Jump to content

Featured Replies

8 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Look I could be wrong, but my gut feeling is WE ARE DEMONS AND ON TOP OF THE LADDER is not likely to be a very compelling argument for the tribunal.

It's the vibe....

Surely we get Dennis Denuto in to argue this....

 
2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

clean record

protecting broken hand

low impact, player played out game with no lasting injury (nth. dr. report?) 

precedents e.g. dangermouse in gf

worth a try

This

 

10k is chicken feed if he kicks 6 next week and helps us to 8-0

5 minutes ago, mfcrox said:

Yeah, his name was Tom Hawkins... and he got away with it despite breaking a cheekbone

In no way was that the same and you know it. Fritsch knew what he was throwing his elbow at. Hawkins was flailing about due to a jumper tackle by May.

But scream at the sky if you want, IDGAF.

 

It wasn’t a strike. There was no striking motion. The elbow was purely to fend and protect from a tackle.

He can’t be charged with striking if it wasn’t a striking 

Just now, rpfc said:

In no way was that the same and you know it. Fritsch knew what he was throwing his elbow at. Hawkins was flailing about due to a jumper tackle by May.

But scream at the sky if you want, IDGAF.

They both put elbows out to attempt to break tackles. Neither expected their opponents heads to be below shoulder high 


1 minute ago, DeeSpencer said:

It wasn’t a strike. There was no striking motion. The elbow was purely to fend and protect from a tackle.

He can’t be charged with striking if it wasn’t a striking 

Are we going by the dictionary definition of “strike”? If so, it was very clearly a strike. 

It wasn’t stupid at all. It happens all the time. If you misjudge the speed of the player coming in your arm doesn’t extend. There’s a photo of Brayshaw doing the exact same thing to Simpkin floating around on this site somewhere. 
 

And it bounced off his shoulder. 
 

Looks bad. It wasn’t bad. 

 

Would like to know what their grading criteria is for Impact.

Would have thought:

Low Impact - no injury, played out game

Medium Impact - ruled out of game

High Impact - will miss multiple weeks

But if it's just arbitrary and 'how it looks' then we should absolutely challenge.

Edited by Seraph

I may have missed comments on this earlier but what happened to Fritsch when he was laid out at CHF in the first quarter? I haven't seen the replay yet and to be honest I don't think I want to watch the first half anyway but I missed it during the match.


4 minutes ago, rpfc said:

In no way was that the same and you know it. Fritsch knew what he was throwing his elbow at. Hawkins was flailing about due to a jumper tackle by May.

But scream at the sky if you want, IDGAF.

Yes when you slow it down it looks premeditated. Try playing at normal speed, in a second, I grab possession in heavy traffic, I see a tackler coming at me at speed and low, I fend off or take the full force of the hit/tackle. This is not the case of a tackler choosing to bump rather than tackle the ball carrier, this is a ball carrier facing an aggressive tackler and looking to protect himself and escape traffic. Hawkins flailing about is careless too! A bit like Steven King rearranging Jeff White’s face with a flailing boot back in 2005. Deemed to be just one those things! 

https://imgur.com/a/UjFeOuI

Fritsch is very low, Powell is actually falling into the tackle because he had Petracca push him in his back. I think it's unfair to say his elbow is at shoulder height when both players are so low. I think if Powell isn't falling that's chest height and perfectly legal.

This reminds me of Viney's bump where he and his opponent got pushed into the contest and Viney hurt the guy with the bump.

https://youtu.be/P1Ax17RHH9A?t=206

9 minutes ago, KingSlayer33 said:

I may have missed comments on this earlier but what happened to Fritsch when he was laid out at CHF in the first quarter? I haven't seen the replay yet and to be honest I don't think I want to watch the first half anyway but I missed it during the match.

Zeibel hit him. No commentary by the media, so no need for the MRP to review

It’s obvious the MROs job is to sit there with one finger up his nose and one up his bum making stuff up as he goes along as some kind of mad cap revenue raising cost centre for the AFL


Impact has got to be our major appeal, given that there has been precedent of a player this year getting medium impact from the MRO but the injured player playing on so it gets determined as low impact. 

  • Author

We've gotta roll the dice here.

Fritta is in great form and there's enough evidence to argue about im my opinion - particularly the speed and positioning of both players during the contest. His elbow did make contact with his upper arm first and Fritta had no control over Powells downward trajectory.

We just can't give up on a bloke who's kicking multiple goals and now bags for us.

Our most dangerous forward... We just cannot accept this ruling!

from mfc website

Quote

Melbourne will provide an update on its position regard both incidents in due course.

 

19 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Zeibel hit him. No commentary by the media, so no need for the MRP to review

never mind - I found it on a quick scroll through the Kayo replay. It was Aiden Bonar though not Ziebel. Tough to see on the phone how bad it was though (despite being way off the ball) and you are right it was only briefly mentioned in commentary so I guess they didn't bother with a replay or different angle because at that stage he'd only kicked all our goals.

40 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Are we going by the dictionary definition of “strike”? If so, it was very clearly a strike. 

There was no forceful or deliberate striking motion. Purely a fend. 


16 minutes ago, KingSlayer33 said:

never mind - I found it on a quick scroll through the Kayo replay. It was Aiden Bonar though not Ziebel. Tough to see on the phone how bad it was though (despite being way off the ball) and you are right it was only briefly mentioned in commentary so I guess they didn't bother with a replay or different angle because at that stage he'd only kicked all our goals.

No where near the ball, looks to catch him high. Hard to tell if it was a bump or swung his arm. But no wonder Bayley was fired up

Untitled-1.jpg

Untitled-2.jpg

Untitled-3.jpg

Edited by Hellish Inferno

We fine players for accidental tripping now? What sort of “only a Melbourne player” rule is this?

 
1 hour ago, rpfc said:

In no way was that the same and you know it. Fritsch knew what he was throwing his elbow at. Hawkins was flailing about due to a jumper tackle by May.

But scream at the sky if you want, IDGAF.

You are clueless. Ump was right on the spot.  Didn't report him or pay 50m penalty. And he played the game out.  

This match review/tribunal process has been inconsistent bull [censored] ever since I can remember.

It just never changes and we've been on the ****ty end of that particular stick too many times.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • GAMEDAY: Collingwood

    It's Game Day and the Demons face a monumental task as they take on the top-of-the-table Magpies in one of the biggest games on the Dees calendar: the King's Birthday Big Freeze MND match. Can the Demons defy the odds and claim a massive scalp to keep their finals hopes alive?

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 670 replies
  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies