30 minutes ago, w00dy said:

How is a punch to the guts, forcing a player from the ground,  resulting in him dry reaching 'low impact' ?

The official MRP report says: "Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the body".

The video evidence undoubtedly shows it was at least medium impact.  Its staggering that MFC said low impact when Bernie was off the ground for a while.  If we did we are fools and I don't think we are. 

The MRP has discretion to grade low/medium/high.  They pick the one that gives them the fine/suspension they want. 

 

I would love to know what the MFC medical report actually said!  I wouldn't be surprised if the MRP ignored it and believed the Ch 7 game commentators and Ch7 evening news that Bernie staged it.  Remember Bartel was part of the Ch 7 crew and sits on the MRP.  That screams conflict of interest to me!!

6 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

From the MFC website:

"CHRISTIAN Salem has been charged with striking North Melbourne’s Shaun Higgins.

The incident happened during the second quarter of Melbourne’s 14-point loss to the Kangaroos at the MCG on Sunday.

In summary, Salem can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from North Melbourne, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the head.

The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. Salem has no applicable record, which impacts the penalty.

An early plea enables Salem to accept a $1000 sanction."

Is the last sentence a mistake? 

Looks like an error mate, AFL's facebook page says he can accept a one match ban.

It's very very hard to keep supporting this sport. 

The AFL and MRP are an absolute disgrace! 

4 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The official MRP report says: "Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the body".

The video evidence undoubtedly shows it was at least medium impact.  Its staggering that MFC said low impact when Bernie was off the ground for a while.  If we did we are fools and I don't think we are. 

The MRP has discretion to grade low/medium/high.  They pick the one that gives them the fine/suspension they want. 

 

I would love to know what the MFC medical report actually said!  I wouldn't be surprised if the MRP ignored it and believed the Ch 7 game commentators and Ch7 evening news that Bernie staged it.  Remember Bartel was part of the Ch 7 crew and sits on the MRP.  That screams conflict of interest to me!!

Agreed! Why would we say it was low impact?

I sit near the bench and Vince was VERY distressed. The impact was no lower than both the suspensions we received for the Carlton game, where both players kept playing and played the following week.

 

Bartel must of thought he is too well liked in footy circles, joining the MRP

you would have to think the system is rooted more than the blokes on it

38 minutes ago, w00dy said:

How is a punch to the guts, forcing a player from the ground,  resulting in him dry reaching 'low impact' ?

Because our club doctor didn't talk it up.

1 minute ago, Jaded said:

Agreed! Why would we say it was low impact?

I sit near the bench and Vince was VERY distressed. The impact was no lower than both the suspensions we received for the Carlton game, where both players kept playing and played the following week.

 

Perhaps to make the point that the Carlton incidents should have been graded that way, too? It's much harder to keep arguing that point while then claiming Vince received "high impact".

(The alternative answer is that we thought the impact was of anatomically low impact. That is, below the stomach and where a man doesn't like to be punched. Which is what it looked like to me at the ground).  

If a player has to come off the ground immediately after the incident then it should automatically be graded as medium impact.

 

Just now, Nasher said:

Because our club doctor didn't talk it up.

Because we are nice guys, and you know what they say about nice guys...

We have been North's b!tches for 11 years. Why do we just keep rolling over and letting the AFL walk all over us? We ALWAYS get the raw end of every match review decision, while other players walk free for punching players in the face/stomach/behind play. 

 

I really don't care what happens to players from other teams. I do care, however, when our players are running around punching or elbowing their opponents in the head. I've said this before, but it is not brave, it is not tough, it is just plain stupid. Now the team suffers for what is a critical game against Gold Coast on the weekend.

Given that Salem's next game is 22 days after his last, there is a fair argument that he should be made to return through Casey. Can we afford to play guys at AFL level who aren't match fit?

It is time for the coach to call his players on this - how many were suspended for the entirety of last season? Now we are getting players suspended every second week.

Next time we play North I'd love us to bring in a player we don't care if they get rubbed out.

