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. 

 

... and umpire #1 in perfect position to see the infringement. The same #1 who paid the series of ridiculous frees against Max in the ruck contests!

8 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

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. 

The bitter irony is that reducing the panel down to a single person was supposed to *increase* consistency. That’s the line the AFL sold us. I don’t know who the genius was who thought that would work, because it clearly doesn’t.

I haven't read through the thread so apologies if mentioned already. On the couch last night showed a side by side of the Dangerfield and Fritta incidents. They looked practically identical. Danger got off. My initial view was we should cop the week and move on but after that seeing that comparison we have to challenge. 

 

11 hours 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.

Hawkins has form flailing about due to jumper tackles.  Whilst I'd agree that with the one he got May with was accidental due to him being off ballance, I think it's almost become a reflex action for players like him to throw back arms and elbows when tackled so as to accidentally give elbows to the head/gut/wherever they can land one on the player behind.

Freitch isn't a dirty player like Hawkins in this respects and I think that should count for something, but clearly not on current AFL form.

If this is the kind of thing which draws a suspension from the AFL, then it's also about time they start looking at the number of fists to the side of the head during marking contests?

Max copped an absolute barrage from Richmond the other week.  Jack Riewolt's backchat to the umpire after giving away the free kick "I was punching the ball" - such utter BS.

Change the name from AFL to NBA.  This sport has turned so soft, it is a bit depressing.

There is merit in challenging based on the Dangerfield comparison, and Fritzkrieg's clean record, positioning of players, protecting his hand, his frame size, etc etc.

If I was of a mind, I'd also be turning the tribunal's mind to the off the ball incident against Fritsch and asking an open ended question: why wasn't this cited? Is it because the media chose not to highlight it? Certainly draws attention to the MRO's apparent reliance on media coverage which in turn raises question about MROs efficacy/consistency/ability to independently assay these.

Is it confirmed we are challenging? The MFC website says nowt about it apart from update forthcoming.

Below is the footage of the Dangerfield contact with vlaustin in the grand final last year for comparison

MRO finding that the contact was "inadvertent" - Christian quoted "The ball is loose. Vlastuin and Dangerfield approach the ball from opposing directions. Dangerfield punches the ball and in the process makes high contact to Vlastuin. It was the view of the MRO that Dangerfield’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken."

 

2 hours ago, waynewussell said:

... and umpire #1 in perfect position to see the infringement. The same #1 who paid the series of ridiculous frees against Max in the ruck contests!

Fritta had blood on his lips when he got up just by the way.

3 hours ago, waynewussell said:

... and umpire #1 in perfect position to see the infringement. The same #1 who paid the series of ridiculous frees against Max in the ruck contests!

Looks like that umpire was focusing on where the ball was landing; still, pretty poor peripheral vision. I'm surprised that the umpire who was in the midfield didn't see it though?

And the MRP not reviewing this? WTF?

Edited May 3, 20214 yr by TRIGON

10 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 certainly warrants another look. At first it looks like Fritsch runs into him, however Bonar clearly changes his line to 'check' Fritsch where the ball wasnt even near him. Hard to see how contact was made - maybe shoulder to the head - how does one bring this to the attention of the MRO? Can the clubs do anything ?

3 minutes ago, TRIGON said:

Looks like that umpire was focusing on where the ball was landing; still, pretty poor peripheral vision. I'm surprised that the umpire who was in the midfield didn't see it though?

And the MRP not reviewing this? WTF?

I had a PE teacher at Gisborne Secondary College - Mr McClean ([censored] he was a funny cat) - no shenanigans from anyone. "JOHNSTONE!! I can see you in my *peripheral vision* JOHNSTONE. STOP IT" and we're talking like way at the edge of his peripheral vision and he was a PE teacher. Sometimes even it seemed behind him.

 

*I know the pressure of AFL umpiring is much larger than being a PE teacher but you're a paid professional. Do your job and see things.

3 hours ago, monoccular said:

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. 

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

Absolutely true, monoccular. Can we expect a continuing rise in its frequency? 

There appears to be several additional approaches to such a manoeuvre developing:

• front on,
• sidewards to the direct lateral advantage of the snot goblin,
• the good old wrap your opponent's arm and wrist about your neck where you reckon, as you fall deliberately and gently assunder, the umpire will get the best view of any alleged tackling brutality (courtesy of Selwood's mastery plans), and simply,
• just lead with your ducking head (I repeat, 'ducking head') into the possessor of the ball.

Each of the above that I have noticed seem to work just fine. Another poorly thought-out rule from the AFL with a twist in variability.

 

 

11 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. 

 

Totally irresponsible oversight by the MRO. 

2 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Is it confirmed we are challenging? The MFC website says nowt about it apart from update forthcoming.

I seriously doubt we're challenging an elbow to the head.

$10K is a lot of money coming out of the soft cap and we blew 50K on Bennell's mishap in the hub last year.

Lack of news suggests we are thinking about it seriously. 

 

Cmon Dees. Stand up and fight this incorrect suspension.

1 hour ago, Superunknown said:

I had a PE teacher at Gisborne Secondary College - Mr McClean ([censored] he was a funny cat) - no shenanigans from anyone. "JOHNSTONE!! I can see you in my *peripheral vision* JOHNSTONE. STOP IT" and we're talking like way at the edge of his peripheral vision and he was a PE teacher. Sometimes even it seemed behind him.

 

*I know the pressure of AFL umpiring is much larger than being a PE teacher but you're a paid professional. Do your job and see things.

It may have been his peripheral vision...or maybe it was just his understanding of JOHNSTONE...(Travis?).

I'm going to be extremely disappointed if we don't challenge this.
 

I'd be arguing against the impact grading. No concussion and re-joined the game. On what planet is that medium impact?! 

2 hours ago, In Harmes Way said:

Below is the footage of the Dangerfield contact with vlaustin in the grand final last year for comparison

MRO finding that the contact was "inadvertent" - Christian quoted "The ball is loose. Vlastuin and Dangerfield approach the ball from opposing directions. Dangerfield punches the ball and in the process makes high contact to Vlastuin. It was the view of the MRO that Dangerfield’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken."

 

Garbage, Danger lifted his elbow. He also lifted his knee which is a natural reaction to front on contact for blokes...

We are appealing it. 

13 minutes ago, Smokey said:

I'm going to be extremely disappointed if we don't challenge this.
 

I'd be arguing against the impact grading. No concussion and re-joined the game. On what planet is that medium impact?! 

The fact that he was taken off the field for observation and looked genuinely hurt when the incident occurred would surely constitute medium impact.

I think if he was concussed and left the game then it would've been high impact and a 2 week suspension.

Edit - just saw we're appealing it...They agree with you.

 

Edited May 4, 20214 yr by Bring-Back-Powell

We are appealing