Lachie Hunter Loses Bid To Overturn 1 Week Suspension

[Gawndy the Great 7,623]

14 hours ago, fr_ap said:

What he should have done is what happens hundreds of times a game when two opposing players both try to pick up the ball at the same time. Arms outstretched at the ball, head down. As arms are longer than necks, the contest is between arms rather than clashing heads. Just go watch any game this weekend, any contested ground ball situation. 

I agree that leaves both heads in vulnerable positions, but that's exactly the point - it's only vulnerable if other players enter that contest in the wrong way, either with a hip, a shoulder, an elbow etc - which is why Hunter has been cited. If you're head down, trying to pick up the footy, you're protected. 

You are just plain wrong. The way that Rozee went for that ball is dangerous to himself and his opponent.
 

Im at junior footy training every week and they practice coming in sideways and staying in your feet. A few kids had some very nasty head clashes last year coming in the same way that Rozee did, so they are told off if they try and be too courageous and dive head first for the ball.  

If Rozee comes in more with his body, he collects Hunter below the knee and gives away a free. 

Hunter was just caught in no man’s land, which happens if you are 2nd guessing yourself in a 50/50 situation. Had he not pulled up, Rozee would have been KO’d.

This is not a run past the ball hit, it’s Cleary a player changing their reaction to all the rule interpretations on head related incidents. 

Edited May 21, 2023 by Gawndy the Great

[Lou C. Fur 914]

On 5/20/2023 at 11:09 PM, Brownie said:

It's called a fabric softener suspension

https://youtu.be/UvHl31q7naM

...its the secret to my sexiness.

[Gorgoroth 12,331]

7 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Cannot believe there’s people on here who blame Tmac for an incident which resulted in him being the victim of a reportable (and reported) offence. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though. 

 

7 hours ago, DemonWA said:

Tmac makes blunders, no doubt. But this was a shocker from the umps - lets say the same incident happens in 20 other games I reckon 15 times Tmac gets the free for high contact. I'm not usually one to blame umpires but they were going for Port in the last quarter - clear as day. Paying marks that hit 5 other blokes hands or the ground, and getting 50m gained for port on the throw ins. Absolute [censored]

Yes he should have received the Free. But he also should have disposed of the ball prior to the tackle which then the tackle doesn’t occur. Then the ump doesn’t make the mistake you are all up in arms about. The first mistake was Tmac’s, if he takes first option then none of this occurs. He is a repeat offender of this and that’s why it’s infuriating.

[Bystander 879]

21 hours ago, D4Life said:

100% Hunter gets there first, Rozee is late and reckless of his own safety!

What is Hunter meant to do step back and say take the ball!

Jump

[beelzebub 22,244]

41 minutes ago, Bystander said:

Jump

And if he miscued that by a whisker he'd kick Rozee in the head  and be cited for it... hung drawn and quartered and given 6 weeks holiday.

Hunter played the circumstance about as well as could be done.

The spotlght ought to be on Rozee... for endangering himself.

Maybe the obvious needs to be said by the AFL... if you go head first into a contest youre bound to get hurt and thats on you.

[Redleg 37,891]

36 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The spotlght ought to be on Rozee... for endangering himself.

 

And on the MRO who is totally inconsistent with his deliberations.

How Rankine and Hayward aren’t cited for worse actions and outcomes, in the same weekend, is just bewildering .

[beelzebub 22,244]

10 minutes ago, Redleg said:

And on the MRO who is totally inconsistent with his deliberations.

How Rankine and Hayward aren’t cited for worse actions and outcomes, in the same weekend, is just bewildering .

... 🤔🤔🤔🤔  and yet not ! 😉

[WalkingCivilWar 32,727]

1 hour ago, Gorgoroth said:

 

Yes he should have received the Free. But he also should have disposed of the ball prior to the tackle which then the tackle doesn’t occur. Then the ump doesn’t make the mistake you are all up in arms about. The first mistake was Tmac’s, if he takes first option then none of this occurs. He is a repeat offender of this and that’s why it’s infuriating.

