Whately interviewed Dangerfield this morning. 
this of course was not mentioned 

38 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

At least Greene's was in one motion, Danger re-extended his leg to make contact 

Pretty bad look and will go on to be ignored 

Danger should have gotten a week for that

I thought Maynard was a touch stiff.  the bloke knocked himself out on the ground and so Maynard got 2 weeks.  if the bloke didnt fall so awkwardly he would have been cleared.  unlucky

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Whately interviewed Dangerfield this morning. 
this of course was not mentioned 

Lyon and Watson also interviewed him today.

Too busy talking about fishing, the price of petrol etc, than tackling the big issues.

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

Danger should have gotten a week for that

I thought Maynard was a touch stiff.  the bloke knocked himself out on the ground and so Maynard got 2 weeks.  if the bloke didnt fall so awkwardly he would have been cleared.  unlucky

If Maynard had gone with a straight arm to punch instead of a round arm that collected his head with the bicep, the bloke would have a better chance to land.

From what the tribunal has indicated, Maynard caused the contact, and it doesn't really matter whether the concussion occurs with the direct hit or the subsequent landing of the player in question.

PS: That Dangerfield action is shocking, but not as bad as the fact that the media are too scared to raise the spectre of their darling doing something bad.  Dangerfield, Selwood and Hawkins have a thuggery element that is almost never exposed by the media.

5 minutes ago, Ouch! said:

If Maynard had gone with a straight arm to punch instead of a round arm that collected his head with the bicep, the bloke would have a better chance to land.

From what the tribunal has indicated, Maynard caused the contact, and it doesn't really matter whether the concussion occurs with the direct hit or the subsequent landing of the player in question.

PS: That Dangerfield action is shocking, but not as bad as the fact that the media are too scared to raise the spectre of their darling doing something bad.  Dangerfield, Selwood and Hawkins have a thuggery element that is almost never exposed by the media.

Yep, that's the bit I don't agree with.  Hopefully they are at least consistent with the interpretation this year

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Lyon and Watson also interviewed him today.

Too busy talking about fishing, the price of petrol etc, than tackling the big issues.

Patrick can do no wrong 

he speaks well

Classic Velvet Sledgehammer 

2 hours ago, Ouch! said:

From what the tribunal has indicated, Maynard caused the contact.

 

Well it wasn't the guy on the ground.

I was surprised that he only got 2 weeks. Doesn't matter where it hits above the shoulder or with what part of the arm. It was a late, reckless, head high, swinging arm contact. If they are going to protect the head, then 4 weeks minimum.

Toby must be [censored] off.  He gets into trouble (correctly) for using his leg to sort of 'protect the ball drop' and Dangerfield, puts his leg down and in a seperate action raises it again high up.  The AFL wants us to respect umpires - perhaps the AFL should work on earning our respect.

5 hours ago, MrFreeze said:

At least Greene's was in one motion, Danger re-extended his leg to make contact 

Pretty bad look and will go on to be ignored 

I disagree. Greene kicked his opponent in the head. Dangerfield basically pushed his opponent in the chest with his foot. IMV not comparable. I'm no Dangerfield apologist and I thought it was ridiculous he appealed his suspension early last year on the grounds of protecting himsaeld from the collision. Surely though, the fact he was suspended last year shows he's not getting special treatment.

32 minutes ago, tiers said:

Well it wasn't the guy on the ground.

I was surprised that he only got 2 weeks. Doesn't matter where it hits above the shoulder or with what part of the arm. It was a late, reckless, head high, swinging arm contact. If they are going to protect the head, then 4 weeks minimum.

I'm with you tiers. I accept the fact that the contact was accidental, but it was definitely careless. Lloyd could have just as easily been concussed from the contact as from hitting his head on the ground. And why did he his head on the ground? Because he was unbalanced from being hit in the head. I was amazed that Collingwood appealed this and my faith in the process was restored somewhat by the MRO chucking the appeal out. Lucky to geet onlt 2 weeks IMV.

Having said that, I really don't understand why the level of injury should have any effect one way or the other. Why should the rule be that if you're lucky your opponent isn't injured the penalty iis less (and vice versa). It should be the action, not the consequences, that count 

14 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I disagree. Greene kicked his opponent in the head. Dangerfield basically pushed his opponent in the chest with his foot. IMV not comparable. I'm no Dangerfield apologist and I thought it was ridiculous he appealed his suspension early last year on the grounds of protecting himsaeld from the collision. Surely though, the fact he was suspended last year shows he's not getting special treatment

Disagree.  There was no justification for the 2 actions. His foot came very close to his head.  Given the attention Greene's tactics were getting, he may well have been rubbed out if his foot hit the 'chest' rather than the head.

I won't get into an argument about Dangerfield getting special treatment except to say you can have special treatment but still occasionally not get off.  Do you suggest there are no players who get special treatment?  Some still get rubbed out - cats only have 9 lives.

