Jump to content

  • Podcast:      

  • Podcast:     

Bayley Fritsch cleared of striking


McQueen
 Share


Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 7
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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!!! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 3
  • Angry 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by monoccular
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by PaulRB
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


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 by PaulRB
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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”.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

622E238E-EB42-4887-BB33-9E966A309E0C.jpeg

Edited by —coach—
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Whispering_Jack changed the title to Bayley Fritsch cleared of striking

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles  

    BLUE VIBE AT IKON by Meggs

    It was such a nice vibe at Ikon on Friday night.     Princes Park looked in excellent condition, a relaxed but modest crowd and President Kate Roffey and CEO Gary Pert in attendance, greeting fans and shaking hands.     It was an evening with little to complain about for Dees supporters, save for some drizzling rain, a few missed scoring opportunities and the fact that the Dees as raging favourites duly took the four points.   Carlton was always going to struggle to cover

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    BLUES AWAY by Meggs

    This Round 5 clash against the Blues at Princes Park (officially known as Ikon Park) is a great chance for the Dees to bounce back to the winning circle following our top-of-the-table loss to Brisbane last week.     Carlton will be missing several key players with the pundits calling 10 to nil.  Raging favouritism is never a comfortable thing for Melbourne supporters but we simply must deliver on Friday night.   History has seen these teams play four times since 2017 with the Dee

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    LIONS POUNCE by Meggs

    Early Sunday afternoon Meggs was coffeeing in Mornington and witnessing hail, thunder, lightning, rain, wind and feeling the freezing temperatures and knowing all these elements were heading towards Casey Fields.  Oh dear.  The Brisbane coach had said during the week that he wanted the game moved to Marvel because “if you're going to have two of the better teams in the comp playing, (it warrants) a venue and deck that suits the occasion”.  However, Casey Fields was uncharacteristi

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    RAINING PREMIERS by KC from Casey

    If the threatening dark grey skies that loomed above Ikon Park before the VFL Grand Final didn’t provide a sufficiently inhospitable reception for our visitors from sunny Queensland, the rains that bucketed down after quarter time certainly did. For years, the Casey Demons have welcomed opposing teams at their home fortress with rain, hail, wind and frosty conditions and it was just Southport’s luck that they met those conditions head on in the VFL’s big dance. They suited Casey’s skillful

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    PRIDE OF VICTORIA by KC from Casey

    When Casey Demons coach Mark Corrigan talks about his charges putting their “best foot forward” on Sunday when they take on the Southport Sharks in the 2022 VFL Grand Final, it’s a signal that his team is on a mission not only for themselves but in  the name of their forebears, the Springvale Scorpions, and indeed for the pride and honour of the entire State of Victoria. The VFL club now known as the Casey Demons last won a premiership flag under the name of the Springvale Scorpions but tha

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles

    NARRM AT HOME by Meggs

    For the fourth consecutive week, and the second week as the mighty Narrm, we take on a Top 8 team. Could this match be a preview of the Season 7 Grand Final?   Our opponents this week, Brisbane, stand undefeated atop the AFLW ladder after slaying the struggling Freo, and the unrated Giants and Gold Coast.  After amassing 225 points for and only 56 against, for a percentage of 401.8%, the pundits are claiming the Lions have the best attack the competition has ever seen.   Brisbane

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    CHANGES 2022 by The Oracle

    Part 1: The year we stood still (or did we?).  Premiership coach David Parkin who  coincidentally turned 80 yesterday, famously used to say that even a premiership team needs to bring at least five new players into the fold in order to advance from year to year and therefore, if this adage remains true, then the Melbourne Football Club really did stand still in 2022.  Of the players recruited after the club’s premiership in September, 2021, only Luke Dunstan (5 games) managed to provid

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features

    NARRM BLITZES EARLY by Meggs

    The last time we played the Saints, Pride Round 3 January 2022, it was an arm wrestle for 3 quarters and a Demons highlights package for 1 quarter. Oddly familiar was our outing to Moorabbin on Sunday, except this week we are Narrm and it’s Indigenous Round.   Our highlights package was contained to a first quarter onslaught. Superior work at stoppages and our mids dominant.  We showcased our run and carry and our dynamic forward line.  With Hore, Zanker twice, Bannan, Fitzsimon and Paxy al

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    THE CASEY SHOW by KC from Casey

    The Casey Demons will play in the VFL Grand Final at Ikon Park next Sunday after overturning their final round loss to the Brisbane Lions Reserves and dominating the Preliminary Final to emerge victorious by 51 points.  And while the distance in standards between the AFL and VFL at finals time is admittedly a wide one and the opposition and conditions different, there were a few Demons on display who excelled to the point where one was left to ask whether they could have made the difference

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Casey Articles
  • Tell a friend

    Love Demonland? Tell a friend!

×
×
  • Create New...