I know it ain’t VFL being discussed here, but any news re Mitch Brown being apparently KOd off the play by some Bomber scumbag?

Just saw very tailend of it and looked very bad. VFL MUST act on this. Player subbed of and took no further part in game. WATCH this space

Can anyone explain how Ryder could have avoided Day running into him.

In fact, I saw a similar incident in the Adelaide game on the weekend, where a player ran into a stationary opposition player and it was 'play on'. 

I still spit chips about the May suspension in the practice match against Brisbane in May's first year. The circumstances were similar: in my view, May stood his ground as the Brisbane player cannoned into him. Had may, or Ryder, turned and ran the world would have laughed at them. That, would have been the real joke.

 

Ryder had the option of smothering the kick. His suspension was the most uncontroversial of the year. If you choose to bump and the opposition player suffers a head knock, you are gone. Everyone knows that.

Firstly, Ryder wasn't stationary. 

Secondly, Ryder could have attempted to smother the ball, corral Day to pressure him into a rushed kick or even attempt to tackle him front on. 

There were multiple alternatives to bracing and bumping Day. 

How pwople cannot see that Ryder had options but still elected to brace and bump is simply astonishing. 

Genuinely astonishing. 

It's so simple. 

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by JimmyGadson

Poor awareness from Day.

I think Ryder was stationary.

Tim English did exactly the same last week.

If you elect to bump you are responsible for whatever head injury occurs to the person you bump. 

Ryder bump + Day concussion = weeks.

It is only controversial if you don't know the rule. The players know the rule.

Ryder had a Hawks player run in his path as he was trying to apply pressure to Will Day. After that he only less than a second with Day running at him. He turned his body and bumped but without force. Day has some responsibility to gird himself as well. I cant see him being able to smother in this case. 2 weeks is too much.

1 minute ago, dee-tox said:

Poor awareness from Day.

I think Ryder was stationary.

Tim English did exactly the same last week.

Haha, mate the onus is always on the player without the ball. 

Do you live under a rock? 

Ryder most clearly wasn't stationary. He was moving, no matter how slow. And he bumped. And hit day's head. So he's gone. 

I keep forgetting it's school holidays. 

 

10 minutes ago, Damo said:

He turned his body and bumped .....

Everything else, other than this phrase and the Day head injury, is irrelevant to the tribunal. 

If you choose to bump and the other player injures their head, it doesn't matter how much power it has, how unlucky it was or how unforeseeable the other events are, you are gone. 

He was unlucky, it had very little power and Day didn't do a good job of protecting himself. Ryder could consider himself unfortunate and he clearly didn't mean to hit him in the head (look at his reaction) .... but 2 weeks is what you'd expect. He grew up in a time where those bumps were part of the game and he's having to unlearn those habits. Hopefully the next generation will grow up with different habits. 

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by Axis of Bob

27 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

 

Do you live under a rock? 

I keep forgetting it's school holidays. 

 

Ah, abuse, the last refuge of the ignorant.

The Ryder is an easy one. He chose to bump when the bloke was open. 

On 4/3/2022 at 10:56 AM, Lucifers Hero said:

Even the MRO is going soft on the Bulldogs?

On the Blakey hit, the MRO said:  “English gets to a stationary position before turning his body and making contact with player Blakey. It was determined by the MRO that English’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.“

round-three-match-review-panel

Take a look at the video in that article.  To my eye English steadies for half a second, pivots on his left foot, leaving the ground then tunnels his right shoulder Blakey as he turns wd.  Hits Blakey's head.  I would think there would be a bit of force behind the shoulder while pivoting.  Huge potential to cause damage.

English also chose not to tackle when that option was clearly available to him.

I don't know what or if there should of been a penalty.  But. the MRO's explanation of English being stationery and ignoring the risks, both make a mockery of the review system and eliminating head high contact.

Some other poor soul will get a fine or suspension for the same thing and the MRO will make up some other explanation...

Compare the above English decision a few weeks ago, to the Ryder one.  Ryder was more stationary than English.  He was unlucky there was concussion.

The English bump had equally as much if not more 'potential to cause damage' as the Ryder bump but the MRO chose to ignore the potential in that case. 

