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 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.

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

Rioli free to play

cleaning up players going for the ball seems to be fine

play on

Bad precedent set. If they ever followed precedent.

 

lol

next time it happens to do a non-entity player and / or team and they'll throw the book at em

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

Welcome to the circus that is the AFL. 

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.

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

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..

 

 

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.

 

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

 

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!.

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. 

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

diabolical. Way I see it, AFL will intervene and reinstate the suspension. 

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.

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. 

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 March 22, 20223 yr by Cyclops
Spelling

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.

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.

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.