1 minute ago, Smokey said:

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

 

Losing to the Swans on top of the Viney and Tommo injuries and could derail things for us, we have a very hard run of matches coming.

We need Fritta to play.

1 minute ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

Losing to the Swans on top of the Viney and Tommo injuries and could derail things for us, we have a very hard run of matches coming.

We need Fritta to play.

If dropping 1 game derails our season after a 7-0 start, then we aren't ready for September success, plain and simple.

1 hour 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.

Agree. Go with the Cunnington precedent.  It’s an absolute disgrace given Fritsch had the footy, low impact, fend off and the other player played on. Not even a fractured eye socket!!! 

6 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.

 

Dice, I disagree with players being suspended for playing within the spirit of the game, and accidentally make high contact through an action that is reasonable under the circumstances. I'm all for 1 week suspensions for jumper punches that land high and other such actions but when a player gets suspended for playing the ball and the game in the manner it is meant to be played there needs to be a more nuanced approach that considers whether the players action was reasonable.

Interesting that we are appealing, as I think there are a few here who think this warranted a 1 week ban, but because Dangerfield didn't get one why should we.  Which I guess is a fair argument, however, technically the mistake was made not giving Danger the ban in the GF rather than the fact that Fritsch is up for a 1 week suspension, so it will be interesting whether the tribunal actually agrees with the precedent.

I remember seeing that hit from Bonar on Fritsch at the game and thought it was a high hit off the ball, also saw Gawn copping a bit behind play too, but its a valid call that the media coverage of the hit seems to play more of a role in what Christian focuses on  rather than reviewing all game footage.  

38 minutes ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

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. 

Totally Agree. It is a farce, which is the main reason it should be challenged 

2 minutes ago, Smokey said:

If dropping 1 game derails our season after a 7-0 start, then we aren't ready for September success, plain and simple.

Goody talks about picking out best team every week and Fritsch was our best player last week and is our best forward. I'm bewildered why we would allow him to sit out a week when he should be playing.

We are one of the big boys now, only one of 6 unassisted clubs, are top of the ladder, haven't lost a game all season and we are coming up against a tough opponent in Sydney.  It is totally unsurprising that the club is seeking to overturn the 1 week suspension.

Good.

21 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

BREAKING: Sam Weideman will be testifying for the prosecution. 

LOL

18 minutes ago, Smokey said:

If dropping 1 game derails our season after a 7-0 start, then we aren't ready for September success, plain and simple.

History says that's exactly what we will do though.   We will find out soon if this really is a 'new Melbourne' or much of the same old. 

 Don't hate me people, just keeping things in perspective and I do think we will beat Sydney.

 

25 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

Interesting that we are appealing, as I think there are a few here who think this warranted a 1 week ban, but because Dangerfield didn't get one why should we.  Which I guess is a fair argument, however, technically the mistake was made not giving Danger the ban in the GF rather than the fact that Fritsch is up for a 1 week suspension, so it will be interesting whether the tribunal actually agrees with the precedent.

I remember seeing that hit from Bonar on Fritsch at the game and thought it was a high hit off the ball, also saw Gawn copping a bit behind play too, but its a valid call that the media coverage of the hit seems to play more of a role in what Christian focuses on  rather than reviewing all game footage.  

Agree.  The media harped on and on about it, and totally ignored the off-ball hit on Fritsch which was far more premeditated and also high.  Really set him up for the rather dim witted Christian to pounce.  He could really hardly say no. 
 

And no mention at all of Bailey’s clean record either.  

Edited May 4, 20214 yr by monoccular

39 minutes ago, chookrat said:

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.

The problem with point one is there is no such conduct/grading as accidental. It's either intentional or careless and Christian gave him the lesser grading of careless.

 

I’d like us to add to our defence, that Having just been decked behind play (by Bonar - show vision) without the protection of the umpires, Bailey concluded he was 

a) going to be hurt by the North players intent not to simply tackle but to hurt/injure, and 

b) needed to fend off the player before another attempt was made and him being injured further.

I recognise it is a poor argument, but Bailey was well within his rights to believe North were out to target and hurt him, and do his best to protect himself.

Edited May 4, 20214 yr by PaulRB

If the appeal fails I'd actually come out and say the day after the game Bailey started showing signs of delayed concussion due to the earlier high hit. The 12 days won't matter as he's already missing the week. Would highlight how ridiculous it is.

Do you think Adelaide would let us borrow their doctor for a bit?

YES!!!

In some respects the decision of the appeal is meaningless. What is important is that we stick up for our blokes instead of copping it around the head. Good clubs do this. I hope that fritta wins the appeal and plays. I also hope the MRO can go and get stuffed due to its inconsistancies and downright playing favorites with some players and clubs.

