This was never a week, go with a fine if you must for careless, low impact. But really all the Wheatley Robbo comparisons to Dangerfields bump are ridiculous.

Yes they both impacted an opponent high but:

Dangerfield CHOSE to bump after the ball was gone, hit the player high and knocked him out.

Fritsch fended an oncoming tackle and had his arm pushed high by the tackling player, hit him high, no concussion, no injury. 
Players are allowed to fend, if he had deliberately elbowed him that would be different but it is clear as day he tries to fend with his forearm and the low body of Powell moving down pushes his arm high. It’s an accident that occurred in 0.2 seconds. Not an intentional bump.

Also we all hate it but the impact on the other player is important in how they measure these things. Powell was not concussed, had no other injury and came back on the field. If he had been concussed or had his face broken the result might be different, but he didn’t. 

Im also still mystified as to how this gets cited but Hawkins doesn’t, Hawkins carelessly throws his elbow back after a handball and breaks someone’s eye socket and concusses them. Bailey has his elbow pushed into his opponents head and dazed his for a bit.
Why is Bailey’s initially Careless and Medium impact but Hawkins not? Surely Hawkins is Careless and High impact. If ones an accident they’re both an accident, but for Bailey to get cited and Hawkins not just shows the problems with this system.

Good on the MFC for appealing, got the result we deserved.

Just now, deejammin' said:

This was never a week, go with a fine if you must for careless, low impact. But really all the Wheatley Robbo comparisons to Dangerfields bump are ridiculous.

Yes they both impacted an opponent high but:

Dangerfield CHOSE to bump after the ball was gone, hit the player high and knocked him out.

Fritsch fended an oncoming tackle and had his arm pushed high by the tackling player, hit him high, no concussion, no injury. 
Players are allowed to fend, if he had deliberately elbowed him that would be different but it is clear as day he tries to fend with his forearm and the low body of Powell moving down pushes his arm high. It’s an accident that occurred in 0.2 seconds. Not an intentional bump.

Also we all hate it but the impact on the other player is important in how they measure these things. Powell was not concussed, had no other injury and came back on the field. If he had been concussed or had his face broken the result might be different, but he didn’t. 

Im also still mystified as to how this gets cited but Hawkins doesn’t, Hawkins carelessly throws his elbow back after a handball and breaks someone’s eye socket and concusses them. Bailey has his elbow pushed into his opponents head and dazed his for a bit.
Why is Bailey’s initially Careless and Medium impact but Hawkins not? Surely Hawkins is Careless and High impact. If ones an accident they’re both an accident, but for Bailey to get cited and Hawkins not just shows the problems with this system.

Good on the MFC for appealing, got the result we deserved.

Me, too, dj. Keep the anger coming on Hawkins; it won't change anything but maybe the internet ether will rattle his guilt neurons. I don't think I imagined the direction of, and look in, his eyes at the instant of impact.

With respect to an AFL appeal of the decision, according to the rules, the AFL can only appeal per below:

AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL A Player or the AFL General Counsel may appeal the decision of the Tribunal to the Appeal Board on one or more of the following grounds:

» An error of law has occurred;

» The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;

» The classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate; or

» The sanction imposed by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Given the hearing was around whether the act was careless (as opposed to the impact), then any errors of law would have been addressed in the original hearing. And given the classification/sanctions were not manifestly inadequate (the grading was only careless to begin with), then the only grounds the AFL could appeal under is that no other Tribunal would come to the same conclusion. And given the Tribunal explained the grounds for their decision, it's reasonable to foresee another Tribunal reaching the same conclusion.

Nothing to see here. Move on.

an interesting observation of the tribunal defence was that the mfc did not challenge the original medium-impact classification.

i can only assume the defence decided it was best to just focus on one issue rather than get tied up on 2 issues. Also if it was reclassified as accidental rather than careless then impact doesn't come into it.

what is interesting re impact is that it appears the forearm/elbow high contact appears to have caused no injury and likely not any discomfort. According to the NM medical report there was no head injuries or concussion. It appears his onfield distress and having to leave the field assisted, was caused by contact to his kidney area in the collision and not caused by forearm/elbow.  He apparently passed some blood in his urine and was set later for precautionary kidney scans and doctor said was expected to be able to play next week. If all this is true then impact of forearm/elbow had to be in the low band and not medium.

from the hun report today:

" The Dees accepted that Fritsch’s elbow to North Melbourne’s Tom Powell was high contact and medium impact."

"There was microscopic blood detected in Powell’s urine sample after the match and he underwent a kidney scan on Monday, according to Kangaroos doctor Bianca Scotney’s medical report."

"But Powell was cleared of concussion and suffered no ongoing headaches or jaw pain, with the kidney problem highlighting that more damage was done from Fritsch’s contact to the teenager’s midriff, rather than the elbow to his head."

"Dr Scotney said kidney trauma was “unlikely” and Powell was a strong chance to play against Collingwood in Round 8."

