1 hour ago, Lord Travis said:

Ryan only getting a week for a deliberate bump that hit the head is absurd. Chandler getting two weeks for an unlucky tackle at pace comparatively is even more absurd.

Why does the MRO exist at this point?

Why are the AFL not held accountable for their lies?
Protect the head… ok, then penalty for Ryan’s action is 10 weeks. To ignore the game around you and just hip and shoulder someone’s head is a basically the worst thing you could do on a footy field outside pulling a Barry Hall punch instead.

I don’t mind Chandler getting a two week suspension for the unlucky tackle. I do mind the deliberate head bump having less of a penalty!

The problem with Chandler getting two weeks is that another "more well known player" would have got off. Or received a fine at most. That explains Ryan only getting one and Lynch getting off. 

MRC is like Umpires your happy as long as it is consistent. 

I'm fully confident the MRO would have a consistent approach regardless of who the offender was.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2021-mro-decisions-questioned-michael-christian-dangerous-tackles-concussions-tom-hawkins-zaine-cordy-first-crack/news-story/b9e19954e783c4dc549074d53c659726

I think we should support Kade and appeal. 

Win or lose it doesn’t matter, just show support for our player.

FWIW the last few tackle suspensions appealed were successful,  if I recall correctly.

Someone posted that Hawkins has concussed 3 players in tackles without suspension. He is much bigger than Kade and able to do more damage with heavy tackles, but has repeatedly got away with it.

There are plenty of precedents to show to the Tribunal.

32 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think we should support Kade and appeal. 

Win or lose it doesn’t matter, just show support for our player.

FWIW the last few tackle suspensions appealed were successful,  if I recall correctly.

Someone posted that Hawkins has concussed 3 players in tackles without suspension. He is much bigger than Kade and able to do more damage with heavy tackles, but has repeatedly got away with it.

There are plenty of precedents to show to the Tribunal.

Chandler accepts two-match sanction

Pretty pi$$ poor in my mind.

Deserved to be challenged on the ground the tackle was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

 

49 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Chandler accepts two-match sanction

Disappointing.

Well we at least hold some records for MRO/Tribunal penalties.

Only club to have a player suspended for 4 matches for a sling tackle ( twice - ANB and Jack Trengove)

Only club to have a player suspended for rough play, without actual contact with the opposition player             ( Brent Moloney ) 

Only player to be suspended for an elbow on the throat of an opponent ( Viney )

One of few if any other clubs, to have a player suspended for 2 matches, for an otherwise legal tackle, that became illegal, only as a result of the opponent being concussed.

Only club that has had a player suspended for standing still, while a player ran into him, bounced off and got a whiplash concussion without head contact ( May ). 

I am sure I have missed a few other records we hold at the MRO/Tribunal.

Edited May 17, 20223 yr by Redleg

1 hour ago, Action Jackson said:

Pretty pi$$ poor in my mind.

Deserved to be challenged on the ground the tackle was not unreasonable given the circumstances.

 

Another reason to put down the shutters and plan the retribution reign of reckoning ie  our revonant.

Really disappointing that we aren’t challenging. 

There is no justice in the penalties being handed out by the MRO at all on an individual level.  A two week suspension doesn't really hurt established players like Ryan and Hawkins etc.

Thought Chandler was pretty good when he came on in the last quarter and although Luke Dunstan is probably the most likely replacement for Harmes, I thought Chandler put his best foot forward with his limited game time. Two weeks right now is potentally costing Chandler a chance at establishing his career, for something which was pretty accidental and based on the bad luck of the consequence to the opposition player.  Similar could be said for ANB when he was rubbed out in 2020.

