20 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I assume we're trying to argue the contact classification down from medium to low as opposed to arguing that the incident should not have been a reportable offence in the first place.

The victim couldn't have been too impacted by the incident given he had 31 possession, kicked the winning goal and would've clearly gotten 3 Brownlow votes had Z Butters not played the game of his life.

 

 

Disagree BBP, it would be near impossible to have the impact graded as low due to 'potential' to cause serious injury. In this case I'd expect we are appealing to back in Hunter for contesting the ball and are confident our appeal has a reasonable grounds to succeed.

Also re the JVR appeal, does anyone know whether the AFL covers our legal costs? It wouldn't be cheap to go to the Tribunal and Appeals Board and given the finding surely the AFL would not expect Melbourne to cover costs, especially given the MRO misinterpreted the rules rather than interpretation, and that the Tribunal made the same mistake.

20 hours ago, Redleg said:

Rankine and Hayward nothing.

Rankine hip straight into guys face.

MFC APPEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy is a moron who is targeting us clearly.

Enough is enough.

Gawn smashed in the face trying to mark and nothing.

Fogarty a couple of weeks ago.

This system is stuffed and Christian is hopeless.

Appeal and show every incident he has let off.

Yes.

47 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’d feel the same way if Brayshaw and Rankine hadn’t been let off in very similar circumstances.

The benefit of the doubt has gone to the player contesting on their feet in 2 of the 3 most recent circumstances. 

And they need to come out - irrespective of outcome - to clarify the differences. Particularly Brayshaw which left Libba concussed. 

45 minutes ago, dworship said:

If you freeze the clip at the beginning of the 3 sec. mark, you can clearly see Hunter trying to stop his momentum. All his weight and body positioning is trying to go away from Rozzie. At the same time there is about a metre between them and Rozzie is not looking at the ball but at Hunter.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Christian views and reports these incidents while watching the footage in real time and listening to the "expert" commentary.  Either that or he's just not that bright.

Hunter is a smart footballer but should have 'tripped' over Rozee who dived on the ball. ANB does that all the time.

Just like Lever should have run into the PA player and earned a 2nd 50m penalty.

But they're just footballers I guess.

5 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I don't think there's much deliberating involved Red - it's chook lotto.

I have seen the Rankine incident a couple of times and his hip is moving as it contacts the Dog player. To me Hunter was stationary at impact.

While it beggars belief that Hunter is penalised and Rankine not,  it is no longer surprising. The MRO has a history of stupidity and inconsistency.

What truly amazes me is that nothing has changed !!!

Kozzie got 2 weeks for potential to injure, after jumping up, but not injuring and with the victim patting him on the bum and smiling.

Hayward jumps up, hits the victim in the face, a first gamer btw, puts him on his back, injured slightly and stuns him for a while and gets off scott free.

How is actually injuring, while doing exactly the same action no penalty, while not injuring but having potential to injure 2 weeks.

This is worse than chook lotto, it’s imbeciles at play.

42 minutes ago, dworship said:

If you freeze the clip at the beginning of the 3 sec. mark, you can clearly see Hunter trying to stop his momentum. All his weight and body positioning is trying to go away from Rozzie. At the same time there is about a metre between them and Rozzie is not looking at the ball but at Hunter.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Christian views and reports these incidents while watching the footage in real time and listening to the "expert" commentary.  Either that or he's just not that bright.

He is neither impartial nor that bright.

In the interests of what HQ love to refer to as  “the integrity of the game ” (though I doubt there is much of that) it is time that every “incident” looked at by the MRO should have footage released and detailed reasoning given as to what decision making process (if any) he undertook.   At least it should / could be educational to the playing group. PS won’t happen. 

2 hours ago, Monbon said:

I'm on the brink of unfollowing the game period. It's become a farce: inconsistent umpires, different rules for different players, different clubs, corrupt fixtures - we always play Geelong at Geelong, for instance, how often does Collingwood play interstate, etc etc.

Welcome to AFL footy!

2 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I'm hoping that the appeal process (regardless of outcome) will shed some light on how a collision between 2 players going for the ball is adjudicated.

 

I won't be holding my breath though.

Can’t wait for the Tribunal genius to say at the Tribunal hearing, that Hunter in a split second, should have realised, that standing still had the potential to injure, without suggesting what he should have done instead.

I still think the contact was to the chest as well.

I hope we can also show the Rankine and Hayward incidents and ask if the Tribunal see them as different to the Hunter incident and deserving of penalties.