3 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I’d like us to add to our defence, that Having just been decked behind play (by Bonar - show vision) without the protection of the umpires, Bailey concluded he was 

a) going to be hurt by the North players intent not to simply tackle but to hurt, and 

b) needed to fend off the player before another attempt was made and him being injured further.

I recognise is a poor argument, but Bailey was well within his rights to believe North were out to target and hurt him, and do his best to protect himself.

 

nah, even if you are right there is no proof to link the two incidents and it would look like a red herring and plain desperation.

there is plenty of other better arguments to get fritta's action downgraded to a fine

let's just hope that his advocate does a good job representing him

1 hour ago, Patches O’houlihan said:

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. 

I'd agree with 2 and 3 mate, but IMO it was reckless and not clear to me that he was protecting his hand. 

That said, given those recent cases of players getting off, I'd say we'll win this challenge.

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

nah, even if you are right there is no proof to link the two incidents and it would look like a red herring and plain desperation.

there is plenty of other better arguments to get fritta's action downgraded to a fine

let's just hope that his advocate does a good job representing him

I agree, but I’d still like the club to table what appears to be a reportable incident behind play, that there is vision of, for the MRC and AFL to consider.

oppositions have targeted Max and Fritta recently in this manner and its bs.

Edited May 4, 20214 yr by PaulRB

1 minute ago, A F said:

I'd agree with 2 and 3 mate, but IMO it was reckless and not clear to me that he was protecting his hand. 

That said, given those recent cases of players getting off, I'd say we'll win this challenge.

and also protecting himself from a potential head clash

he could sense he was in trouble of being injured.......just watch it frame by frame

4 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

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

Ask guys like Wayne Schwass and Shaun Smith if they think the sport is soft.

Administrators have an obligation to be seen to be doing something and I think also actually be doing something.

The thing I'd argue is that is suspending players who make accidental contact to The head while tying to play within the rules really the answer?  It's not like we see guys being lined up and ironed out by reckless sniping these days.  I'd really struggle to see how what Fritta did was even careless really when all these actions happen in the blink of an eye.  If he doesn't put his arm out, what other reasonable action does he have to protect himself, turn his body and smack him in the head with a shoulder.  Maybe the North bloke should also be suspended for carelessly running at Fritta while down low?  Where is his duty of care to himself?  It all starts getting a bit silly really I think.

It's hard to know what the all the answers are, but I actually think asides from the trivial suspensions for 'careless' actions, I think the AFL is probably doing mostly all it can, with regards concussion tests, mininum return periods, subs etc whilst still allowing it to be a contact sport.  The only other thing I think is that the AFL should probably give players a bit more leniency before suspending them, by taking into account previous record and/or giving players a chance to explain their actions prior to assuming the guilty of being careless/reckless etc.  I know that doesn't seem to be the basis of the MRP/O/whatever.

1 minute ago, PaulRB said:

I agree, but I’d still like the club to table what appears to be a reportable incident behind play, that there is vision of, for the MRC and AFL to consider.

oppositions have targeted Max and Fritta recently in this manner and its bs.

trouble is, from the vision i've seen (very distant) there is no evidence of more than a free kick

if you have better vision, i'd like a link

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

trouble is, from the vision i've seen (very distant) there is no evidence of more than a free kick

if you have better vision, i'd like a link

From the vision shown posted a couple of pages back (thanks whoever put it up), it's blurry but frame by frame you can see the blokes arm swing back and connect with Fritsch's face and Fritsch goes to ground (for a while) and come up with a bloodied mouth. I'm sure the AFL could produce better vision.
It's intentional (not accidental as was Fritsch's) and had the same impact. Both should be graded as low.

In the end it means nothing as far as a defence goes for the later incident.

I think the way out is to show vision of the North Player continuing unhindered for the rest of the game. The impact grading is wrong. It's low, not medium.

In reality, I'd be happy to cop the week suspension if:

1. There is consistency with MRO and their decisions, gradings and suspensions.

2. The MRO did not charge players based on what Tim Watson, Luke Darcy, David King and Cameron Ling etc think. 

I'm glad our club is standing up in so many ways this season.

Absolutely the correct decision by our Club to appeal!

I hope that after the hearing, we can say that it was “the correct decision all round”.

37 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I’d like us to add to our defence, that Having just been decked behind play (by Bonar - show vision) without the protection of the umpires, Bailey concluded he was 

a) going to be hurt by the North players intent not to simply tackle but to hurt/injure, and 

b) needed to fend off the player before another attempt was made and him being injured further.

I recognise it is a poor argument, but Bailey was well within his rights to believe North were out to target and hurt him, and do his best to protect himself.

I would then add to that this photo which occurs a split second prior to the hit which shows Bailey super low to the ground face in obvious flinching motion with a player flying directly at him that it’s clear he was protecting himself. In any ordinary day that hits the guy in the mid torso not the head.

Note: the north players elbow doing the same thing as Bailey just not quite as high

 

Edited May 4, 20214 yr by —coach—