Chandler Tackle

[Mincho Mania 530]

Intentional head high contact, 1 week. Accidental head contact 2?

Someone earlier mentioned the AFL's amateurish, I'd prefer Corrupt!

And why wasn't Jones pinned for tunneling the week before?

Ryan will probably miss next week anyway with a hammy

[OhMyDees 1,321]

How does Liam Ryan hit a bloke in the head nowhere near the ball and only gets 1 week?

Ryan is lucky Bowser is made of tough stuff and played out the rest of the game. 

Chandler stiff to get 2 for that. Even 1 week would have been too severe. Absolute disgrace! 

[gOLLy 401]

The MRO must  be abandoned.

Take it straight to the tribunal.

[Phil C 534]

16 minutes ago, Age said:

Ryan got 1

What the actual [censored]

[Bobby McKenzie 2,169]

9 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

That’s a disgrace.

Looked very deliberate did Ryan's action. Should have been at least two weeks. Chandler hard done by. Thats how you are supposed to tackle. We are not playing netball here. No offence girls, Netball is a great game.

[#11-TonyAnderson 694]

20 minutes ago, Age said:

Ryan got 1

Deliberately lined Bowey up - should get at least 2!

[Deeoldfart 7,720]

Unbelievable inconsistency.  An embarrassment to the AFL!  A blight on the competition!

I give up!

[BDA 20,025]

I'd argue the action wasn't careless. It was a well executed tackle where unfortunately the Eagles player got hurt. It happens in footy. Not sure what Chandler was supposed to do. It's worth a challenge imv. 

[OhMyDees 1,321]

Appeal. Club must stand behind Chandler.
 

Wasn’t reckless and he executed a great tackle. Not his fault the other bloke face planted - impossible to prevent given Chandlers momentum. 

[tiers 2,761]

Gross, grotesque and grievous error by MRO to give Chandler 2 weeks. Contrary to the spirit of our great game.

His action is not remotely culpable when compared to Ryan's deliberate assault.

How else was Chandler to tackle - under his armpits, tickle his tummy? It started as a perfect tackle and should have been rewarded.

An appeal to the tribunal is a must.

 

 

[McQueen 17,862]

Outcome versus intent.

Are we really surprised after all these years?

[Demonstone 19,084]

According to the MRO, what Chandler did was twice as bad as what Ryan did.  Farce.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

1 minute ago, Demonstone said:

According to the MRO, what Chandler did was twice as bad as what Ryan did.  Farce.

Does that mean what Ryan did was infinitely worse than what McGovern did?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

1 minute ago, Demonstone said:

According to the MRO, what Chandler did was twice as bad as what Ryan did.  Farce.

Let's be honest the MRO went heavy on Chandler because he is a no name and unlikely to play next week anyway and went easy on Ryan because WCE are already struggling to field a side as it is. It's a farce, there is no transparency or consistency whatsoever.

For example can someone explain what specifically is the difference between reckless and careless and how this is applied by the MRO?

[Demonstone 19,084]

What Ryan did was neither reckless nor careless.  It was intentional.

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

Liam Ryan only gets 1 week….

The ball had passed and he lined up Bowey and took him out. 
This is Corruption 

1 Week

Get F

[Deesprate 1,162]

I can live with Chandlers being pinned and driven into ground is about as dangerous as it get. The feeling as your pile driven and helpless is sickening. Whether it deliberate is beside the point he need to learn to tackle differently. BUT that one week for Ryan is stupefying. His actions were premeditated and deliberate. If you compare the two it is much worse. In our courts manslaughter ie death without intent is less than murder with intent. This decision is simply astonishing and appalling. It is pure dumb luck Bowery was not seriously injured. The MRO said it was careless it wasn’t it was premeditated hit. Get downgraded to careless why other than he a well known player and Chandlers a no body. The AFLis a freakin joke

[von 1,217]

This is where intent vs outcome needs to be looked at. Intent creates much more consistency I would think. Outcome is impossible to work with because there are too many variables. No matter what you police with outcome there will be situations like chandlers. All the while stray elbows, forearms and punches go unpunished. One is an unfortunate part of the game that will never go away no matter what rules we create, the other looks terrible, has 100 percent more malice involved and has the potential to create huge amount of injury. We are trying to remove concussion in a game where it’s impossible to do so. Will punishing chandler help reduce concussion, I don’t think so. He will make that tackle every time and so he should. Meanwhile Ryan gets one week, where the intent was far greater, not in the spirit of the game, bla bla bla and the afl wonders why the fans have issues with the umpires, mro, rules committee etc. they are set up to fail 

[Pates 9,536]

Challenge, big time. Have to stand up for Chandler here. 

Was it a bit careless? A bit. But one action, and the player wasn’t concussed. Based on others surely it’s a week at most. 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Pates

[ucanchoose 1,803]

Here they all come lol

[Call Me What You Will 693]

As soon as the commentators began the narrative it was clear our lad was going to be done over by the system. And of course, those of us who have been around for a while knew how it would stack up against the Ryan incident. Melbourne consistently gets shafted by the farcical and some would say corrupt MRO. (See multiple posts in the last 4 pages for details).

Having said that, this is the last frontier for the “new Melbourne” - we simply must take it as high as it will go. If Kade is to get 2 weeks, then Gary Pert, Kate Roffey and the whole club must make a stand and if he does go down, we all go down together.

[Pates 9,536]

Not the first time a Melbourne fringe player has been hung out to dry on a dangerous tackle, is there a reason why we seem to cop the harshest suspensions for these?

[bing181 8,163]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

For example can someone explain what specifically is the difference between reckless and careless and how this is applied by the MRO?

I'll have a crack: it comes down to intent. Careless is just that, but reckless implies that you knew the action could cause damage but you went ahead anyway.

[Gawndy the Great 7,313]

Can’t we pull out the old cliche ‘it was a footy action’ ? which is how Hawkins got off. 

As many have said no issue with the suspension- you don’t want concussion in the game. But someone needs to explain how and why Hawkins one was different. 

[deejammin' 2,065]

That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. How can a player who runs past the ball, chooses to bump, hits a player high be less severe than a tackle that is one motion, let’s go of the arms and is ultimately pretty unlucky. I had Ryan getting two, Chandler getting one, this is getting beyond a joke. Punish legitimate football actions that result in accidents, elbow blokes in the head (Lynch), kick blokes with your studs (Cotchin), bury blokes in a tackle (Hawkins), nothing, accidentally have a player lack awareness and be driven forward in a pretty good tackle, two weeks. Maybe Chandler deserved a week, maybe, but how is this so inconsistent and wrong so often?! And why is MFC so often on the end of the harshest rulings?!