16 hours 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.

Yes ,I know that Nasher, I wasn't trying to mount a defence, but suggesting that unless we start to question and create pionts where by similar occurances, (Dangerfield)  et all get of, we wont be seen as either relevant or worthy of credibility .Time to make a stand and piont to this similar occurance and ask the question whats the difference between  Dangerfield and Fritsch in the play

On 5/2/2021 at 3:32 PM, ignition. said:

I don't think so. Fine at most.

He was defending off a tackle, the north bloke came in low.

I'm curious what Zieball did to Fritsch in the first off the ball. Does anyone know what happened there?

It was a fend off with the action of the bumper bar used in marking contests, it wasn't a striking elbow motion to hurt him. He didn't want to use the hand he just had surgery on to fend with.

It was med- low impact, no blood was drawn, he wasn't concussed, played the rest of the game out.

Must be down graded to a fine for the good of the game.

That trucking thug Hawkins didn't even get sighted, May was concussed, drew blood, fractured his eye socket and got f all.

I’m happy the club is taking this further.

Given I presume the basis of the appeal is medium vs low impact, then I think the Cunnington vs Adelaide appeal should also be referenced where it was regraded to low. It’s probably a better example than the Dangerfield case as it’s this year.

50 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

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.

Don't you care about consistency ? It seems if you are a high profile player like Ablett or Dangerfield you can get away with it.

they are challenging

16 hours ago, jnrmac said:

 

They showed this vision side by side with the Fristch incident 'On The Couch' last night.  Garry flying the flag for us like usual. Like it or not, media noise about decisions directly impacts the MRO and tribunal

Fantasic that we are appealing

 

4 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

I’m happy the club is taking this further.

Given I presume the basis of the appeal is medium vs low impact, then I think the Cunnington vs Adelaide appeal should also be referenced where it was regraded to low. It’s probably a better example than the Dangerfield case as it’s this year.

I think they can also use the - what other reasonable option did he have - defence

A bloke coming in low in a split second, he has the ball and a broken hand, should he risk a clash of heads? bump him?

Wasn’t it mentioned that Cunnington concussed a player and got it lowered low impact, is that right?

The argument I’d run is that it was a reasonable action given the trajectory of the other player’s head - potentially avoided a more dangerous head clash 

I'm certainly not the legal mind of some other demonlanders but think the case for this being reduced to a fine is strong. 

1. the action was classified as reckless, it wasn't, he was clearly protecting his hand, 

2. the North player while shocked at the time was fine, and able to continue 

3. other players have done similar or worse actions and avoided suspension. 

so i think personally it's incidental contact due to protecting his hand, low impact and Fritsch with a good record over a few seasons should get away with a fine. 

12 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Don't you care about consistency ? It seems if you are a high profile player like Ablett or Dangerfield you can get away with it.

All I want is for him to be out there on Saturday night, so I'm glad we're appealing.

Just not expecting to be successful.

Glad we are appealing.

A complete joke given the precedence set by the MRO this year.

Well played MFC. Get a good beak to fight the case. 
Dangerfield getting off for that incident last year is evidence enough 

Bailey deserves a fine…

MFC culture has changed They would never have appealed this in years gone by.

Dont expect a positive result but making a 10k  statement for a red and blue says alot.

1 minute ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Well played MFC. Get a good beak to fight the case. 
Dangerfield getting off for that incident last year is evidence enough 

Bailey deserves a fine…

It really does show the MRO needs a significant overhaul that two so similar actions can result in totally different punishments, with the only distinction seemingly being the profile of the player in question. 

The Melbourne Football Club is revolting and appealing.

Sounds about right.

34 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Hell yes!

We cant allow that Collingwood dunce Michael Christian to derail our season.

Even if we lose the appeal I’m very happy the club continues to do the right thing in my eyes. 
Dunno what happened to the club I used to know, but the recent version ticks all the boxes. 

If the AFL were fair dinkum about protecting players' heads, they would punish elbows to the head (accidental or otherwise) as they have done with the bump (e.g. Dangerfield on Kelly).

And it removes the grey area of trying to determine if an elbow is careless or not (e.g. Hawkins on May, Hipwood on Ridley, Dangerfield on Vlastuin).

If Fritta gets off tonight, I suspect the AFL will look at doing this.

 

18 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

A few weeks back Ben Cunnington knocked Rory Laird out, he was taken from the field but returned, and played out the game.

The MRO classified that as medium impact, Cunnington appealed to the tribunal, and the tribunal downgraded it to low impact.

How much difference is there between the impact on Laird and the impact on Powell? 

I reckon there is a case for the incident to both;

1. Be graded as accidental rather than careless, on the basis that Fritsch had no alternative to making contact with Powell and that the brace and push off was a reasonable action under the circumstances.

2. Downgraded from medium to low impact assuming that the damage was low but potential for harm resulted in medium. Because Powell's action to cannon into Fritsch contributed to the potential for harm and that Fritsch's contribution should be his action and not the sum of his and Powell's action.

I genuinely think we have a good chance to have this downgraded on at least one if not both of the above.

2 minutes ago, dice said:

If the AFL were fair dinkum about protecting players' heads, they would punish elbows to the head (accidental or otherwise) as they have done with the bump (e.g. Dangerfield on Kelly).

And it removes the grey area of trying to determine if an elbow is careless or not (e.g. Hawkins on May, Hipwood on Ridley, Dangerfield on Vlastuin).

If Fritta gets off tonight, I suspect the AFL will look at doing this.

 

That’s ridiculous. There’s 8 blokes in contests with limbs flying everywhere. Accidents happen. 
 

You can fly through the air, knee someone in the back of the head and take a mark, one of the highlights of world sport. Are we going to outlaw that too?

If you want to completely protect the head, end the sport or use robots. 

20 minutes ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Hell yes!

We cant allow that Collingwood dunce Michael Christian to derail our season.

Fritta is very important, but saying him missing 1 week derails our season is extremely dramatic at best

He'll walk away with a fine and will play Saturday is my call 

BREAKING: Sam Weideman will be testifying for the prosecution. 

Edited May 4, 20213 yr by Deestroy All

4 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

That’s ridiculous. There’s 8 blokes in contests with limbs flying everywhere. Accidents happen. 
 

You can fly through the air, knee someone in the back of the head and take a mark, one of the highlights of world sport. Are we going to outlaw that too?

If you want to completely protect the head, end the sport or use robots. 

No sh*t sherlock, I don't agree with it either! Look at the bump - it has almost disappeared overnight from the game

Edited May 4, 20213 yr by dice