30 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Disagree BBP, it would be near impossible to have the impact graded as low due to 'potential' to cause serious injury. In this case I'd expect we are appealing to back in Hunter for contesting the ball and are confident our appeal has a reasonable grounds to succeed.

Also re the JVR appeal, does anyone know whether the AFL covers our legal costs? It wouldn't be cheap to go to the Tribunal and Appeals Board and given the finding surely the AFL would not expect Melbourne to cover costs, especially given the MRO misinterpreted the rules rather than interpretation, and that the Tribunal made the same mistake.

I think clubs pay their own costs.

It’s another way of eating into FD allowance and income.

14 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Just like Lever should have run into the PA player and earned a 2nd 50m penalty.

But they're just footballers I guess.

Umpires would have reversed it and paid a front on charge.

They might have at the same time, also rung the interchange stewards, to see if Melbourne were over the 75 limit, so they could give a free and 50 to Port.

17 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Umpires would have reversed it and paid a front on charge.

They might have at the same time, also rung the interchange stewards, to see if Melbourne were over the 75 limit, so they could give a free and 50 to Port.

Yeah or ring a few Port fans to put Melbourne jumpers on and run onto the ground through our interchange gate.

Let's hope we don't get that Gleeson Muppet who seems to think he can interpret the rules any way he wants 

Good stuff. No more dishing out dud suspensions to MFC players. We'll fight if we have a case. 

2 hours ago, dworship said:

If you freeze the clip at the beginning of the 3 sec. mark, you can clearly see Hunter trying to stop his momentum. All his weight and body positioning is trying to go away from Rozzie. At the same time there is about a metre between them and Rozzie is not looking at the ball but at Hunter.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Christian views and reports these incidents while watching the footage in real time and listening to the "expert" commentary.  Either that or he's just not that bright.

Probably both I'd say

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Hunter is a smart footballer but should have 'tripped' over Rozee who dived on the ball. ANB does that all the time.

Just like Lever should have run into the PA player and earned a 2nd 50m penalty.

But they're just footballers I guess.

There was little use in trying to pull a free kick in that game if you had red and blue on.

Is it tomorrow night?

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Hunter is a smart footballer but should have 'tripped' over Rozee who dived on the ball. ANB does that all the time.

Just like Lever should have run into the PA player and earned a 2nd 50m penalty.

But they're just footballers I guess.

What was actually to stop Lever just running... running quickly to where the up field umpire should have been waiting and kept running..i.e playing on.... Umpires probably dumbfounded and wouold have been forced to call Advantage..and until that moment no one could touch him.

5 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm surprised we've chosen to challenge at the Tribunal.

Not because I think it should be a suspension, but because I'm doubtful that we'll win. 

Winners never quit - quitters never win.  

4 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

And they need to come out - irrespective of outcome - to clarify the differences. Particularly Brayshaw which left Libba concussed. 

The Brayshaw Liberatore concussion v hunter rozee needs to explained. Roulette. 

How about we just abolish the MRO and go back to the tribunal system as a standalone vetting process. 

23 minutes ago, McQueen said:

How about we just abolish the MRO and go back to the tribunal system as a standalone vetting process. 

You mean giving one ex Collingwood player with an agenda all the power to decide what is and isn’t a suspendible offense isn’t working? 
I am shooketh. 

Saints Captain Steele, bumps Giants Ash in head, after he kicks the ball.

No problem a fine.

Ran in and bumped an unsuspecting player, who has disposed of the ball.

 

The MRO has been weaponised

54 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Saints Captain Steele, bumps Giants Ash in head, after he kicks the ball.

No problem a fine.

Ran in and bumped an unsuspecting player, who has disposed of the ball.

 

And Daicos could’ve uppercut the Blues player into next year and still got off given the amount of money the AFL’s betting agencies have sitting in their coffers right now. 
 

Imagine the wrath from Sportsbet if Lil Nicky was rubbed out and millions of dollars was voided in bets!

I like that Melbourne's appealing the Lachie Hunter suspension. I like it even more given the recent and ultimately successful appeals over JVR's suspension. In the past, MFC would've accepted these suspensions. Not anymore it seems. It shows that MFC admin has grown a pair and is rightly questioning the increasingly confusing interpretation of rules by the AFL MRO. A refreshing preparedness and braveness to take on the AFL and to stand up for the club. It is bold and at it's core presents a "nothing to lose - everything to gain" attitude. Whether we win or lose the appeal, it more broadly sets a great example for the whole club to follow.