MRP round 5

[Earl Hood 6,086]

How does Ryan Burton get off for the hit on Higgins? Knocked him into next week, but according to the MRP he didn’t mean it? If you choose to bump you wear the consequences. Higgins went to hospital so the the hit was high, deliberate and high impact. Yet somehow no issue. I thought the only way Burton would not get 3 weeks was if the MRP beamed that neither player saw each other before contact but that is not mentioned in the finding. They just say Burton could not have foreseen the consequences. Absolute rubbish. Yet Daniel Wells is deemed to be a dog for his hit on Selwood, yet he could also claim he wasn’t expecting Selwood to throw himself head first toward the ball. Wells should pay the price of choosing to bump as should Burton. 

[Watts the matter 1,235]

2 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

How does Ryan Burton get off for the hit on Higgins? Knocked him into next week, but according to the MRP he didn’t mean it? If you choose to bump you wear the consequences. Higgins went to hospital so the the hit was high, deliberate and high impact. Yet somehow no issue. I thought the only way Burton would not get 3 weeks was if the MRP beamed that neither player saw each other before contact but that is not mentioned in the finding. They just say Burton could not have foreseen the consequences. Absolute rubbish. Yet Daniel Wells is deemed to be a dog for his hit on Selwood, yet he could also claim he wasn’t expecting Selwood to throw himself head first toward the ball. Wells should pay the price of choosing to bump as should Burton. 

Lindsay Thomas?

[DubDee 25,860]

Gee the media love to talk in circles on this- first it was we don’t want the outcome of a bump to dictate the tribunal result and now they all flip when the MRO carries that out. 

Burton did not hit him high. It was a fair bump followed by an accidental head clash. Either ban the bump or no weeks for burton. 

Good call from the MRO imo

[Earl Hood 6,086]

9 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Lindsay Thomas?

Whoops sorry I meant  Lindsay Thomas

[olisik 4,060]

Tom Mitchell will get about 4 fines this year and no weeks suspension. Just like Danger last year

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

15 minutes ago, olisik said:

Tom Mitchell will get about 4 fines this year and no weeks suspension. Just like Danger last year

And Cotchin.....

[monoccular 17,428]

They, sorry, he (an individual not a panel) sure look after their favorites and Downlow  favorites.   

Deliberate, high, off the play ..... but there is always an excuse when they want to find one.  

[DubDee 25,860]

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

They, sorry, he (an individual not a panel) sure look after their favorites and Downlow  favorites.   

Deliberate, high, off the play ..... but there is always an excuse when they want to find one.  

you seriously think mitchell deserved a week for that?  he tickled the blokes ear with his elbow.  even Goldy has come out and said it felt like a mosquito (or something similar)

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

23 minutes ago, DubDee said:

you seriously think mitchell deserved a week for that?  he tickled the blokes ear with his elbow.  even Goldy has come out and said it felt like a mosquito (or something similar)

The action should be punished, not the outcome. Mitchell can control his actions, not the outcome.

If the AFL want to crack down on these kind of off-field incidents then suspending players for these would stop it dead in its tracks.

[Nasher 33,616]

10 hours ago, DubDee said:

Burton did not hit him high. It was a fair bump followed by an accidental head clash. Either ban the bump or no weeks for burton. 

This.  The "player chose to bump" argument is for the instance where the bumper's shoulder or arm collects the bumpee in the head.  In this case it was a body-on-body bump followed by a head clash.  That could happen in a tackle, too, but nobody would be screaming "suspension" in that case.

Higgins getting knocked out was an unfortunate outcome, but no case to answer for the Burton IMO.

[DubDee 25,860]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The action should be punished, not the outcome. Mitchell can control his actions, not the outcome.

If the AFL want to crack down on these kind of off-field incidents then suspending players for these would stop it dead in its tracks.

I agree the action should be punished not the outcome.  but the action needs to be sufficient to warrant punishment in the first place.

Very low force in the elbow, so no suspension

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

7 minutes ago, DubDee said:

I agree the action should be punished not the outcome.  but the action needs to be sufficient to warrant punishment in the first place.

Very low force in the elbow, so no suspension

The act of intentionally elbowing a player in the head off the ball is what should be punished.  If the AFL want to eliminate this from the game then this is the solution.

It was probably just pot luck that he didn't connect with Goldstein.

[beelzebub 23,370]

.hmm

Ill try over there >>>>

Edited April 24, 2018 by beelzebub

[ding 5,126]

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Nearest the pin...

Im pumped...we got this...

Big stage...wet ball... slippery stuff...

Tigers by 30

Go Dees

So excited you didnt check you had the right thread Beelz? 

[beelzebub 23,370]

3 minutes ago, ding said:

So excited you didnt check you had the right thread Beelz? 

Thats it....big thumb !!