36 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I Dangerfield basically pushed his opponent in the chest with his foot.

His foot should not have been raised at all nor extended after taking the ball. Feet should not make contact in any way.

Minimum 2 weeks for raised foot making contact.

2 hours ago, Sydney_Demon said:

I disagree. Greene kicked his opponent in the head. Dangerfield basically pushed his opponent in the chest with his foot. IMV not comparable. I'm no Dangerfield apologist and I thought it was ridiculous he appealed his suspension early last year on the grounds of protecting himsaeld from the collision. Surely though, the fact he was suspended last year shows he's not getting special treatment.

Greene's action was legal at the time. The rule has since been changed, and both actions are now illegal, but I think worthy only of free kicks.

2 hours ago, sue said:

Disagree.  There was no justification for the 2 actions. His foot cabutme very close to his head.  Given the attention Greene's tactics were getting, he may well have been rubbed out if his foot hit the 'chest' rather than the head.

I won't get into an argument about Dangerfield getting special treatment except to say you can have special treatment but still occasionally not get off.  Do you suggest there are no players who get special treatment?  Some still get rubbed out - cats only have 9 lives.

Sorry. You are right. Of course certain players can be rubbed out on occasion and still in general be treated leniently. Maybe Dangerfield falls into this category. The general tenor of the posts on this seemed to be that Dangerfeld always gets away with these sorts of actions because he he is an AFL darling, which I think is an overstatement (because  he clearly doesn't always gert away with it!).

5 hours ago, Ouch! said:

Dangerfield, Selwood and Hawkins have a thuggery element that is almost never exposed by the media.

I'm no Geelong apologist but really? Thuggery? I don't like the way Selwood always whinges to umpires and plays for free kicks but I don't think he has a thuggery element to his game. And Tom Hawkins?

On 3/9/2022 at 2:47 PM, DubDee said:

Yep, that's the bit I don't agree with.  Hopefully they are at least consistent with the interpretation this year

I don't have a problem if that is the call. How can you say if he was concussed by the hit or by hitting the ground? It's impossible, but you can say that the end result was caused by an action that the player making the spoil was responsible for. But I agree that the consistency of applying the rules is key!

Going to try and keep a running update (with a bit of editorial as is my habit, and absolute bias in anything involving JV). Not going to waste time on the jumper punches etc. Feel free to remind me if I miss an incident and any constructive suggestions please share. Any ideas on other Tribunal matters I/ we should be watching. At the end of the year we can assess if the bump is truly dead, on current evidence no.

This weeks MRO report.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/724584/match-review-eagle-learns-fate-crow-banned-for-eye-contact

Brisbane - Mitch Robinson bump on Xavier Duursma - was graded as careless conduct, high contact and medium impact. I say BS, Robbo is a (~^+, but conduct not careless, he stopped and propped and Duursma got pushed lower. Duty of Care exercised.

WCE - Willie Rioli bump on Matt Rowell -  graded as careless conduct, medium impact and high contact, resulting in a one-match ban that brings Rioli's comeback to a halt. I say BS, left his feet, no eye for the ball, impact should have been judged high. Intent also was clearly to bump.

Scoring for Head High:

Correct call = 1 pt (think Toby Greene 6 weeks)

Insufficient Call =.5 pt (half right i.e. Rioli)

Bad Call = 0 (flat out wrong)

Bogus Call = -1 (Star player like Paddy getting off or MFC Tax being exercised - where we get slammed extra)

Out of however many possible HH Incidents there are during a round.

Head High Running score for MRO r1, 2022 = 0.5/2

 

Good luck with this thread mate, could be a long one!

agree with your assessments in round 1. 
Rioli was graded as medium impact!?! Maybe the MRO should cop this hit and see how they recover? And careless? He clearly made no attempt to mark. In the MROs eyes Robinson and Rioli showed the same intent. What a joke

lets hope Robinson gets off at the tribunal 

The MRO is truly bizarre in it's reasoning, is it still just Christensen deliberating with darts and a spinning dart board with random outcomes on it?

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

The MRO is truly bizarre in it's reasoning, is it still just Christensen deliberating with darts and a spinning dart board with random outcomes on it?

No and Yes

No - its is Michael Christian and Yes it is darts and a board....

Gee whiz, Rioli could have killed Matt Rowell. Seriously dangerous to life and limb with  deliberate intent to take him out. Rioli is incredibly lucky not to have seriously injured or maimed Rowell. One week your joking. 

Rioli's action was disgraceful, and he should have copped multiple weeks. AFL should appeal.

HS today has an article by Robbo comparing Draper's deliberate strike (fine only) with the Robinson case (suspension). I agree that Draper should have copped a week, and have no idea what Robinson was expected to do in that situation.