Jump to content

2022 Match Review Panel

Demonland
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Explain a free kick for a front on infringement to me because I reckon Willie Rioli should have got one.

Rowell did not have eyes on the ball unless he has eyes in the back of his head 

Nick Reiwolds famous running with flight mark could have been a free kick against him 

If two players are contesting a mark from different direction then why does one have more rights to mark the ball 

 

 

 

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     

    I think there is a potential Concussion issue in the Rioli/Rowell one and other similar ones this year. To me it seems that what looks to be a head contact of some intensity is just being ignored or nothing to see here type incident. Should the player just be allowed to get up and play on. Who is doing the checking here as it seems more likely than not that the picture just pans away to something else asap.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     
    5 hours ago, Cyclops said:

    Explain a free kick for a front on infringement to me because I reckon Willie Rioli should have got one.

    Rowell did not have eyes on the ball unless he has eyes in the back of his head 

    Nick Reiwolds famous running with flight mark could have been a free kick against him 

    If two players are contesting a mark from different direction then why does one have more rights to mark the ball 

     

     

     

    As I called it Rioli free to play

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    • Vomit 1

    Rioli free to play

    cleaning up players going for the ball seems to be fine

    play on

  • Quote

    His hip flushed him in the head. He did not have eyes for the ball. He crunched a bloke with eyes for the ball and then his team got a goal 15 seconds later. 
     

    message for players - leave the ground, smash blokes and you’ll be right

  • Quote
    • Like 6
    • Vomit 1
     

    Having reviewed the Dangerfield vision, I'd have to say it's inconclusive.

    I.e. it must have been from about 2014 which was about the last time Patty was young enough to jump off the ground with both feet.

  • Quote

    Rioli getting off is a completely unfathomable decision. The Tribunal have just confirmed they are completely out of touch with the average fan. Bizarre 

  • Quote
    • Like 3
    33 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    His hip flushed him in the head. He did not have eyes for the ball. He crunched a bloke with eyes for the ball and then his team got a goal 15 seconds later. 
     

    message for players - leave the ground, smash blokes and you’ll be right

    At times, you've got to wonder what goes on behind the scenes. So the head isn't sacrosanct. Good for the lawyers to know re duty of care..

  • Quote
    • Like 3

    AFL Tribunal saying that holding ground and bracing is much worse than running full pace jumping and meeting a player with eyes for the footy in the head with their hip.

    Animated GIF
     

    AFL needs to appeal and then the need another review of the set up if this is what we are getting.

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    It's a complete joke. what is Robinson meant to do. Get out of the way and be branded a squib or brace for the bump. He could have kept moving and made it worse. This game is going from bad to worse. Soon Basketball will be a tougher game. Absolute stupidity from the AFL. Oh for the good old days!.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    8 hours ago, Cyclops said:

    Explain a free kick for a front on infringement to me because I reckon Willie Rioli should have got one.

    Rowell did not have eyes on the ball unless he has eyes in the back of his head 

    Nick Reiwolds famous running with flight mark could have been a free kick against him 

    If two players are contesting a mark from different direction then why does one have more rights to mark the ball 

     

     

     

    I’ll explain it as it is not really very difficult.  If they both have eyes on the ball then it’s a fair contest.  As soon as one takes their eye off the ball it’s a free (and maybe suspension if they jump in the air and make high contact).  How simple is that concept.  Feel free to forward this to Jeff Gleeson as he obviously has never played the game.

    The pictures also show you don’t need eyes in the back of your head to mark running with the flight.  Just a lot of courage. 

    06E45C91-3EEF-4C03-99F3-FEC454BD7269.thumb.png.85fdc5a62c4f1e4ed66f30df1b1342f1.png229263EE-8502-4E84-9B26-ADD0215192B5.thumb.png.e0732a55e63b3af5e335895992aebfe5.png007308D1-A7AE-420B-B263-186FDE4708F0.thumb.png.04ba32eafc90ee81d4072731562bf1d3.png

  • Quote

    Thanks for merging threads and sorry for missing this thread to start with. Revised for round 1 - AFL off to a bad start, I have tried every angle to see how it looked like a serious attempt to get the ball, never put his arms in the air. To be fair to the AFL it was the tribunal and not the MRO that gave Willie an out. Robinson actually got lower, first time I have ever had sympathy for this guy.

    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 = -2/2

  • Quote

    If I was this bloke's family I would seriously turn up at some blockheads front door and say we want this fixed or else.

  • Quote
    3 hours ago, Watson11 said:

    I’ll explain it as it is not really very difficult.  If they both have eyes on the ball then it’s a fair contest.  As soon as one takes their eye off the ball it’s a free (and maybe suspension if they jump in the air and make high contact).  How simple is that concept.  Feel free to forward this to Jeff Gleeson as he obviously has never played the game.

    The pictures also show you don’t need eyes in the back of your head to mark running with the flight.  Just a lot of courage. 