How do we know this? Shoulda coulda woulda… didn’t. How can anyone predict what would’ve happened had the player (insert what you think the player should’ve done)????? Imho this is almost victim-blaming. This sort of ‘logic’ should be expected from Port fans, not us. 

[titan_uranus 22,566]

9 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Are you serious?

He literally just had to give the quick option to a running Viney in front of him who was breaking away easily from Bonnar.

Jonas came running in from the side and before the tackle came there was probably 2 seconds that McDonald could have just placed it in front of Viney. 

Then as @Gorgorothsaid, McDonald needs to learn his limitations. He does this every single game. His attempt at side stepping or baulking a big key defender in this instance is pure stupidity by McDonald. It cost us a direct goal in the end. I disagree with you in that he didn't have enough time. It was there to give off with the quick hands.

This is a sign of a cooked footballer who thinks he's playing footy at 24 years of age.

1 hour ago, Gorgoroth said:

 

Yes he should have received the Free. But he also should have disposed of the ball prior to the tackle which then the tackle doesn’t occur. Then the ump doesn’t make the mistake you are all up in arms about. The first mistake was Tmac’s, if he takes first option then none of this occurs. He is a repeat offender of this and that’s why it’s infuriating.

I don't really think there's much point going on about this given you two have both clearly made your mind up based on your dislike of TMac.

FWIW, I didn't like TMac's game and I don't think we can persist with him and JVR as the two tall forwards.

But I've watched that clip and I don't think there was so much time that it was so obvious that he should have handballed to Viney before the tackle. I think you both want that to have been the case because it's TMac.

But even if I'm wrong about that, TMac's entitled to assume that he either gets tackled legally (and his arms would be free and he could have released the ball) or he gets rewarded with a free for an illegal tackle. Jonas' tackle was illegal twice 

[Dusty_Hill 184]

On 5/20/2023 at 9:31 PM, Redleg said:

He slides in in his knees which is illegal. What the hell was Hunter meant to do? This game has lost the plot. 

[layzie 29,137]

9 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

You are just plain wrong. The way that Rozee went for that ball is dangerous to himself and his opponent.
 

Im at junior footy training every week and they practice coming in sideways and staying in your feet. A few kids had some very nasty head clashes last year coming in the same way that Rozee did, so they are told off if they try and be too courageous and dive head first for the ball.  

If Rozee comes in more with his body, he collects Hunter below the knee and gives away a free. 

Hunter was just caught in no man’s land, which happens if you are 2nd guessing yourself in a 50/50 situation. Had he not pulled up, Rozee would have been KO’d.

This is not a run past the ball hit, it’s Cleary a player changing their reaction to all the rule interpretations on head related incidents. 

I'm glad to hear kids at junior footy are still taught to protect themselves. They way these incidents play out you'd think it was a dying art. 

[Bitter but optimistic 21,369]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

And on the MRO who is totally inconsistent with his deliberations.

How Rankine and Hayward aren’t cited for worse actions and outcomes, in the same weekend, is just bewildering .

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 !!!

[dazzledavey36 48,954]

4 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I don't really think there's much point going on about this given you two have both clearly made your mind up based on your dislike of TMac.

FWIW, I didn't like TMac's game and I don't think we can persist with him and JVR as the two tall forwards.

But I've watched that clip and I don't think there was so much time that it was so obvious that he should have handballed to Viney before the tackle. I think you both want that to have been the case because it's TMac.

But even if I'm wrong about that, TMac's entitled to assume that he either gets tackled legally (and his arms would be free and he could have released the ball) or he gets rewarded with a free for an illegal tackle. Jonas' tackle was illegal twice 

My frustration with tmac is purely because he has a history of doing this in games. Its simple, he still doesnt know his limitations. 

