At last, the Club has grown a pair.

5 minutes ago, Brownie said:

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.

fair enough re other incident....was too blurry for my (aged) eyesight. strange it wasn't at least reviewed.

 

Our best chance here is to appeal the medium impact, on the basis of the player on the receiving end playing out the game without issues. If that gets downgraded to low, he's off.

Intentional/wreckless/accidental is going to be much harder to prove. 

 

Or we can just show Dusty and Danger doing the same thing 100 times and not getting suspended and go with the "We are on top of the ladder" defence. 

2 minutes ago, —coach— said:

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.

 

 

 

good frame shot

fritta is low and forearm would normally would be a chest high self protection/fend off

north player is also coming in low and hard and appears to be pushed by trac

huge potential for head to head clash. push by trac could be argued to be contributory.

conclusion: fritta didn't have much choice......toss in north player played out game with no lasting impact 

I've just been into the city and you won't believe what's happening.

Have we hired the Sydney Swans' QCs who got Barry Hall into the 2005 Grand Final to fight the case for us?

FREE THE FRITSCH!!

Edited May 4, 20214 yr by DubDee
Demonstone busting my chops

5 minutes ago, DubDee said:

FREE THE FRISTCH!!

2 minutes ago, demonstone said:

At least I didn't mention Jordan, in my defence

Free the Fritta.   The Coleman medal is within grasp...  Tex Walker, Cale Hooker, Josh bruce.. they will all run out of steam.

When the dust settles it will be a race between Fritta, Ben King and Harry McKay.  But he must play this Saturday!

Just watched the Danger one again, wowee how on earth did he get off?

4 minutes ago, —coach— said:

Just watched the Danger one again, wowee how on earth did he get off?

keep it down mate, that's the precedent we want to use to get Fritsch off!

Compare this to the MAY strike. May broken eye socket and concussion from a Hawkins errant elbow and May dosnt even get a free kick. Thats right folks, its play on. 

In the AFL's official Tribunal handbook for 2021 they have a series of examples of every offence and grading:

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/22/221593f5-9b5b-46c7-b038-b032283fcd41/2021-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

The best two examples under Striking on page 14 that can be referenced in Fritta’s defence:

Example 5: Josh Caddy on David McKay R2, 2018 (Careless, medium impact, high contact)

 

Mackay was assessed for concussion and failed that test, so therefore worse than Powell who wasn’t even assessed for concussion.

 

Example 11: Swallow on Westoff R1, 2020 (Intentional, Low impact, High contact)

https://www.afl.com.au/news/389979/suns-skipper-cops-ban-four-players-hit-with-fines

Intentional action and only graded Low Impact. Similar incident (in reverse) but worse than Fritta’s. Swallow didn’t have ball, went past ball and collected Westhoff with similar action to Fritta (albeit Fritta has added difference of player coming at him low). Could be referenced as Westhoff played out the game unhindered. Season was then suspended, so can’t look at whether he got up for R2.

Given the action is deemed careless rather than intentional, I think it would be in line with past rulings that the potential for further injury is not assessed and should be deemed Low Impact per the two applicable examples here.

Maybe we can serve up a piece of Fritatta to the swans after all

47 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Our best chance here is to appeal the medium impact, on the basis of the player on the receiving end playing out the game without issues. If that gets downgraded to low, he's off.

Intentional/wreckless/accidental is going to be much harder to prove. 

 

Or we can just show Dusty and Danger doing the same thing 100 times and not getting suspended and go with the "We are on top of the ladder" defence. 

So there's a whisper in the wind that the young fella being assisted off had more to do with the hip of Fritsch colliding with his side / back than the head knock. If that proves to be the case, the argument that the head knock should be downgraded gains a bit of traction. 

20 hours ago, SPC said:

Hawkins was looking the other way, Fritsch had eyes on the player, that’s the difference 

7 across clue: Plausible deniability,   'lookaway handball' etc. What magicians call misdirection.

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

Our best chance here is to appeal the medium impact, on the basis of the player on the receiving end playing out the game without issues. If that gets downgraded to low, he's off.

Intentional/wreckless/accidental is going to be much harder to prove. 

Well said. 

Also should argue Tracc pushed Powell which unfortunately lead to the the head high contact 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

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

If you watch it at ordinary speed, it looks like an inconsequential push. It's only in slo-mo that you see the elbow connecting with the head. If we had the choice, I would say don't watch it in slo-mo or frame-by-frame.

I hope Fritsch's appeal is successful for the simple reason that I believe it was an unforseeable accident. Just like head clashes. It's a game where people sometimes get hurt, and while I am all for protecting the head, I don't think this is an example where Fritsch could have predicted his action would have resulted in his arm connecting with the victim's head.  

 

1 hour ago, —coach— said:

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

 

North player is also being pushed into it in this shot, looks like he was falling into the tackle.

What time is the hearing commencing? Some of us need to clear our schedules.

Right call to challenge. 

I happen to think that it is medium impact but the MRO has set a precedent with the Danger and other incidents so i don't see why Fritta cops a week but the others don't. I want fairness and consistency. It has to be over-turned. If it isn't I'll be very interested to see what kind of mental gymnastics the appeals board perform to distinguish the Danger and Fritta incidents.

2 hours ago, Pickett2Jackson said:

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.

 

Someone has to play devil’s (Demon’s?) advocate. 

39 minutes ago, bush demon said:

What magicians call misdirection.

I come from a long line of stage magicians and all the family members had a role to play in the performance. 

I have a half-sister.  

20 minutes ago, Better days ahead said:

Right call to challenge. 

I happen to think that it is medium impact but the MRO has set a precedent with the Danger and other incidents so i don't see why Fritta cops a week but the others don't. I want fairness and consistency. It has to be over-turned. If it isn't I'll be very interested to see what kind of mental gymnastics the appeals board perform to distinguish the Danger and Fritta incidents.

They will raise the importance of 'potential to cause injury/do damage' criteria up a few notches. 

That is one of the arguments they used with May a few years ago.  Has rarely been used since by the MRO or Tribunal.  Wait!  I think they did use in the ANB 'dangerous tackle' case last year to give him 4 weeks instead of 2 or 3.

In other words it is the 'Demons' rule: 'if we can make an example of them we will'!

Edited May 4, 20214 yr by Lucifer's Hero