2 minutes ago, The Swimming Dee said:

Have to appeal

The guy elbowed the north player in the head... take the 1 week and consider yourself lucky 

 

Just now, Jaded said:

Would agree. We play Carlton the following week. Worth risking a 2 week penalty. 

I didn’t think, appealing at the tribunal risks extra weeks any more does it?

Gee imagine what he would have got if he had actually concussed him. 

It was a dumb thing to do but he didn't intend to get him that high. Unfortunately the head being such a massive issue lately, things are graded harder. 

Bugger. 

Not shocked  , weed certainly in

4 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

The MRO Monday results have been released after 6pm.

I still can't work out why most of you think he'll get off.

He elbowed someone in the head, and that player went off hurt which automatically rules out low impact.

At best:

Careless, high contact, medium impact = 1 week.

If the MFC deem that an injustice, then it's up to them to challenge at the tribunal.

If you tick the boxes, you get this outcome.

But the boxes weren't ticked this way for Dangerfield in the Grand Final. Why? Because "it was the view of the MRO that Dangerfield's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances".

Implicitly the same result was reached in the Hawkins and Hipwood incidents earlier this year (I can't find any MRO statement on either of those incidents).

So why was Fritsch's incident deemed "unreasonable" when the other three weren't? Each of the other three resulted in worse injuries than Fritsch's, so that can't be it.

This is the opportunity the Weid has been waiting for. Let's see what he can do.

 

Edited May 3, 20214 yr by Better days ahead

It’s a week. What irks me is how Tomohawk got off. 
 

The media is half responsible for this though.

Stuff the AFL, May gets smacked in the face and blood pouring out, and dwakings walks away free?

 

2 minutes ago, SPC said:

Most agreed it was a week.. he gets a week and.... meltdown 

elbowed a player to the head when fending off. It’s a suspension. 

It's the double standards for me. I don't have a problem with the suspension, if it was consistent.

Either we suspend on outcome or we don't. Hawkins didn't get suspended as it was 'accidental contact', but he broke May's eye socket. Fritsch was just as much in play, player had 0 injuries and played out the game, but Fritsch gets one.

How the impact is medium is beyond me. Playing the game out is no impact! 

Just now, titan_uranus said:

If you tick the boxes, you get this outcome.

But the boxes weren't ticked this way for Dangerfield in the Grand Final. Why? Because "it was the view of the MRO that Dangerfield's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances".

Implicitly the same result was reached in the Hawkins and Hipwood incidents earlier this year (I can't find any MRO statement on either of those incidents).

So why was Fritsch's incident deemed "unreasonable" when the other three weren't? Each of the other three resulted in worse injuries than Fritsch's, so that can't be it.

Well said TU. I believe an appeal is well worth it in this case. He is such an important player for us

Cop the week, learn and move on

If we have a free hit we should take it & appeal.

2 minutes ago, Satan said:

Not shocked  , weed certainly in

It would be great to see Sam finally his chance to play. 

2 minutes ago, Jaded said:

It's the double standards for me. I don't have a problem with the suspension, if it was consistent.

Either we suspend on outcome or we don't. Hawkins didn't get suspended as it was 'accidental contact', but he broke May's eye socket. Fritsch was just as much in play, player had 0 injuries and played out the game, but Fritsch gets one.

How the impact is medium is beyond me. Playing the game out is no impact! 

Hawkins was looking the other way, Fritsch had eyes on the player, that’s the difference 

Having a look at this goal from Kozzy, it looks like Bayley gave a similar fend to Hall at 0:29.

Seemed the fend was more accurate on this occasion.

 

1 minute ago, ucanchoose said:

Cop the week, learn and move on

 

[censored] that.       Fat porker Tom Hawkins smashed Mays face in and got off scot free.  He has a history and is a known thug.

Fritch has a clean record and the North player wasn't even hurt,.

Farcical.

Ridiculous. Appeal or otherwise we look weak. You can be sure they will want their compensated darling swans to win this week.

Cop the week?!?  Bugger off!!!

Hawkins fractures May's eye socket and got off no case to answer.  Fritsch caused no injury at all to the kid and gets a week.  

 

If this isn't overturned on dispute, I'll be astounded.

Edited May 3, 20214 yr by mfcrox

6 minutes ago, SPC said:

Most agreed it was a week.. he gets a week and.... meltdown 

elbowed a player to the head when fending off. It’s a suspension. 

Agree with what you said.....but Dangerfield as a precedent means Fritter shouldn't have been suspended.  I and most others I think could accept it deserved a week.  Just don't like the double standards ...

9 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Not good news ...

Could maybe argue the medium impact angle...as Powell played on.

...but probably  just get on with it.

It wasn't a good look.

Just now, SPC said:

Hawkins was looking the other way, Fritsch had eyes on the player, that’s the difference 

Yeah and Bailey was in play, with a player coming at him, and he has a broken hand.

Hawkins was trying to lose May and swung an arm. He didn't need to swing his arm at all.

Besides, my point still stands. Medium impact for no injury is ridiculous. The guy came off for 5 minutes. Hardly medium impact. 

Dangerfield's actions were deemed "not unreasonable". Here's a screenshot of the lead up:

He sees Vlastuin coming, raises his elbow to punch the ball and/or to brace himself. Clip here for context.

Here's Fritsch:

Clip here for context.

He and Powell are running towards each other. He braces to fend off Powell, who will otherwise cannon into him. Yes, he does so in a way that hits him high, but that didn't matter for Dangerfield.

So why was what Fritsch did "unreasonable", and what was his alternative?

5 minutes ago, Jaded said:

It's the double standards for me. I don't have a problem with the suspension, if it was consistent.

Either we suspend on outcome or we don't. Hawkins didn't get suspended as it was 'accidental contact', but he broke May's eye socket. Fritsch was just as much in play, player had 0 injuries and played out the game, but Fritsch gets one.

How the impact is medium is beyond me. Playing the game out is no impact! 

That’s not correct. You can be hurt and still play without concussion. He was assisted off and was wobbly. It hurt him and it was careless. A fine or 1 week were the obvious penalties. 
If we can’t get more for appealing they probably will, but otherwise they will accept it and move on.

FRIGGEN APPEAL DEES typical double standards Afl 

Edited May 3, 20214 yr by picket fence

Was always going to get rubbed out for that. Stupid IMO. I reckon this will force the MCs hand and we'll play Weideman now.