We're a well run club so i'm sure the club considered it and thought better but I don't think we had anything to lose by challenging

Why would we challenge? he drove him into the ground and the bloke was concussed.  being non-deliberate is irrelevant

most of the reasons to challenge by the brains trust on here seem to be coz a big name player wouldn't have been suspended and Ryan only got one week.  great arguments

if people just venting then fair enough

4 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Why would we challenge? he drove him into the ground and the bloke was concussed.  being non-deliberate is irrelevant

most of the reasons to challenge by the brains trust on here seem to be coz a big name player wouldn't have been suspended and Ryan only got one week.  great arguments

if people just venting then fair enough

because precedents are important. less than 6 months ago hawkins did a very similar tackle causing concussion and not only was he not suspended, he wasn't even fined

the mro never explained why these cases are different

how do you train players to tackle if you can't properly define what is a suspendable tackle and what is just an unfortunate football action or even a non-culpable accident

I just don't know what you're meant to do anymore. We want our players to tackle but if someone gets concussed well hey "It's in the rules". Why the hell would anyone want to lay a great tackle now if they are going to get rubbed out?

I want the MRO to outline clearly what players must do, what is the correct way to tackle from behind, step by step in a way that if that player performs this tackle 20 times, none of them will be deemed suspension worthy. 

38 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

because precedents are important. less than 6 months ago hawkins did a very similar tackle causing concussion and not only was he not suspended, he wasn't even fined

the mro never explained why these cases are different

how do you train players to tackle if you can't properly define what is a suspendable tackle and what is just an unfortunate football action or even a non-culpable accident

Don’t Pin the Arms. Head Slams into turf….

I think Chandler has been treated unfairly by the MRO

I found some footage of tackles similar to Chandler's as a visual comparison 

August 2021: Hawkins tackles Joyce (concussed). MRO decision: NO PENALTY

August 2021: Cordy tackles Koschitzke (played on) MRO decision: $2000 PENALTY

May 2022: Chandler tackles Foley (concussed) MRO decision: 2 WEEK SUSPENSION

Footage below:

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/chandler-hits-foley/video/c180b325d3e3589d2116f5f72310ac56

As I said, I think Chandler has been treated unfairly by the MRO.

MFC should appeal.

 

 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

because precedents are important. less than 6 months ago hawkins did a very similar tackle causing concussion and not only was he not suspended, he wasn't even fined

the mro never explained why these cases are different

how do you train players to tackle if you can't properly define what is a suspendable tackle and what is just an unfortunate football action or even a non-culpable accident

Not arguing the MRO don’t need to change or how we can train players. Simply saying there is no purpose in challenging the suspension. 

All he did wrong was pin the arms other than that it was a perfect tackle. Stiff to get 2 weeks. Hawkins is a protected species.

Personally I think both are about right

Chandler pinned the arms and tackled him head first into the ground. Crazy dangerous despite a lack of intent. By pinning the arms he has a duty of care to make sure the opponents head doesn't whack into the ground. Imagine the uproar here if it was the other way around and our bloke got ko'd or your son - would not be happy one bit. 

Liam Ryan only takes 1-2 steps into the bump. It was certainly an intentional bump with bowzas head down. However ther really isn't much force in it and bowey isn't injured. Clumsy bumps happen regularly - he's lucky that he didn't generate more force into the bump and didn't connect. End result is a high contact low force knock - 1-2 weeks for mine - he got the lower end. I'm strangely OK with it

7 hours ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Personally I think both are about right

Chandler pinned the arms and tackled him head first into the ground. Crazy dangerous despite a lack of intent. By pinning the arms he has a duty of care to make sure the opponents head doesn't whack into the ground. Imagine the uproar here if it was the other way around and our bloke got ko'd or your son - would not be happy one bit. 

Liam Ryan only takes 1-2 steps into the bump. It was certainly an intentional bump with bowzas head down. However ther really isn't much force in it and bowey isn't injured. Clumsy bumps happen regularly - he's lucky that he didn't generate more force into the bump and didn't connect. End result is a high contact low force knock - 1-2 weeks for mine - he got the lower end. I'm strangely OK with it

Surely the intentional part of it bumps it up

I hope the coaches can educate both Kade and the broader playing group on what Kade should have done. Looked textbook to me with unfortunate head contact.

8 hours ago, Sideshow Bob said:

Personally I think both are about right

Chandler pinned the arms and tackled him head first into the ground. Crazy dangerous despite a lack of intent. By pinning the arms he has a duty of care to make sure the opponents head doesn't whack into the ground. Imagine the uproar here if it was the other way around and our bloke got ko'd or your son - would not be happy one bit. 