If they penalised the potential for damage there would be fewer English/Ryder cases and fewer concussions.

Either potential to cause damage is an issue or they stop pretending that it is as they almost never take it into account when deciding sanctions.  Walk the Talk or stop the spin!

As someone else mentioned English hit Nankervis full on in the face giving him a blood nose in a ruck contest.  No penalty.  No MRO sanction.   Yet other ruckman and particularly Max, get a free against for putting out an arm out at chest height to stop the op ruckman putting a knee in their chest.  Umpires and MRO really need to be more consistent. 

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

5 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Compare the above English decision to Ryder.  Ryder was more stationary than English.T

The English bump had equally as much if not more 'potential to cause damage' as the Ryder bump but the MRO chose to ignore the potential in the English case.

Either potential to cause damage is an issue or stop pretending that it is and almost never take it into account when deciding sanctions.

As someone else mentioned English hit Nankervis full on in the face giving him a blood nose in a ruck contest.  No penalty.  No MRO sanction.   Yet other ruckman and particularly Max, get a free against for putting out an arm out at chest height to stop the op ruckman putting a knee in their chest.  Umpires and MRO really need to be more consistent. 

Agreed. English deserved a week

59 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Compare the above English decision a few weeks ago, to the Ryder one.  Ryder was more stationary than English.  He was unlucky there was concussion.

The English bump had equally as much if not more 'potential to cause damage' as the Ryder bump but the MRO chose to ignore the potential in that case. 

If they penalised the potential for damage there would be fewer English/Ryder cases and fewer concussions.

Either potential to cause damage is an issue or they stop pretending that it is as they almost never take it into account when deciding sanctions.  Walk the Talk or stop the spin!

As someone else mentioned English hit Nankervis full on in the face giving him a blood nose in a ruck contest.  No penalty.  No MRO sanction.   Yet other ruckman and particularly Max, get a free against for putting out an arm out at chest height to stop the op ruckman putting a knee in their chest.  Umpires and MRO really need to be more consistent. 

100% agree that the incidents were the same, and English should have been suspended.

If the AFL is trying to mitigate against players suffering post career head trauma, then as you say, it's nonsense that English gets off because Blakey didn't appear to suffer any immediate effects.

 

2 hours ago, Axis of Bob said:

If you elect to bump you are responsible for whatever head injury occurs to the person you bump. 

Ryder bump + Day concussion = weeks.

It is only controversial if you don't know the rule. The players know the rule.

This is correct.

To remove all doubt, the position should go further and be that if you elect to bump and you make any contact to the head, you will be suspended for at least one week. That is, you will get one week for no injury. If there is a minor injury, it's two weeks, and the more severe the injury the more weeks you get.

Can we just acknowledge the definition of stationary? This means not moving at all. Was he going full pelt? Definitely not, but stationary isn't the right word for this situation. 

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by layzie

Saints challenging Ryder’s ban tonight, interesting to see what happens with that one.

In the spirit of the game, he should get off. From the perspective of what the AFL wants, he should get suspended. Looking at previous performances of the tribunal, who the bl00dy hell knows.

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by Demon Disciple

 

23 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

In the spirit of the game, he should get off. From the perspective of what the AFL wants, he should get suspended. Looking at previous performances of the tribunal, who the bl00dy hell knows.

Correct. The one certainty of the MRP ( and its various previous incarnations ) has been its perplexing uncertainty.

don't see ryder's hit as too different to the one may did in his first preseason game for the dees, for which he copped a week from memory

Is BBB suspended?  I thought I saw somewhere that he has been offered 1-2 matches

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by Salems Lot

5 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

Haha, mate the onus is always on the player without the ball. 

Do you live under a rock? 

Ryder most clearly wasn't stationary. He was moving, no matter how slow. And he bumped. And hit day's head. So he's gone. 

I keep forgetting it's school holidays. 

 

He did not 'bump': he braced himself before a collision which was inevitable because of Day's momentum.

17 minutes ago, dieter said:

He did not 'bump': he braced himself before a collision which was inevitable because of Day's momentum.

yeah, just like poor old byron