Michael Christian

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,871]

19 minutes ago, D4Life said:

Cunnington smashed Bernie Vince in the guts at the ‘G’ in 2017 members wing right in front of umpires, Vince went down nothing. Cunnington is a protected species & no idea why as he is a dirty player.

Did anything happen to guy who smashed Max?

As you point out Cunningham had serious form in this area, for the AFL to let him off after making all these big statements about stamping it out is quite simply astonishing.  Bernie had form too, but that's against the point.

I actually think Max will be a protected species against Geelong this week though - you watch.  It would be a huge embarrassment for the AFL to let a high profile player like Max to be snipped off the ball two weeks in a row.  Recon a few early free kicks and/or 50m penalties would do the job.  If the umpires don't control it and Max us targeted again, then it just needs to become open warfare from our guys and I'd back us in against the hand baggers any day.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Rodney (Balls) Grinter

[beelzebub 23,382]

Max won't be protected. 

If we won't do it...why would anyone else ?

 

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

Just watching that thug Cunnington play the game the way he does makes my blood boil. Then he is let off by Christian again. This is not the first time. Eddie McGuire said he was on the committee and they discussed for 40 minutes the determination to rid the game of punches (this was on Fox Footy) and yet here we are. Same old same old.

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

6 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It's in the job description. Our spies got a quick look at the application form before it got taken down.

... must be partially blind ... must exhibit questionable judgement ... must have short term memory loss ... long term memory loss an advantage ... blatant inconsistency a must ... the successful applicant will be required to undertake random drug and alcohol ingestion ... the AFL will defer to all of the successful applicant's conclusions ... applicants are to take note that the strangest conclusions will be most favorably received ... remuneration $10,000 per calendar month ... the AFL will accept part payment in instances of financial hardship; note all shortfall amounts are subject to interest rate 19% per annum ... no experience necessary ...

 

I reckon that bloke behind Eddie McGuire has a better eye for things than Christian........pun intended.

[GM11 782]

Wonder who actually pays the fines.

[dieter 3,325]

8 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Commerce is in simple terms... business

Football...a sport. 

The original ideals of sports was/is the antithesis of Commerce. Sport , ideally is competition of ability. 

Looking at the rules of the game I don't see money mentioned.

Then there's now.

In my clumsy way I was trying to agree with you.

[monoccular 17,572]

For a change I will be at my Christian charitable best - the guy is totally out of his depth.  An alternative explanation of his decisions could be construed as libelous. 

And the AFL has, once again, been exposed as totally hypocritical ... we will stamp out punches and off the ball incidents!  ????

Edited March 26, 2019 by monoccular

[chook fowler 19,519]

This is what you get for putting an ex- Filth player in charge. Mark Jacko  Jackson would be a better choice.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,908]

10 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Seriously the AFL needs to start basing these suspensions on the intent of the action, not the outcome.

If you throw a punch that isn't something that is could reasonably an action of playing the ball (i.e. a spoil or handball) - automatic 1 or 2 week suspension.  Whether it glances or makes good connection, what's the difference.  A glance is only good luck away from becoming a Tom Bugg/Andrew Gaff outcome.  If physical injury occurs as the result, then the minimum 1 - 2 weeks can be increased.

Players and clubs hardly care about fines - they care about missing games.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I haven't seen the Cunnington incident but there is a view that Cunnington's fist connected with his victim's arm, not his abdomen, and hence the MRO decision. However, if the test is one of intent rather than outcome, that wouldn't have mattered. It's time the AFL recognised that the current model is flawed because too much weight is given to outcome rather than intent.

I would give a minimum one week penalty to anyone who clenched a fist and attempted to make deliberate contact with a player, whether the fist connected or not. That should immediately stop these completely unnecessary acts which are not just a blight on the game but send a message to the community at large that hitting people is acceptable. And I'd include in this group any jumper punches, too. 

[Dee Zephyr 19,268]

Nothing to see here folks. For all the talk about off-the-ball incidents I read no actual changes have been made to the way the Match Review interpret them. Is this correct?

The clampdown on intentional punches is meant to come from the umpires by paying free kicks for behind the play hits hence the league coming out and saying the nearest ump to Cunnington was at fault for not spotting the punch. A free kick is a greater deterrent than a measly fine as per coaches suggestions for these types of hits. 

When does an actual suspension enter the equation as the biggest deterrent? 

[dl4e 5,851]

11 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Max won't be protected. 

If we won't do it...why would anyone else ?

 

That is probably the most important problem currently facing the MFC.

[poita 3,902]

12 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Seriously the AFL needs to start basing these suspensions on the intent of the action, not the outcome.

Not sure that is a perfect solution either. I still remember Brent Moloney being suspended for attempting to charge against Geelong. 

But yes, anything is preferable to the current climate in which deliberate, off the ball punches go unpunished.

[Docs Demons 1,792]

Also the bumping/blocking of the ball (no punches) need to be picked up by Umpires and free kick paid. When the ball is 5 metres away and someone blocks /bumps like Port did all day to Max then pay a free as it is the rules. Then it maybe cut out. They pay blocking etc when players go for marks. 3 Umpires out there and pay a free.

[Little Goffy 14,636]

Oh, how about that, there's a controversy about the MRP and in particular the inconsistencies of the underqualified AFL appointment, and whaddaya know, within a day the 'totally neutral, independent news portal' afl.com.au comes up with an article explaining to us all how we are simply mistaken in our perceptions and 'crackdown on striking including jumper punches' wasn't really a thing in the first place. Oh, and it is the umpires problem anyway, they should be awarding free kicks.

Because obviously, umpires have cameras everywhere, all the time in the world to consider the case, and can easily observe every behind-the play 1/4-second jab. Unlike the match review which is in no position to adjudicate, obviously.