Liam Ryan only takes 1-2 steps into the bump. It was certainly an intentional bump with bowzas head down. However ther really isn't much force in it and bowey isn't injured. Clumsy bumps happen regularly - he's lucky that he didn't generate more force into the bump and didn't connect. End result is a high contact low force knock - 1-2 weeks for mine - he got the lower end. I'm strangely OK with it

Whether sub-consciously or overtly you are focusing on the outcomes.

How can you call the tackle "crazy dangerous" but the bump "clumsy" and "happens regularly" (the latter of which is irrelevant, indeed tackles happen far more regularly than off-the-ball bumps)?

Even accepting the tackle was dangerous, the bump had equal potential to destroy Bowey's head/jaw. It didn't, and for that we should all be grateful, but of the two actions neither is more dangerous than the other. At least Chandler's is part of the game. If anything was clumsy it was Chandler's tackle.

the mro are the arbiter, rightly or wrongly

the mro adjudicated hawkins (very similar) tackle as not even worthy of a fine. it's on the record.

there's your case for an appeal

meanwhile the afl can do a better job of defining exactly what is a suspendable tackle versus an unfortunate footy action.  and they can explain why they didn't appeal the hawkin's case if they are sincere.

Edited May 17, 20223 yr by daisycutter

5 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the mro are the arbiter, rightly or wrongly

the mro adjudicated hawkins (very similar) tackle as not even worthy of a fine. it's on the record.

there's your case for an appeal

meanwhile the afl can do a better job of defining exactly what is a suspendable tackle versus an unfortunate footy action.  and they can explain why they didn't appeal the hawkin's case if they are sincere.

It's not just Hawkins v Chandler, too.

What about Tom Lynch getting nothing for his elbow to Impey's head, but last year Toby Greene got 2 weeks for his elbow to Dangerfield's head?

Again, like Hawkins v Chandler, I can find no material difference between the two.

How are players supposed to know when something is a reportable offence and when something isn't? The MRO's statements do nothing to assist - how does this explain why Lynch got off?

The incident involving Richmond's Tom Lynch and Hawthorn's Jarman Impey from the third quarter of Saturday's match between Richmond and Hawthorn was assessed. Lynch takes possession of the loose ball on the wing. Impey approaches to tackle from side on and high contact is made by Lynch on Impey. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Lynch's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.

There's nothing in that paragraph which explains why Lynch's elbow was "not unreasonable in the circumstances".

10 hours ago, AC/DeeC said:

I think Chandler has been treated unfairly by the MRO

I found some footage of tackles similar to Chandler's as a visual comparison 

August 2021: Hawkins tackles Joyce (concussed). MRO decision: NO PENALTY

August 2021: Cordy tackles Koschitzke (played on) MRO decision: $2000 PENALTY

May 2022: Chandler tackles Foley (concussed) MRO decision: 2 WEEK SUSPENSION

Footage below:

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/chandler-hits-foley/video/c180b325d3e3589d2116f5f72310ac56

As I said, I think Chandler has been treated unfairly by the MRO.

MFC should appeal.

Seeing these and the results the MRO is the most frustrating thing. If I had to guess the MRO has penalised Chandler heavier for two reasons.

Firstly the optics of Foley after the tackle, he was out and looking in a bad way. These are images that the AFL hates as it goes against their policy of “head is sacrosanct” and all that has. Forget the fact that he was actually sitting up and looked a lot better than other concussed players, the initial aftermath of his teammates helping to shift his head around looked “ugly”. 

Secondly he is a fringe player and so a hefty penalty gets shoved under the radar. Lyon made a strong point of the football act Chandler did getting penalised heavier than Ryan’s deliberate elbow to Bowser is ultimately wrong but that was the largest outcry I heard. 

I’ve given up trying to rationalise the MRO findings. 

What utter BS from the hoax and farce that is the AFLs MRO

There was zero malice in Chandlers tackle - how he gets a two match suspension and Hawkins consistently gets away with everything is a complete joke