Then just get that player to knock Cunnington's head off and Higgins as well.

 

Just now, Is Dom Is Good said:

Next time we play North I'd love us to bring in a player we don't care if they get rubbed out.

Then just get that player to knock Cunnington's head off and Higgins as well.

 

I shouldn't like this 

Can't condone shoddy conduct 

44 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Putting the Cunnington [censored] weak penalty aside, I thought our players made a pledge not to do anything silly for the rest of the year that would see them on the sidelines.

Very silly and costly by Salem.

Poor poor comment. All day that scum of a club have been trying to make out that it was us who went for them. And not a peep from us. We just suck it up like goody-goodies. It was an orchestrated tactic by North to go the jumper-punch, throat-punch and gut-punch, and make it clear that the MRP had already sanctioned them so it's now go ahead. They are the only club to have tried to take advantage about this.

The Oliver snipe happened early in the game right in front of the umpire and he did nothing. If they don't pull up the first one, you know you can snipe to your heart's content and you're not going to get pinged.

Salem's was the lowest impact of all the hits.

Meanwhile, Scott whinges about something every week and no problem. Makes me absolutely sick. 

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

I shouldn't like this 

Can't condone shoddy conduct 

Just embrace it......

Points on the board with North I hope

6 minutes ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Next time we play North I'd love us to bring in a player we don't care if they get rubbed out.

Then just get that player to knock Cunnington's head off and Higgins as well.

 

Shouldn't have delisted Tapscott

Agree Jaded. 

 

Getting very hard to like this sport. How he hell you can punch someone in the guts to the point they vomit and have to leave the field and call it low impact I will never know. And how he never got a free ffs. This sport is a joke. 

actually really wish the club would stand up and say enoughs enough. That Christian will take his ban but we would like to see some consistency from the mrp and umpires and site some of the most glaring examples. Grow a pair!

Watch Thompson's dog act and compare to Salom

The AFL is more fake than WWE.

Would have thought Cunnington would get a week but unfortunately they compare hits to similar previous instances. Have a look at last years gut punch from Zaharakis against west coast. The difference in force and obviousness is apparent and they only JUST gave Zaharakis one week. Everyone was up in arms over it. So it doesn't surprise me that Cunnington got away with just the fine.

As for the Salem cheap shot (which was great!) the MRP really hate those ones when a player is on the ground pinned down with no opportunity to defend themselves. Only need to look at Rance's hit on Watts last year as the example. Of course Rance's hit was way worse but makes sense that Salem gets one where Rance got three weeks for a similar action.

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Watch Thompson's dog act and compare to Salom

Unfortunately Salem wasn't falling like Thompson was here. [censored] I know...

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Easiest way to fix the MRP is to punish the intent, not the outcome.

Players can control intent, they can't control outcome.

agree partially.

the outcome is important too. it is really more a question of balancing intent, type of action and outcome. they simply haven't got the balance right and are weighting (and many times guessing e.g. concussion test and the player plays the next week)  the outcome too heavily

Scott set the MRP up for this in his post game by saying they had validated punching. Just when you think you can't like a bloke any less.

And for the record Cunnington's wasn't a jumper punch. He just punched him. 

I hope it gets ugly over the next few weeks and they are forced to fix it. It's a bad look.

After just reading the first page I was more confused than ever. If the AFL actually do try to abide by these guidelines/charter than they really do have NFI how to apply them but we all know that.

Anyway, there's a few interesting items and regulations that I reckon as a club we could use to get Salem off the hook. Refer section 3, 3.1 H - Impact of a good record. I'd copy and paste in but Crapple iPhone isn't having any of it.

How the AFL try to explain it (official document)

15 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Scott set the MRP up for this in his post game by saying they had validated punching. Just when you think you can't like a bloke any less.

And for the record Cunnington's wasn't a jumper punch. He just punched him. 

I hope it gets ugly over the next few weeks and they are forced to fix it. It's a bad look.

Scott is like the arsonist who burns down a building and then says we need to stop firebugs.