Just another layer of stink added to the foul odour of the AFL executive culture.

[picket fence 17,486]

But I wish Simon hadn't gone to the AFL and bleated about roughing up of Maxxy. Clarko at Hawks wouldn't have , he just would have developed and encouraged his players to do the same but Doubly so.

If we cop it now without retribution then we will always cop it!

Where was our leadership group ??

Looked bad and was bad!

Time for the Playing group and Coaching group and club as a whole to "Grow some "

GIVE IT BACK AND BE TOTALLY RUTHLESS

Malthouse was right we are soft!

[beelzebub 23,382]

38 minutes ago, picket fence said:

But I wish Simon hadn't gone to the AFL and bleated about roughing up of Maxxy. Clarko at Hawks wouldn't have , he just would have developed and encouraged his players to do the same but Doubly so.

If we cop it now without retribution then we will always cop it!

Where was our leadership group ??

Looked bad and was bad!

Time for the Playing group and Coaching group and club as a whole to "Grow some "

GIVE IT BACK AND BE TOTALLY RUTHLESS

Malthouse was right we are soft!

I see nothing wrong with a please explain, nothing.

I'd be bloody asking why established rules were not enforced too.

I do understand your view to giving as good ( if not doubly ) as you get. Am all for that. If you can't muster the 'alpha' stance on game days... don't play. 

It was quite frankly embarassing to see no-one run shotgun for Max.

Pizzweak Melbourne. 

[Biffen 12,944]

Leigh Matthews knows how to get the job done where Christian doesn’t.

[DV8 2,271]

11 hours ago, chook fowler said:

This is what you get for putting an ex- Filth player in charge. Mark Jacko  Jackson would be a better choice.

He would to.   He would take no prisoners and make no friends...  but the job would get done.

[Robot Devil 1,895]

16 hours ago, picket fence said:

But I wish Simon hadn't gone to the AFL and bleated about roughing up of Maxxy. Clarko at Hawks wouldn't have , he just would have developed and encouraged his players to do the same but Doubly so.

If we cop it now without retribution then we will always cop it!

Where was our leadership group ??

Looked bad and was bad!

Time for the Playing group and Coaching group and club as a whole to "Grow some "

GIVE IT BACK AND BE TOTALLY RUTHLESS

Malthouse was right we are soft!

No, Clarko would have whinged to his old mate Gil to sort it out for him. 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/clarkson-meets-with-afl-boss-as-campaign-continues-20180514-p4zf89.html

[GM11 782]

Pressure will be on the tribunal to be consistent if Cox appeals. Very similar to the May incident.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,962]

Mason Cox gets a week for something that, In my opinion, is to the left of the scale of what Cunnington got off on only a week prior. Collingwood will certainly appeal. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Ethan Tremblay

[DV8 2,271]

15 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Mason Cox gets a week for something that, In my opinion, is to the left of the scale of what Cunnington got off on only a week prior. Collingwood will certainly appeal. 

and really appeal, Hard.

[deanox 9,987]

On 3/26/2019 at 9:22 PM, bragswoewodin said:

I am honestly floored by that Cunnington decision. He is a serial offender on that point, and it’s why I don’t think much of him as a player. If that’s what he thinks is physical play, he’s a pretty bad example for his younger team mates.

I'm happy to cop the May ruling, it was careless and without malice, but he had priors. He should have known better, despite what did or didn’t happen. Hopefully this is like Lewis’s bad early run with us, since then he’s been a model citizen. 

Unfortunately, given this is an AFL and umpire related function of our game, the rules will always change. I thought we were going to be tough on punching? Guess not.

I only cop the May ruling because I believe the AFL is trying to (optimistic version) ensure all players are as protected as possible when it comes to looking term head injuries (or the cynical version) create a track record which demonstrates a no tolerance approach to head contact, with respect to liability for concussion related injuries later on. 

 

That being said, I do believe that in the May case the Brisbane player had a duty of care to pay attention to the player in front of him and protect himself from otherwise legal contact. May didn't run or line him up, didn't elbow, didn't blindside and didn't hit with unreasonable force. The bump wasn't late, it was intended as a physical screen to prevent the player running on to the next play. 

And given those facts, I think it is unfair to suspend him. 

On 3/26/2019 at 10:12 PM, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Seriously the AFL needs to start basing these suspensions on the intent of the action, not the outcome.

If you throw a punch that isn't something that is could reasonably an action of playing the ball (i.e. a spoil or handball) - automatic 1 or 2 week suspension.  Whether it glances or makes good connection, what's the difference.  A glance is only good luck away from becoming a Tom Bugg/Andrew Gaff outcome.  If physical injury occurs as the result, then the minimum 1 - 2 weeks can be increased.

Players and clubs hardly care about fines - they care about missing games.

This I can get behind.  May's bump had a legitiment football purpose. All players consent to the risks of physical contact that may result while passing AFL football within the rules.  

Those punches didn't have a football purpose. Apart from being assult (physical contact not concerned too) they are basically outright cheating: trying to momentarily stun someone or decrease their short term performance or wear them down faster. 

 

Also if I had kids Id rather them see the bump from May than a gut punch. 

[Lucifers Hero 40,319]

Cox and May incidents virtually identical.  May gets a week at the Tribunal.  Cox gets off...downgraded to a fine...

We should be so lucky!

 

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

B*#*!*y typical. But might have known, he plays for Collingwood. They have to be looked after. There is no level playing field in the AFL.

By the way, I notice Clarkson is seeking clarification on a number of decisions made against his precious side on the weekend. No one calls him out for bleating.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Dame Gaga
.