They have to appeal based on what I just on the Danger elbow in the GF. Didn’t realise how similar they are. If there ever was a precedent to use this is the one.

if you watch it frame by frame, as he takes possession of the ball his arms outstretched with his broken right hand  the closest part of his body to the north player who is only a foot away and closing. self protection for his broken hand would dictate he folds his arm at the elbow with his forearm now protecting his hand. at this stage he is slightly crouched with knees bent and both feet firmly on the ground.  unfortunately the north player comes in low, so a fend that would have been to the chest becomes head high

what choice did fritta have (viney defence, and others), especially trying to protect his injured hand

i'd be bringing in a biomechanics expert

he has a good case based on this, plus when you also add low impact because player played out game with no resultant injury (outcome argument)

fritta cleared to play by tribunal

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

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

Maybe we could get Siri to help..

10 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

Maybe we could get Siri to help..

i wouldn't call a defensive motion a strike, but ymmv

1 hour ago, The Jackson 6 said:

Dangerfield would get time if that incident happened this year. They’ve moved the goalposts on anything head high this year. 

I believe in the tooth fairy as well....

 

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i wouldn't call a defensive motion a strike, but ymmv

My comment was purely a joke, I have given up long ago on getting any consistency from the MRO and don’t let it upset me anymore

Split second, Fritta is low, he’s tried to fend and unlucky Powell was lower.

The fact Powell came back on... hmmmm

5 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Split second, Fritta is low, he’s tried to fend and unlucky Powell was lower.

The fact Powell came back on... hmmmm

i would add "fend and protect his injured hand"

somewhat changes the context

Appeal it, look to get the impact downgraded from medium to low which I assume wound get him off. The guy played out the game, no injury, no concussion symptoms, no blood. How can that be medium impact? Surely to be medium impact there would have to be some sort of injury or concussion symptoms? If not that means high is anything from minor concession symptoms to KOd and wheeled off on a stretcher.

MRO applies the “playing one of the AFL’s love childrens this week rule “. Must do whatever it takes to help the Swans.

 

let’s hope Weid rips Michael Christain a new one.

Have to appeal. Yes he got him in the head but the guy was actually going in low and nearly falling. As mentioned in another post if he was upright it would be a chest fend off. We must appeal and if not shows the club is still weak and a puppet of the AFL. Show some support to the players please CEO etc.

$2,000 normally, but 1 week cos the charged player was with MFC, i.e. not Jee-long, filth ...etc

 

it was always going to be a week the minute the filth lost on saturdee

christian is always in a bad mood on monday when his black and white boys have a loss on the weekend

Sure, maybe the club should appeal the penalty, as long as there is no chance that it could become 2 weeks if unsuccessful; but please, spare us the AFL hates Melbourne conspiracy theories and spare us the parallels being drawn to the Hawkins/May incident as there is absolutely no comparison... Hawkins was accidental (unless of course, you have your blinkers on), Fritsch was running head on at his opponent and raised his forearm.  As soon as I saw it, I thought that he would get a week at least.  As soon as I saw the Hawkins/May incident, I thought that it was an accident.  The only similar case that could possibly be considered poor judgement by the MRP was the Dangerfield one... and the fact that he got off does not mean that Fritsch should get off... it simply means that the MRP got it wrong with Dangerfield (two wrongs don't make a right).

Can we just ditch the stupid conspiracy theories?

He hasn’t copped a week because Collingwood lost, or because someone at Melbourne has incriminating photos of Christian, or because Christian has a vendetta against us. 

He’s copped a week because the MRO process is horrendously inconsistent and produces unfair results repeatedly due to its poorly designed box ticking exercise, the wide grey areas, Christian’s inability and/or unwillingness to follow precedent, and the fact that these decisions are made by one person, rather than a panel. 

No concussion because he wasn't hit by an elbow, it was by a forearm.

There should be bruising or something of that nature to his arm.

Just for reference, here's Aiden Bonar flattening Fritsch behind play in the first quarter.  Deliberate head high contact which left the player stunned and in need of a trainer.  Not even mentioned in the MRO's report for the round. 

Fully explains the rest of the comps schardenfraud for Geelong being duped by the umps. Ironic that their biggest cheat and sook was laying the tackle when the siren beat the ump to his whistle. 

Appeal.

On the condition that @titan_uranus is the player advocate.

Just scrap the stupid Trubunal. Let the players sort it out between themselves. It is a contact sport and should be treated accordingly. It is not soccer! 

I think we should 100% appeal this one, it's very obvious he was protecting his hand, he's got a great record and a suspension is not at all appropriate in this case. 

 

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

if you watch it frame by frame, as he takes possession of the ball his arms outstretched with his broken right hand  the closest part of his body to the north player who is only a foot away and closing. self protection for his broken hand would dictate he folds his arm at the elbow with his forearm now protecting his hand. at this stage he is slightly crouched with knees bent and both feet firmly on the ground.  unfortunately the north player comes in low, so a fend that would have been to the chest becomes head high

what choice did fritta have (viney defence, and others), especially trying to protect his injured hand

i'd be bringing in a biomechanics expert

he has a good case based on this, plus when you also add low impact because player played out game with no resultant injury (outcome argument)

fritta cleared to play by tribunal

Exactly.  Ball carrier.  Fend. Low impact. Player plays on. Reprimand.  

6 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Just for reference, here's Aiden Bonar flattening Fritsch behind play in the first quarter.  Deliberate head high contact which left the player stunned and in need of a trainer.  Not even mentioned in the MRO's report for the round. 

 

That’s a disgrace that it’s not looked at while Fritta gets one week for his. I suspect because Fritta got up pretty quickly and it flew under the radar of the commentary. Whereas Fritch getting suspended is a “story”. 

I will be filthy if Melbourne don’t challenge. 

10 hours ago, The Jackson 6 said:

Dangerfield would get time if that incident happened this year. They’ve moved the goalposts on anything head high this year. 

...and thus, a new means of cheap frees in front of goal has emerged. Just duck into a contact that hopefully will be head high.

7 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

Just for reference, here's Aiden Bonar flattening Fritsch behind play in the first quarter.  Deliberate head high contact which left the player stunned and in need of a trainer.  Not even mentioned in the MRO's report for the round. 

 

This attack, off the ball, was never mentioned or highlighted, and certainly not replayed by Fox.  
Yes, there is an agenda.  
Had Fox not repeatedly replayed the “Frisch incident” (as giver not the one as receiver) this may not have gone further. 

42 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

...and thus, a new means of cheap frees in front of goal has emerged. Just duck into a contact that hopefully will be head high.

That is not new - the Selwood duck has been around for years.