4 minutes ago, Itsabouttohappen said:

Ryder 1 week !  Low impact because the crows wouldnt even dog their cross town rivals.  Just a little more class than carlscum......

Here is my earlier post.

 

"I am waiting for the Doctor's report from the Crows to have the pretty ugly Paddy Ryder hit from behind to a Crow's jaw, declared no impact, or low impact and one week at worst. 

The Crows won't dob Ryder in. 

We now have a system where you can attempt to smash a bloke's head in, but if the Doctor says the victim is fine, the penalty is minor. 

That is a joke. "

 

1 Week for this. Hogan and Lewis are turning over in their suspension graves.

Round 16 can't come soon enough

Slightly tangential. Let's assume Rowe genuinely had concussion. Why was he allowed to play yesterday? I thought there was some relatively recent rule or agreement amongst the clubs (let alone a duty of care) that made it clear that any player with concussion must not play the next week (as a minimum). And if there isn't such a rule, shouldn't there be? I would have thought we know enough about concussion now to make a minimum one week break compulsory.

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Slightly tangential. Let's assume Rowe genuinely had concussion. Why was he allowed to play yesterday? I thought there was some relatively recent rule or agreement amongst the clubs (let alone a duty of care) that made it clear that any player with concussion must not play the next week (as a minimum). And if there isn't such a rule, shouldn't there be? I would have thought we know enough about concussion now to make a minimum one week break compulsory.

The guy didnt even come off for his mandatory 20 min concussion test

5 minutes ago, biggestred said:

The guy didnt even come off for his mandatory 20 min concussion test

Hence the explanation of "delayed concussion". But I'm not quibbling about whether he had concussion. I'm assuming he did. The real issue to me is why Carlton allowed him to play the following week. It seems to me to be a decision that lacks consideration of the player's long-term welfare.

A Law unto Themselves. Say whatever they want. Lyons strike same as Jessie's, same action, however Lyons is considered careless, not intentional. His hand carelessly flew up of its own accord and hit Shiel on the jaw. 

"Gold Coast midfielder Jarryd Lyons can also accept a $1000 fine for striking Liam Shiels in Sunday's upset win at Metricon Stadium, with his hit graded careless conduct with low impact to the head."

No wonder people love footy and hate the AFL.

 

 

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Hence the explanation of "delayed concussion". But I'm not quibbling about whether he had concussion. I'm assuming he did. The real issue to me is why Carlton allowed him to play the following week. It seems to me to be a decision that lacks consideration of the player's long-term welfare.

Not if you know it was all a beat-up in the first place.

10 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Slightly tangential. Let's assume Rowe genuinely had concussion. Why was he allowed to play yesterday? I thought there was some relatively recent rule or agreement amongst the clubs (let alone a duty of care) that made it clear that any player with concussion must not play the next week (as a minimum). And if there isn't such a rule, shouldn't there be? I would have thought we know enough about concussion now to make a minimum one week break compulsory.

1. Not enough MFC supporters in the media to kick up a stink and remind the AFL of their own rule

2. The AFL don't GAF anyway. Where's the hit on revenue here? Issue effectively does not exist.

6 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Hence the explanation of "delayed concussion". But I'm not quibbling about whether he had concussion. I'm assuming he did. The real issue to me is why Carlton allowed him to play the following week. It seems to me to be a decision that lacks consideration of the player's long-term welfare.

The other issue is if he was hit hard enough to end up with concussion then why was he not assessed at the game!

4 minutes ago, Chris said:

The other issue is if he was hit hard enough to end up with concussion then why was he not assessed at the game!

I assume "delayed concussion" is a real thing given it has been accepted by the media and MRP as genuine. That would explain why he wasn't assessed during the game. As I said, I accept that the concussion was genuine. My point is about concussed players not having a mandatory rest.

The Jarrod Lyons hit on Liam Shiels was the exact same as Jordan Lewis's hit on cripps. They were both wrestling and exchanging punches and then one slides off the arm and hits them in the jaw...the only thing is Liam shiels isn't a piece of s*** and didn't drop to the ground like cripps did, also didn't receive a hairline fracture but cripps was fine to play this week without even a head guard. 

But the exact same incident and the exact same lead up and exact same mechanism... one bloke gets a fine and one bloke gets 3 weeks... Go figure 

15 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I assume "delayed concussion" is a real thing given it has been accepted by the media and MRP as genuine. That would explain why he wasn't assessed during the game. As I said, I accept that the concussion was genuine. My point is about concussed players not having a mandatory rest.

I accept delayed concussion is real as well, and you have to accept the doctors findings. The issue is though why was the player not assessed during the game if he was at risk from concussion (as he clearly was as he ended up with it!). There is a manditory 20 minute concussion test period for any player who is suspected of having concussion. Rowe hit the ground fairly hard, hard enough to give him delayed concussion, he lay there for a while, why was he not tested?

I can only think of three possible reasons why he wasn't, he was faking it and the club knew it, he was really hurt but the club thought he was faking, or the club didn't want to lose him for the rest of the game, or even the 20 minutes of the test. Same story for Cripps. 

No matter which one it is the CFC does not look good and should be asked some questions. 

16 minutes ago, Chris said:

No matter which one it is the CFC does not look good and should be asked some questions. 

They should also be asked why Weitering went back on yesterday after a heavy head clash with Hurley.  Weitering was unmoving on the ground for about a minute.  Then trainers/medicos stood him up to walk him off unaided.  No neck brace no nothing. 

