2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Luke Dahlhaus just got a week for the identical tackle that ANB got 4 weeks for, with one exception, the victim wasn’t concussed. That is pathetic, in that penalty is now decided not by intent, or legality of action, but on any injury that occurs. 
Punch a bloke in the face, which is an illegal act, but if victim not injured, result is a fine or 1 week. 
This is ridiculous. 
AFL now more concerned with staging.

I concur. 

Absolutely nailed it.  

8 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

 

It'll upset a few people, but Nibbler is exactly the type we need to add to our forward mix. Can't wait to get him back from serving Shaun Burgoyne's suspension

 

I think you’re right - I had him in as an inclusion, but forgot he was still doing time. I’m a bit ambivalent about ANB, but in a weekend where we saw little-to-no forward pressure, he would be straight back in. 

2 hours ago, It's Time said:

On the other hand. People get injured in these tackles because they have their heads smashed into the ground. It's obviously a differently executed tackle if someone does it and avoids smashing the head into the ground. Is that just sheer luck or technique? I don't know.  IMO it should be erdadicated from the game. I don't remember seeing wing sling tackles like these that the older players carry on saying they were all ok back in the day. 

Most of the time it's not in the tackler's control.

The player getting tackled will sometimes get their hand up to take the brunt, or sometimes their shoulder will take it, or their head will take it but not on the temple, etc. All of which can be matters of centimetres' difference.

The issue we should all have is with the action. If you pin an arm and sling a player into the ground you should be suspended. If we're trying to eradicate that tackle, then we shouldn't care about the outcome of it.

I can see why ANB should get more weeks than Dahlhaus: both get suspended for committing the same offence, but ANB's penalty is greater because he created a more severe injury than Dahlhaus did. Makes sense (we can query whether 1 week vs 4 weeks is the right difference but the mere fact ANB got more weeks is easy to justify).

Where all hell will break loose is if Dahlhaus, who is challenging at the Tribunal, gets off altogether (or reduced down to a fine).

Tribunal Appeals:

• Geelong to appeal Dahlhaus one week ban.
• Richmond to appeal the Grimes and Vlastuin staging fines.  {Grimes took 3 steps before falling after the non-contact)
• Port Adelaide's Sam Powell-Pepper one weak ban
•  Melbourne's Ed Langdon, fine
• Lachlan Murphy, fine

tigers-to-appeal-staging-sanctions

If all those appeals get upheld the whole MRP process will be more of a dog's breakfast than it already is.

29 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Tribunal Appeals:

• Geelong to appeal Dahlhaus one week ban.
• Richmond to appeal the Grimes and Vlastuin staging fines.  {Grimes took 3 steps before falling after the non-contact)
• Port Adelaide's Sam Powell-Pepper one weak ban
•  Melbourne's Ed Langdon, fine
• Lachlan Murphy, fine

tigers-to-appeal-staging-sanctions

If all those appeals get upheld the whole MRP process will be more of a dog's breakfast than it already is.

You know they will.

All those involed in the AFL should be sacked, they have made our great game into a dog's breakfast.

I can’t stomach the fact that Langdon was even fined for his action. He was paid a free kick for holding the ball, the momentum of the Bulldogs player trying to break the tackle and handball drove him forward. 
 

I know the club won’t challenge it, because they would rather cop the fine and not risk suspension, but it should be challenged on principle. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that tackle, unless they won’t to admit the field umpire made a mistake in awarding a free kick for holding the ball and have egg all over their face. 
 

I am so sick of this rubbish. The Dalhaus one is far far worse and has far greater risk attached to it and it only graded slightly more serious. What a joke

I agree it’s a disgrace, but what really irks me is our spineless club

When will the MFC stand up for themselves and appeal a case like this, every other club would’ve 

I really feel sorry for Nibbler, it’s more than likely ended his career at Melbourne & the club didn’t even stick up for him

17 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

I can’t stomach the fact that Langdon was even fined for his action. He was paid a free kick for holding the ball, the momentum of the Bulldogs player trying to break the tackle and handball drove him forward. 
 

I know the club won’t challenge it, because they would rather cop the fine and not risk suspension, but it should be challenged on principle. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that tackle, unless they won’t to admit the field umpire made a mistake in awarding a free kick for holding the ball and have egg all over their face. 
 

I am so sick of this rubbish. The Dalhaus one is far far worse and has far greater risk attached to it and it only graded slightly more serious. What a joke

Langdon's fine is being appealed tonight - see two posts above yours.

4 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

It'll upset a few people, but Nibbler is exactly the type we need to add to our forward mix.

For all his short comings he'd actually provide more to our forward mix than Hannan who plays about 7 minutes of footy a game.

Dahlhaus just got off for exactly the same action

Dalhaus free to play. What a joke

Michael Christian has to go.

It won’t happen but I really want someone from the club to comment on this, it can’t help Nibbler now but it should shine a light on the blatant inconsistencies surrounding the MRO. He should’ve got 2-3 week straight off the bat from Christian, but the obviousness of them making an example of Nibbler because he’s not a name player was disgusting. 

With Failhouse getting one week it spits on the comments from Gil earlier in the year where he said that the potential for injury from the action would be taking into account and add further weight to suspensions. But of course it’s Geelong and a name player so the AFL will shrug their shoulders. 

Please someone from the club make a ****ing comment about it. 

