Bayley Fritsch cleared of striking

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,137]

Just now, wizardinoz said:

If we have a free hit we should take it & appeal.

They have to weigh up whether it’s worth losing $10K if there’s not much of a defence.

They’ve already recently footed a $50K tab so Harley Bennell could enjoy his afternoon out of the hub last year.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

We won’t appeal but I’d be curious to find out how they came to medium impact.

[Yarra Valley Demon 108]

No reason not to appeal.  The tribunal can't dish out extra weeks, the MRO offered one match or one match for an early plea.  There is zero risk in appealing, worst case he gets the week he was offered.  At best this was low impact.

[ucanchoose 1,803]

Lots of people to mute in this thread!

[Lord Travis 10,163]

Challenge it. Challenge it hard and make some real noise in the media. This horse**** cannot stand.

Time for the club to stand up. We always seem to get a poor run at the tribunal and we just bend over a take it. Multiple other players got off for similar incidents (Dangerfield and Hipwood as examples), so should Fritsch.

If that’s suspension worthy, then players are officially no longer allowed to protect themselves from impact and the rules of the game need to be altered. 

[Clintosaurus 6,421]

If no extra weeks are st risk, definitely appeal. First contact was top of the arm.

[Uncle Fester 2,835]

I think it’s a travesty when an honest hard working Demon can’t whack a scummy Roo in the chops without getting in trouble 

[Bates Mate 3,818]

If not risking extra weeks appeal, but honestly can't see them overturning the decision. The optics of the slow Mo don't look great despite the circumstances

Edited May 3, 2021 by Bates Mate
Spelling

[McQueen 17,862]

Christo trying to justify his job. 
 

Covid cuts missed this peanut. 

[titan_uranus 22,290]

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? 

[dieter 3,325]

The grounds for appeal should be that the tackler was in a low position - see above - and when Fritsch's  forearm made contact with the North player's forearm Fritsch's forearm was deflected upwards. You can actually see this on the replay of the incident.

The AFL is a joke: there should not be laws for the geese and laws for the gander.

Edited May 3, 2021 by dieter

[picket fence 15,103]

12 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Challenge it. Challenge it hard and make some real noise in the media. This horse**** cannot stand.

Time for the club to stand up. We always seem to get a poor run at the tribunal and we just bend over a take it. Multiple other players got off for similar incidents (Dangerfield and Hipwood as examples), so should Fritsch.

If that’s suspension worthy, then players are officially no longer allowed to protect themselves from impact and the rules of the game need to be altered. 

Time to grow some dont give a stuff about intention accident or other.. we ned to stand up and flex WE ARE DEMONS AND ON TOP OF THE LADDER

 

[DemonOX 8,530]

On 5/2/2021 at 4:55 PM, DemonOX said:

He is a dees player and will get a week. 

Ha I was right, doesn’t happen often. 

Just goes to show different rules for Geelong players. Pathetic. 

[monoccular 16,042]

31 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

If you tick the boxes, you get this outcome.

But the boxes weren't ticked this way for Dangerfield in the Grand Final. Why? Because "it was the view of the MRO that Dangerfield's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances".

Implicitly the same result was reached in the Hawkins and Hipwood incidents earlier this year (I can't find any MRO statement on either of those incidents).

So why was Fritsch's incident deemed "unreasonable" when the other three weren't? Each of the other three resulted in worse injuries than Fritsch's, so that can't be it.

 

31 minutes ago, CYB said:

It’s a week. What irks me is how Tomohawk got off. 
 

The media is half responsible for this though.

We could all see this coming and we all know the reasons. 
Inconsistency (to put it kindly) or corruption at the highest levels?   
One rule for Dangerfield (and Hawkins)  and yet another for MFC.  That is what irks many. 

[jnrmac 18,948]

 

[dazzledavey36 48,708]

I'd be very shocked if we didn't appeal.

[brendan 3,380]

Let’s see if this club has grown a set yet 

[Gunna’s 1,799]

Why the inconsistency?

Are we still paying the price for not paying the tanking bill?

Is it that we are an ‘equalisation’ cost to the afl meaning we have no bargaining chips?

Did a Dee whack Christian and this is his vengeance?

I’m sick of the double standards. 

[Dee-lusional 187]

might not be a popular opinion. If you look at this incident by its self (stand alone) ... its a week.

Strange that its a one match ban, with an early plea of one week. 

If you take into account the MR inconsistency I would definitely challenge. Hard to ague the impact was low when you see him get carried off. Could we argue the high impact was due to body positioning of incoming player and the players arm guided it up to head hit. No risk for the appeal but is it worth the time, effort or distraction

Opens the door for the Weid. Completely changes our dynamic. Weid and Brown have played a couple together so will have a little chemistry. Problem is slotting them into our mobile, fast and dynamic forward line. 

Edited May 3, 2021 by Dee-lusional

[rpfc 27,436]

He deserves a week for it - imagine if that was someone on the other team...

He was careless and if he wants to fend off with his forearm instead of his hand then this is what you might do to someone.

I would appeal but not expect anything.

In comes Weideman.

[Nasher 33,047]

16 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Time to grow some dont give a stuff about intention accident or other.. we ned to stand up and flex WE ARE DEMONS AND ON TOP OF THE LADDER

 

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.

[Pates 9,536]

Definitely appeal to get it to low impact. North player had no concussion affects. Also is careless the lowest grading? I’d be arguing accidental as the player came in low and he was doing a fend off action that Dusty does every week. 

[The heart beats true 16,109]

Weeds gets his shot. I don’t mind our flexibility then. Tommy was great behind the ball after half time on the weekend. So can go either way if needed. 
 

 

[mfcrox 143]

4 minutes ago, rpfc said:

He deserves a week for it - imagine if that was someone on the other team...

He was careless and if he wants to fend off with his forearm instead of his hand then this is what you might do to someone.

I would appeal but not expect anything.

In comes Weideman.

Yeah, his name was Tom Hawkins... and he got away with it despite breaking a cheekbone

[daisycutter 28,485]

clean record

protecting broken hand

low impact, player played out game with no lasting injury (nth. dr. report?) 

precedents e.g. dangermouse in gf

worth a try