Apparently, he was assessed for concussion and cleared to play.  If I was his parents I wouldn't be too happy. 

The sooner the AFL brings in independent assessment of concussion at the ground the better and the safer it will be for the players.  For those arguing that doctor's are always ethical and act in the best interest of players, look no further than the Essendon drug saga!

While we are on the subject of head knocks - kudos to Nathan Fyfe for stopping play after Picken went down hard to ensure the ball didn't get near him.

 

Since the MRP's decisions suggest signs of concussion suffered earlier in life by its members, one way to fix the MRP would be to remove anyone from the MRP who has ever played a contact sport. 

Actually, sarcasm aside, there might be an argument for the MRP to be made up of people who have no involvment, emotional or otherwise in AFL. 

The bit of the system I hate is that there's no way to now appeal without copping another week.

For a fine you should just cop it. If you're already missing a week I think you should get the right to state your case and cross examine the evidence. 

The AFL are hypocrites in that they say they don't want these incidents and don't want them played over time and time again in costly tribunal hearings yet they are very happy for their media department and the rest of the media to go on about them time and time again. 

I want to see the carton ruckman at the MRP panel this week for Gawn's delayed hamstring and tendon problem. That [censored] was jumping into him all day.

7 hours ago, daisycutter said:

and just a small correction. in both cases it was deemed medium impact not high impact

Yep, my bad. Mis read the article.

On 08/04/2017 at 4:25 PM, Maple Demon said:

Get rid of the MRP and replace it with a dartboard.  Would be just as consistent.

And Jesse has a dart he could throw. 

Perhaps the idea of independent doctors evalutating players is not so far out:

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/nrl-competition-committee-to-consider-independent-doctors-for-concussion-20170411-gvixoz.html

After the weekends MRP decisions I would think nothing can fix them...

Should be abolished and started again from scratch.

firing squad only solution

Our spies have gotten hold of the audio of the MRP meeting after round 2. No individuals can be identified but here is the transcription, without further comment ....

 

Morning, boys.
Morning.
Good weekend?
You bet. Went down the beach with the missus. What about you?
Not much. Mowed the lawn. Did you read the Herald Sun this morning? They reckon Hogan will get a couple.
I reckon he'll get a couple too.
Did you see it?
No. I just heard he might get a couple.
I wonder what the MRP will do to him.
Knackers, we're the MRP.
Are we? I thought we're the match review panel?
We're that too.
Are we? Well, i hope we're getting paid double!
Alright. First case. Player Hogan. Number one for Melbourne.
What'd he do?
Dunno. Let's play the video.
So what are we looking for?
Where's the incident?
Can't see anything. Play it again.
It must be where that Carlton bloke falls down. Rewind it.
Yes ... there he goes.
See? Where he falls down.
They're suspending Hogan for that!?
That's just a love tap!
You can't get suspended for that! It's not netball!
That newspaper bloke doesn't know what he's talking about.
Now here it is from a different angle.
Jeezus! Did you see that big bloke drop that Carlton bloke? That's gotta be four weeks!
You doofus, that's the same incident from a different angle.
Oh, is it?
It's a contact sport but those deliberate rushed behinds are sacrosanct.
What are you talking about?
I heard Gil McLachlan say that.
He didn’t say that. He said the head is sacrosanct.
Yeah, something like that.
Reckon Hogan's in trouble then.
That's four weeks if it's the head. Reckon that newspaper bloke must be right after all.
Alright boys, tick your boxes.
Let's see now ... hey, does anyone know what "negligent" means?
Nup.
Nup.
I'll tick it anyway.
What have you got?
Low impact, medium impact, high impact, negligent, careless, ...
What? Give us a look ... you've ticked every box, you [censored]! You're only supposed to tick one in each section!
Oh, are you? Where's it say that?
Right on the top.
Oh, so it does. You know what, that's very clever of the AFL.
What did you tick?
Accidental, deliberate, negligent, severe, and dog act.
Dog act? Give us a look ... you numpty, you can't write down your own categories.
Well, you should be able to. Every week there should be one dog act. It's not netball, you know!
Alright, what do we give him?
You can't get suspended for a love tap.
Too right. Our game's not netball. But gee, the way that other bloke hit the deck ...
How about two down to one?
Done.
Done.
Alright. Pub?
Yep, pub.
Hang on .... what's this? "Doctor's report?"
Doctor's report? Since when has Hogan been a doctor? He deserves weeks for staging as a doctor.
Shut up, I’m reading ... blah blah assessment ... considered opinion ... consequently ...
That sounds serious. Are all doctor's reports that serious?
Well, when my doc reported that me old man had cancer it was bloody serious!
We'd better give him a couple to be safe.
That would be the responsible thing to do.
The what?
I dunno. That's what that copper said when I told him I’d walk home.
Are we agreed? Three down to two?
Three down to two.
Yep.
Alright. It's been a long morning. Pub?
Pub.
I thought you'd never ask.
Anyway that Hogan ... You reckon he's in trouble?

 

Robbo flying the flag for Jordan lewis on 360. Bringing up Cripps and how he's played 2 games and: "something should be done about that" in reference to the MRP

I gave up on the MRP when Merrett whacked Pedo a couple of years ago. I was about 50 metres away. Clearly high contact and severe impact yet nothing was done about it.

I've considered the MRP farcical ever since and cannot be bothered even trying to fathom their "logic".