6 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

Actually, I have a great deal of respect for Michael Christian, even though I may disagree with some of his decisions. He has taken on a thankless job knowing that every decision he makes will be scrutinised endlessly by the media and the general public. In addition, he knows every decision can be appealed and many will be overturned. It takes someone with grit and a true love for the game to take on this role. 

Or a thick hide. Criticism generally hurts. Would make a good politician. 

3 hours ago, S_T said:

There is still room in footy for pure accidents and this was one of those.  

There was no time for a straight arm fend, so he went with a forearm fend, but the north player was stumbling so the forearm bounced off his shoulder into his chin.  No time at all for Fritta to adjust, meaning he hadn't breached his duty of care.

This was as straightforward decision as they come I reckon despite how bad it look in slow-mo.

I wondered if there was fractional hesitation, because of a desire, sub conscious or otherwise, to protect his recently broken hand, that caused the delay in the arm going out? Was very happy with the tribunal result btw.

4 hours ago, DubDee said:

In fairness to Gerard and Robbo (stick with me here) - their point was the AFL is going so hard on hits to the head and concussion protocols and then a hit to the head like this goes unpunished. An extension of their contention would be that Danger should also have been suspended in the GF.  As first glance in real time, the Fritsch one looks like a week. It is only when you consider it and go through everything that has been discussed in this thread already that is becomes clear it is only a fine

No way there will be an appeal from the AFL

Not even if Sydney ask them to???

From what i saw , it wasn't the ELBOW

Makes our forward line much more potent and harder to defend on Saturday night.  The good news we needed after losing poor old Tommo.

After all this discussion about Fritsch, I've now looked for why Brayshaw was got for a trip. Just watched the whole match and I couldn't see where it happened.  Can someone please point out when it happened.      

This goes to show you the the MRO makes his decision so much on optics and media chatter rather than actually examining evidence. The reason I say that is that the Hawkins elbow that hit May was immediately called by the commentary as an accident and they were all leaping to his defence. Now I’m not saying he should’ve been suspended but there should have been an official citing and review given the injuries May sustained. 

Compare that to Fritta where they were already hanging him out and making the point the player looked groggy. But a little bit of research from the MRO would’ve concluded that he was helped off because of his kidney impact and not the forearm. 

As for Whateley and Robbo, they’re stuck on the optics rather than examining the facts. I’d expect that from Robbo, but Whateley I’ve thought he was more switched on. 

23 minutes ago, sue said:

After all this discussion about Fritsch, I've now looked for why Brayshaw was got for a trip. Just watched the whole match and I couldn't see where it happened.  Can someone please point out when it happened.      

Well it was half time and he was walking off the ground, and some Nth bloke went past and fell across his foot...

9 minutes ago, Pates said:

This goes to show you the the MRO makes his decision so much on optics and media chatter rather than actually examining evidence. The reason I say that is that the Hawkins elbow that hit May was immediately called by the commentary as an accident and they were all leaping to his defence. Now I’m not saying he should’ve been suspended but there should have been an official citing and review given the injuries May sustained. 

Compare that to Fritta where they were already hanging him out and making the point the player looked groggy. But a little bit of research from the MRO would’ve concluded that he was helped off because of his kidney impact and not the forearm. 

As for Whateley and Robbo, they’re stuck on the optics rather than examining the facts. I’d expect that from Robbo, but Whateley I’ve thought he was more switched on. 

Instead of giving these silly "experts" the benefit of the doubt It demonstrates what is obsessing the Media at the moment. And that is what every one of those people have had drummed into them for years and years, and that is, we don't give the Demons a sniff of success. they will grab it by the scruff of the neck and no one will get a look in for twenty years until we get another Premier like Bolte to lure away all the good players supposedly "for the sake of the Game"

You need to stop licking those cane toads, willmoy.

16 minutes ago, demonstone said:

You need to stop licking those cane toads, willmoy.

Compared to what the Media lick, your right...

1 minute ago, willmoy said:

your right

*  you're  

4 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Compared to what the Media lick, your right 

 

Edited May 5, 20213 yr by doc roet

I notice the pr*ck that cracked Fritta in the head during the 1st quarter wasn’t even mentioned, and every opposition player appears to be able to smack Gawn in the face/head once per game without more than a chortle from the (lack of) brainstrust commentary teams...

if Fritta had fended off Dangerfield, 6 weeks

3 hours ago, sue said:

After all this discussion about Fritsch, I've now looked for why Brayshaw was got for a trip. Just watched the whole match and I couldn't see where it happened.  Can someone please point out when it happened.      

Q2 - about 10:50 remaining on the countdown. On the northern (attacking) edge of the square for us. Clear trip by Gus.

23 hours ago, RigidMiddleDigit said:

Michael Christian: goose.

Certainly seems too interested in the cases the media highlights and ignores those that the media ignore NB the high, off play hit ON Frittata. 
 

Maybe he just lacks the time, and  likely the brain, to do the work himself. 

6 hours ago, deejammin' said:

This was never a week, go with a fine if you must for careless, low impact. But really all the Wheatley Robbo comparisons to Dangerfields bump are ridiculous.