On Tmac as a player, I don't dislike the bloke. A part of me wants the Tmac of 2018/2021 form but reality is deep down I know he's cooked and like you, I know he won't add much to the team.

[Gawndy the Great 7,623]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

And on the MRO who is totally inconsistent with his deliberations.

How Rankine and Hayward aren’t cited for worse actions and outcomes, in the same weekend, is just bewildering .

By my calculations, we will be square with the MRO after this incident. They asked for 2 weeks from JVR, we got one for Sparrow and will undoubtedly roll over and cop the whack for Hunter and move on. 

Energy needs to be placed elsewhere - JJ can cover for him on the wing and he can earn his way back into the side. 

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,486]

We just have to appeal the Hunter ban, if anything to keep the MRO process accountable.

The way he attacked the ball was text book to how you are meant to now and he had stopped by the time the collision happened. The incident was brought on entirely by Rozee and the way he attacked the ball, so to suspend a player for that is beyond a joke.... but we all know the AFL has completely lost the plot.

You would honestly see something like that happen in basketball if two players are going for the ball and it probably wouldn't even be a foul because the player has the right to contest a loose ball. AFL it is a suspension.... it's beyond a joke now.

[picket fence 15,349]

On 5/21/2023 at 10:07 AM, 58er said:

Last post Fr-ap but you did say "was not adding anything significantly to the side" and if my coach or boss said that to me I would be fearful of my long term position at  the Club/ Office or In the team. 
in other words I wouldn't be missed really! 

He is offering far more than Langdon! CLUB MUST CHALLENGE!

Edited May 22, 2023 by picket fence

[Monbon 1,524]

Has anyone watched the Franklin tackle I alluded to above? Like I say, he pinned his arms, dumped the North player whose head hit the turf. Nothing !!!!!I think Melbourne should change its name to Geelongcollingwoodsydneycarlton.

[SPC 2,862]

We will appeal and he will get off. The slide from Rozee caused the contact above the shoulder, nothing Hunter could do as he had the right to contest the ball. 

*Fine Print- MRO will ensure that 1 Melbourne player per round is suspended till 2026. 

[DistrACTION Jackson 6,486]

I've actually decided to stop watching all other games other than the Demons because I'm so frustrated with how the AFL is operated. If I didn't care about the club so much I could easily just stop going entirely.

[layzie 29,137]

The more I watch it the more I see the pull up from Hunter. You can call it careless as much as you want but he has a right to contest the footy.

I don't know what should happen but I'm fairly sure Buddy wouldn't have been rubbed out for this. 

[whatwhat say what 19,234]

i don't think we will appeal

this sort of action has been a suspension all season long, regardless of intent / action

[daisycutter 28,630]

1 minute ago, whatwhat say what said:

i don't think we will appeal

this sort of action has been a suspension all season long, regardless of intent / action

except ... that's not true

[Dee Zephyr 17,806]

Was just about to ask if we've accepted. Haven't heard or seen anything in the media, with Sparrow it wasn't until Tuesday night we heard that we accepted his suspension.

[YearOfTheDees 3,102]

17 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Was just about to ask if we've accepted. Haven't heard or seen anything in the media, with Sparrow it wasn't until Tuesday night we heard that we accepted his suspension.

Cut off time is 11am today . 

[Redleg 37,891]

28 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

i don't think we will appeal

this sort of action has been a suspension all season long, regardless of intent / action

Then why haven’t Rankine and Hayward gone.

Hayward left the ground for contact to the face.

Rankine hit with his hip to the face.

I would accept the week if Goody in his presser, said we are at a loss to understand what is illegal, when we see worse acts being allowed. He can word it in a way that avoids any fine, but at least say something.

He could also mention that our players are completely confused when umpires pay frees against players, when the action rewarded later leads to a suspension. Make the comment we seem to be a very unlucky club in MRO decisions, then joke that it is probably just the rub of the green.

It at least puts it out there, without direct criticism.

Follow the lead of Scott and others.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Redleg