, what they have defined is the worth of a delayed onset concussion report from the opposition doctor. Whether it was open palm, a closed fisted right hook or just a plain old kiss on the cheek, none of that matters one iota because they're judging purely on the opposition's account of the consequence, not the action.

Might as well just throw the footage in the bin, because that's the worth of it.

Must be that they thought Col Sylvia was pretending to have a broken jaw then?