On 4/10/2017 at 5:17 PM, Chris said:

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. 

'Delayed concussion' is surely worth at least one week's rest????????

A fractured jaw is surely worth at least one week's rest?????

But no, both front up fresh as a daisy ...

That's what's wrong with the MRP, it's an arbitrary sequence of [censored] .

 

I also have a problem with the Essendon player who was rubbed out. He was charging at the ball, a Crow player threw himself, head down in front of his path to pick up the ball. Result? Collision. What was the Essendon player supposed to do? He was running full pelt. I know, he was supposed to either stop dead and be dragged for squibbing by Worsfold, or, he should have taken off and jumped over the brave but stupid Crow? 

Sure, the brave but stupid Crow was hit in the head but the Essendon player had about a split second to either stop dead or jump.

It is, I'm afraid, part of this weird game called AFL and while it will create injuries surely a player with no intent to injure, a player whose sole purpose is to win the ball, who makes contact with an oncoming player who dives into his path.........???????

Lecras, of course, was innocent. He's a WC Eagle after all.

 

Send the MRP to Syria or North Korea. Sorted.

Been recommended that MRP get a pay increase by Club Doctors. Sounds fair enough to me....

How did Gibson escape any sanction he chose to bump, the player got concussion and took no part in the rest of the game what am I missing 

How to fix the MRP ??

Put them in a cinema, show them old episodes of World Championship Wrestling and torch the lot of them.

Maybe someone like Brute Bernard or Killer Karl Cox could give them an uppercut if they make a patently incorrect judgement.

1 hour ago, brendan said:

How did Gibson escape any sanction he chose to bump, the player got concussion and took no part in the rest of the game what am I missing 

One thing I can guarantee...

Although they seem to have set a precedent here, if a Melbourne player does the same thing they will get weeks.

2 hours ago, brendan said:

How did Gibson escape any sanction he chose to bump, the player got concussion and took no part in the rest of the game what am I missing 

Byron Pickett would have got life for that.

2 hours ago, brendan said:

How did Gibson escape any sanction he chose to bump, the player got concussion and took no part in the rest of the game what am I missing 

Missing ?    NOTHING !!

 

""""But KB's had some strong words on his SEN radio program this morning:""""

"That decision by the match review panel to give the thumbs up to the Josh Gibson incident in taking out Geelong's Tom Ruggles, is a disgrace.

"The man standing the mark should not be taken out with force when the umpire calls 'play-on'.

"Talk about being a sitting duck. Ruggles moves sideways to cover Isaac Smith when play on was called from a stop play.

"Ruggles was then pole-axed by Gibson, and those little birds you see in cartoons are birds flying around his head as he lay prostrate on the ground from the impact.

"All this for just standing on the mark. Ruggles could take no further part in the game and is in doubt for this week's game.

"What a joke. The MRP said the block was not excessive for the situation.

"It sure was, for the force was excessive and unnecessary.

"Then the MRP said Gibson didn't run a long distance to take out Ruggles. Of course not. When you want to block the man on the mark, you stay in close proximity so you can block - supposedly without force and not taking the player out.

"A player standing the mark should not fear for his safety and be blindsided and picked off.

"The MRP sadly let the game down in protecting unsuspecting players."

8 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Missing ?    NOTHING !!

 

""""But KB's had some strong words on his SEN radio program this morning:""""

"That decision by the match review panel to give the thumbs up to the Josh Gibson incident in taking out Geelong's Tom Ruggles, is a disgrace.

"The man standing the mark should not be taken out with force when the umpire calls 'play-on'.

"Talk about being a sitting duck. Ruggles moves sideways to cover Isaac Smith when play on was called from a stop play.

"Ruggles was then pole-axed by Gibson, and those little birds you see in cartoons are birds flying around his head as he lay prostrate on the ground from the impact.

"All this for just standing on the mark. Ruggles could take no further part in the game and is in doubt for this week's game.

"What a joke. The MRP said the block was not excessive for the situation.

"It sure was, for the force was excessive and unnecessary.

"Then the MRP said Gibson didn't run a long distance to take out Ruggles. Of course not. When you want to block the man on the mark, you stay in close proximity so you can block - supposedly without force and not taking the player out.

"A player standing the mark should not fear for his safety and be blindsided and picked off.

"The MRP sadly let the game down in protecting unsuspecting players."

There's another issue here that needs fixing. The player standing on the mark should be included in the "protected area". No player should be able to come anywhere near him. It's an unedifying exercise seeing a player with the ball "playing on" because the player on the mark is blocked by another player.

1 hour ago, pineapple dee said:

How to fix the MRP ??

Put them in a cinema, show them old episodes of World Championship Wrestling and torch the lot of them.

Maybe someone like Brute Bernard or Killer Karl Cox could give them an uppercut if they make a patently incorrect judgement.

All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put the MRP together again.

I thought the rule was if you elect to bump and the player you bump gets hurt you are gone, no grey area ruggles was concussed so Gibson should have been suspended, cats should have borrowed carltons doctor 

3 hours ago, brendan said:

I thought the rule was if you elect to bump and the player you bump gets hurt you are gone, no grey area ruggles was concussed so Gibson should have been suspended, cats should have borrowed carltons doctor 

And we should borrow richmonds.

4 hours ago, brendan said:

I thought the rule was if you elect to bump and the player you bump gets hurt you are gone, no grey area ruggles was concussed so Gibson should have been suspended, cats should have borrowed carltons doctor 

they changed the rule that if the bump itself (initial contact) does not make contact with the head and there is accidental head clash then that wont necessarily be a suspension.  which i agree with.  I dont think Gibson should go for that. ruggles should expect a sheppard as he was chasing the player who ran off the mark

if you get weeks for that then the bump is almost dead

1/  The AFL has just announced former players for the MRP. - Former Cat, Blue join Match Review Panel.

This is very undesirable.  They will have a truck-load of emotional baggage about the camaraderie of the game.

The ideal member would be selected for intelligence and logical thinking and have a touch of OCD .  If the pencils on their desk vary by 2 degrees in orientation, they are not up to the job.

2/  The AFL laws are quite brief on the subject of culpability. Refer http://www.aflrules.com.au/afl-game-rules/part-d-pre-match-provisions/afl-rules-reporting-players-and-officials/

There is for example discussion on the meaning of reckless versus canreless.  This should be distinguished in about half a page.

The strength required to constitute a strike is not defined.  With video of everything, this can be qualified to say, 2 m/s with the hand, 1 m/s with the elbow and 0.5 m/s with the foot.  

And so on and so on.

 

On the other hand, do we just like the drama?