    06E45C91-3EEF-4C03-99F3-FEC454BD7269.thumb.png.85fdc5a62c4f1e4ed66f30df1b1342f1.png229263EE-8502-4E84-9B26-ADD0215192B5.thumb.png.e0732a55e63b3af5e335895992aebfe5.png007308D1-A7AE-420B-B263-186FDE4708F0.thumb.png.04ba32eafc90ee81d4072731562bf1d3.png

    Thank you for that explanation Watson11 however what you offer is a circumstance. What if both have eyes for the ball and both jump but are going at different speeds? Rioli going out intercept the ball had every right to do that. If in case both had kept their feet then the outcome may have been tragic.

    To me every circumstance seems to have a different interpretation.

    FWIW his name is Jeff Gieschen but the fellow you need is Michael Jennings.

    Edited by Cyclops
    Spelling

  • Quote
    4 hours ago, Cyclops said:

    Thank you for that explanation Watson11 however what you offer is a circumstance. What if both have eyes for the ball and both jump but are going at different speeds? Rioli going out intercept the ball had every right to do that. If in case both had kept their feet then the outcome may have been tragic.

    To me every circumstance seems to have a different interpretation.

    FWIW his name is Jeff Gieschen but the fellow you need is Michael Jennings.

    If Rioli kept his feet he may have been able to make a last minute decision to turn out of the way as he was second to the ball. He left the ground, and he turned his hip into a weapon. We are trying to stop that behaviour.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
     

    The Rioli decision is the latest disgrace in what is an ongoing disgrace: the state of the AFL's MRO/Tribunal system.

    I can't use the word broken enough.

  • Quote
    • Like 8
    • Thanks 1
    5 hours ago, Cyclops said:

    Thank you for that explanation Watson11 however what you offer is a circumstance. What if both have eyes for the ball and both jump but are going at different speeds? Rioli going out intercept the ball had every right to do that. If in case both had kept their feet then the outcome may have been tragic.

    To me every circumstance seems to have a different interpretation.

    FWIW his name is Jeff Gieschen but the fellow you need is Michael Jennings.

    If Rioli chose to contest the mark, he would have had his arms in a position where he could have taken a chest mark. He chose to turn sideways, which could be construed as bracing himself against contact or deliberate head high contact to Rowell with a hip and shoulder. As with the Mitch Robison case, bracing yourself is no defence.

    FWIW, the tribunal panel member's name is Jeff Gleeson.

  • Quote

    • 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...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • GAMEDAY: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

      It's Game Day and the Demons are back on the road for their 3rd interstate game in 4 weeks as they face a fit and firing Crows at Adelaide Oval. With finals now out of our grasps what are you hoping from the Dees today?

        • Thanks
      • 19 replies
      Demonland

    • WHAT’S NEXT? by The Oracle

      What’s next for a beleagured Melbourne Football Club down in form and confidence, facing  intense criticism and disapproval over some underwhelming recent performances and in the midst of a four game losing streak? Why, it’s Adelaide which boasts the best percentage in the AFL and has won six of its last seven games. The Crows are hot and not only that, the game is at the Adelaide Oval; yet another away fixture and the third in a row at a venue outside of Victoria. One of the problems the Demons have these days is that they rarely have the luxury of true home ground advantage, something they have enjoyed just once since mid April. 

        • Thanks
      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Gold Coast

      From the start, Melbourne’s performance against the Gold Coast Suns at Peoples First Stadium was nothing short of a massive botch up and it came down in the first instance to poor preparation. Rather than adequately preparing the team for battle against an opponent potentially on the skids after suffering three consecutive losses, the Demons looking anything but sharp and ready to play in the opening minutes of the game. By way of contrast, the Suns demonstrated a clear sense of purpose and will to win. From the very first bounce of the ball they were back to where they left off earlier in the season in Round Three when the teams met at the MCG. They ran rings around the Demons and finished the game off with a dominant six goal final term. This time, they produced another dominant quarter to start the game, restricting Melbourne to a solitary point to lead by six goals at the first break, by which time, the game was all but over.

        • Clap
        • Thanks
      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Gold Coast

      Coming off four consecutive victories and with a team filled with 17 AFL listed players, the Casey Demons took to their early morning encounter with the lowly Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium with the swagger of a team that thought a win was inevitable. They were smashing it for the first twenty minutes of the game after Tom Fullarton booted the first two goals but they then descended into an abyss of frustrating poor form and lackadaisical effort that saw the swagger and the early arrogance disappear by quarter time when their lead was overtaken by a more intense and committed opponent. The Suns continued to apply the pressure in the second quarter and got out to a three goal lead in mid term before the Demons fought back. A late goal to the home side before the half time bell saw them ten points up at the break and another surge in the third quarter saw them comfortably up with a 23 point lead at the final break.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

      With their season all over bar the shouting the Demons head back on the road for the third week in a row as they return to Adelaide to take on the Crows. Who comes in and who goes out?

        • Thanks
      • 213 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      The Demons did not come to play from the opening bounce and let the Gold Coast kick the first 5 goals of the match. They then outscored the Suns for the next 3 quarters but it was too little too late and their season is now effectively over.

        • Sad
        • Like
      • 231 replies
      Demonland
    View All