Yes they both impacted an opponent high but:

Dangerfield CHOSE to bump after the ball was gone, hit the player high and knocked him out.

Fritsch fended an oncoming tackle and had his arm pushed high by the tackling player, hit him high, no concussion, no injury. 
Players are allowed to fend, if he had deliberately elbowed him that would be different but it is clear as day he tries to fend with his forearm and the low body of Powell moving down pushes his arm high. It’s an accident that occurred in 0.2 seconds. Not an intentional bump.

Also we all hate it but the impact on the other player is important in how they measure these things. Powell was not concussed, had no other injury and came back on the field. If he had been concussed or had his face broken the result might be different, but he didn’t. 

Im also still mystified as to how this gets cited but Hawkins doesn’t, Hawkins carelessly throws his elbow back after a handball and breaks someone’s eye socket and concusses them. Bailey has his elbow pushed into his opponents head and dazed his for a bit.
Why is Bailey’s initially Careless and Medium impact but Hawkins not? Surely Hawkins is Careless and High impact. If ones an accident they’re both an accident, but for Bailey to get cited and Hawkins not just shows the problems with this system.

Good on the MFC for appealing, got the result we deserved.

The media prattled on as soon as Hawkins recklessly, or carelessly, smashed May’s face, that it was accidental, so Christian had an easy out. 

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

an interesting observation of the tribunal defence was that the mfc did not challenge the original medium-impact classification.

i can only assume the defence decided it was best to just focus on one issue rather than get tied up on 2 issues. Also if it was reclassified as accidental rather than careless then impact doesn't come into it.

what is interesting re impact is that it appears the forearm/elbow high contact appears to have caused no injury and likely not any discomfort. According to the NM medical report there was no head injuries or concussion. It appears his onfield distress and having to leave the field assisted, was caused by contact to his kidney area in the collision and not caused by forearm/elbow.  He apparently passed some blood in his urine and was set later for precautionary kidney scans and doctor said was expected to be able to play next week. If all this is true then impact of forearm/elbow had to be in the low band and not medium.

from the hun report today:

" The Dees accepted that Fritsch’s elbow to North Melbourne’s Tom Powell was high contact and medium impact."

"There was microscopic blood detected in Powell’s urine sample after the match and he underwent a kidney scan on Monday, according to Kangaroos doctor Bianca Scotney’s medical report."

"But Powell was cleared of concussion and suffered no ongoing headaches or jaw pain, with the kidney problem highlighting that more damage was done from Fritsch’s contact to the teenager’s midriff, rather than the elbow to his head."

"Dr Scotney said kidney trauma was “unlikely” and Powell was a strong chance to play against Collingwood in Round 8."

Thank the Lord that it wasn’t Carlton’s medical report .... they would have been detailing the autopsy findings and the funeral if their past incriminating reports are anything to go by. 

4 hours ago, Pates said:

This goes to show you the the MRO makes his decision so much on optics and media chatter rather than actually examining evidence. The reason I say that is that the Hawkins elbow that hit May was immediately called by the commentary as an accident and they were all leaping to his defence. Now I’m not saying he should’ve been suspended but there should have been an official citing and review given the injuries May sustained. 

Compare that to Fritta where they were already hanging him out and making the point the player looked groggy. But a little bit of research from the MRO would’ve concluded that he was helped off because of his kidney impact and not the forearm. 

As for Whateley and Robbo, they’re stuck on the optics rather than examining the facts. I’d expect that from Robbo, but Whateley I’ve thought he was more switched on. 

Christian’s weakness and laziness are just accentuated by these cases. 

2 hours ago, Kiss of Death said:

I notice the pr*ck that cracked Fritta in the head during the 1st quarter wasn’t even mentioned, and every opposition player appears to be able to smack Gawn in the face/head once per game without more than a chortle from the (lack of) brainstrust commentary teams...

if Fritta had fended off Dangerfield, 6 weeks

Christian needs to be replaced by someone who watches the whole of every game without hearing the commentary. 

12 hours ago, KingSlayer33 said:

Q2 - about 10:50 remaining on the countdown. On the northern (attacking) edge of the square for us. Clear trip by Gus.

Thanks. Yes he certainly tripped him, but since when do you get fined for an accidental trip like that?  If you do an intentional trip then you should be rubbed out, not just fined.

There seems to be an assumption in many of these posts that Michael Christian watches every game and decides on his own what should be the subject of sanction and what shouldn't be. I would have thought (without any evidence to back this up) that it is done another way with a small team of AFL employees who watch every game and identify potential issues of concern for MC to consider. If that's correct, MC is more like a judge with the evidence being presented to him by the AFL employees acting as prosecutors. 

Anyone know how the scheme actually works in practice?

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

 

Anyone know how the scheme actually works in practice?

Geez, purple can’t let this go.  Has two cracks at it in his ‘sliding doors’ fluff piece this week.  Get over it you purple headed custard pumper.