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Tribunal Appeals:

• Geelong to appeal Dahlhaus one week ban.
• Richmond to appeal the Grimes and Vlastuin staging fines.  {Grimes took 3 steps before falling after the non-contact)
• Port Adelaide's Sam Powell-Pepper one weak ban
•  Melbourne's Ed Langdon, fine
• Lachlan Murphy, fine

tigers-to-appeal-staging-sanctions

If all those appeals get upheld the whole MRP process will be more of a dog's breakfast than it already is.

The AFL should be pushing for a two week ban, Geelong should be kissing the MRO’s feet for only giving a week. 

Well well. Cats and Port players let off by the Tribunal for the very same action as ANB, with only one difference, the victim wasn’t concussed. 
If the AFL represented society, you could get off for attempting to shoot someone if you missed, but be found guilty of assault, if you slipped in the street and fell on someone, causing them to fall over and cut their hand in a minor injury. We have now had 2 blokes ( ANB and Jack Trengove)done for 4 weeks in sling tackles where other blokes for the same action get off. 
If I wasn’t a 68 year old grandfather and lawyer, I would simply say to the AFL, GAGF. 
To be honest I think Josh Mahoney should come out and slam the AFL for the total hypocrisy and corrupt way in which it has dealt with ANB and bugger the consequences. Stand up for our player and club, this is an unmitigated disgrace. 

Edited August 25, 20205 yr by Redleg

25 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Michael Christian has to go.

Big time, HAS to go. He’s more inconsistent than my grandmother with dementia!

If it wasn’t the AFL I would be saying I dead set can’t believe Dahlhaus got off.

We should name ANB on the team sheet for this weeks game and then when the AFL ask about it we can just say “Well, everyone else is playing this week so why can’t he?”

Don’t slam the AFL - will just make us feel better and cost money that we don’t want to spend 

I think the club should make a formal and public apology to ANB for not contesting his suspension, and supporting him in a manner that we should have.

this will have the same effect in the media , possibly avoid the fine (maybe) , and hopefully send a message of support to the rest of the playing group - that MFC admin let down one of its own and it won’t happen again. 

The tackles were identical. The difference was that the player In the Dalhaus tackle let go of the ball and used his for free hand to brace himself. Whilst in the ANB tackle the player did not. One got concussed and the other got nothing. 

So you either penalise the offence or do nothing. To put the fate of ones hands In the outcome when no I’ll intent was involved is appalling. Like most things in footy MFC never seem to catch a break.
 

 

17 minutes ago, Redleg said:

If the AFL represented society, you could get off for attempting to shoot someone if you missed, but be found guilty of assault, if you slipped in the street and fell on someone, causing them to fall over and cut their hand in a minor injury. 

The thing is - it does, privileging outcome over transgression. Just think of our drink-driving laws. Get caught over the limit and you maybe lose your licence. If you just happen to hit someone you will likely go to prison. It's the same crime but comes down to a matter of luck. 

56 minutes ago, DeeZee said:

Dahlhaus just got off for exactly the same action

I know I shouldn't be but I'm legitimately shocked. 1 week was bad enough but then to get off completely?

The AFL = the Absolute Farce League

32 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Well well. Cats and Port players let off by the Tribunal for the very same action as ANB, with only one difference, the victim wasn’t concussed. 
If the AFL represented society, you could get off for attempting to shoot someone if you missed, but be found guilty of assault, if you slipped in the street and fell on someone, causing them to fall over and cut their hand in a minor injury. We have now had 2 blokes ( ANB and Jack Trengove)done for 4 weeks in sling tackles where other blokes for the same action get off. 
If I wasn’t a 68 year old grandfather and lawyer, I would simply say to the AFL, GAGF. 
To be honest I think Josh Mahoney should come out and slam the AFL for the total hypocrisy and corrupt way in which it has dealt with ANB and bugger the consequences. Stand up for our player and club, this is an unmitigated disgrace. 

I’m beyond filthy, the same f-ing tribunal that hung out Nibbler has let Failhouse off. Please please please someone from the club HAS to say something. I don’t care if the AFL cuts of money from us, sanctions every player at the club, fines the president, I DON’T CARE!!!! 

I can’t fathom how the hell Nibbler gets 4 weeks and only a couple of weeks later, the same bloody action gets downgraded to nothing but a fine. The system the [censored], the AFL are [censored], and they can all get [censored]. 

I usually try to avoid the censorship from Demonland but this is an absolute disgrace. 

A few weeks ago Bartlett was publicly disgusted by the poor effort against Port particularly with the lack of fight. 

It’s time he stepped up with this and publicly asks for a please explain from the AFL and make the club known as a club that won’t stand for this biased [censored]. 

I’m absolutely seething from this. 

7 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Most of the time it's not in the tackler's control.

The player getting tackled will sometimes get their hand up to take the brunt, or sometimes their shoulder will take it, or their head will take it but not on the temple, etc. All of which can be matters of centimetres' difference.

The issue we should all have is with the action. If you pin an arm and sling a player into the ground you should be suspended. If we're trying to eradicate that tackle, then we shouldn't care about the outcome of it.

I can see why ANB should get more weeks than Dahlhaus: both get suspended for committing the same offence, but ANB's penalty is greater because he created a more severe injury than Dahlhaus did. Makes sense (we can query whether 1 week vs 4 weeks is the right difference but the mere fact ANB got more weeks is easy to justify).

Where all hell will break loose is if Dahlhaus, who is challenging at the Tribunal, gets off altogether (or reduced down to a fine).

All hell should now break loose.