9 hours ago, McQueen said:

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!

Are the bets voided though.... dont you just lose ? 

Edited May 22, 20231 yr by beelzebub
Spelling

36 minutes ago, Lou C. Fur said:

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.

I don't think you should conflate the two together. Nor have they 'grown a pair'. Each of these incidents would be independently evaluated and a decision made on merit.

It's not a cultural shift.

12 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

I don't think you should conflate the two together. Nor have they 'grown a pair'. Each of these incidents would be independently evaluated and a decision made on merit.

It's not a cultural shift.

Im not sure you can assume that.

Historically we've never been as trigger happy as it were to rebuke the MROs cavalier hypocrisy. 

That strikes me more a change in mood rather than happenstance.

Just me perhaps.

40 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Are the bets voided though.... dont you just lose ? 

I would suggest if a player is suspended in brownlow betting you have done your money, one of the hazards in this type of betting.

Just now, drysdale demon said:

I would suggest if a player is suspended in brownlow betting you have done your money, one of the hazards in this type of betting.

Me too... exact thoughts.

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Are the bets voided though.... dont you just lose ? 

I don’t think you get a refund for suspension, just part of the risk. I would think the betting agencies would be in heaven if favourites are suspended.

32 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Im not sure you can assume that.

Historically we've never been as trigger happy as it were to rebuke the MROs cavalier hypocrisy. 

That strikes me more a change in mood rather than happenstance.

Just me perhaps.

I would see it as weird and cavalier by an organisation that in recent times takes a measured approach to all things industry, to only now take a position that ‘we’re being bullied’ and let’s challenge the hypocrisy on behalf of everyone one and  now decided to act in line with an emotional response. But that’s just me 🙂

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I don’t think you get a refund for suspension, just part of the risk. I would think the betting agencies would be in heaven if favourites are suspended.

What a promotional opportunity for one of the betting companies. 

"Brownlow betting, your player gets suspended, cashback! Up to $50 in bonus bets

 

 

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Are the bets voided though.... dont you just lose ? 

To be honest mate I’m not sure. If a player is injured in a game your bet is void but, if they are injured and subbed out of the game you do your cash. 
It’s hard to know much of the time. A bit like the MRO. 😒

On 5/21/2023 at 11:32 AM, fr_ap said:

Right so it's impossible for Hunter to stop on a slippery night with forward momentum (even though most here say he was standing his ground, not moving forward???), but it's not impossible for Rozee to stop on a slippery night? 

Honestly mate, watch it again. And again. And then a third time. Rozee is trying to pick it up/paddle it and the ball is escaping him in the wet with its forward momentum. He is literally chasing it forward, arms outstretched. He was closer to the ball than Hunter and moving at higher speed. 

Now mimic that action in your lounge room and tell me how you would reasonably and realistically "turn your body to the side" whilst moving forward at speed in pursuit of a ball on the ground. Unless you're suggesting he pursue the ball whilst sidestepping/strafing, which would be slow, awkward and unsafe in it's own regard whilst crouching to pick it up at speed, it's basically impossible for him to do what you're suggesting. If he was to impact that ball (rather than conceding possession and letting Hunter gather it), he had no reasonable alternative than to chase it the way he did.

The same can't be said of Hunter, who could have put his own head down in a similar way and tried to gather with arms, rather than stand his ground with his hip turned. Yes, this would have exposed him to a clash of heads; but he would have at least been in an equally vulnerable position to Rozee, as both would have been contesting the ball the same way. In that context, a clash of heads is an unfortunate but necessary risk in this sport. A head meeting a hip due to one player's choice, rather than inadvertently, is not necessary. 

Just watch it, several times, and pretend you are Rozee, or his mother.

If you agree it's a free kick at least to Rozee, then unless youre arguing low impact (which is possible but debatable), you actually can't disagree with the suspension. The cause of the free kick and report are one and the same. 

Happy to be in the minority and hope he gets off for the Dees sake.

Hunter was able to stop to the point he could turn and stand his ground - he could not stop on a dime to completely move out of the way (and nor should he). What you are suggesting would have resulted in a severe head clash, far worse than the incident which actually occurred.

Just because something is worthy of a free kick does not make it worthy of a report/suspension. You can accidentally get someone high without it being rough conduct.

The rules of the game allow for physicality. Hunter was playing the ball and turned to protect himself and his opponent at the last second when it was clear he would not beat his opponent to the ball. These incidents are inevitable in a 360 degree contact sport played in the elements.

So the hearing is tonight?

18 hours ago, beelzebub said:

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.

Nothing, He twigged too late. But in previous circumstances the ump calls for the oppo player to clear the path and get out of the protected zone. Failure is automatic 50m

The thing that is annoying now in the AFL is even if a player shows genuine care to how they attack the ball and shows their 'duty of care' they are still being suspended.

4 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Im not sure you can assume that.

Historically we've never been as trigger happy as it were to rebuke the MROs cavalier hypocrisy. 

That strikes me more a change in mood rather than happenstance.

Just me perhaps.

The issue user ste in a trigger happy MRO climate so we need to respond accordingly. 
Surely Rooys case was not trigger happy ? That's ridiculous if you believe that as we followed it up and win the appeal! Tick tick 

Now I believe Lachie's appeal is a no brainer. Fr-ap has bought up his home made lounge room simulation which in my opinion is more a toilet version if the circumstances. 
Interestingly he sort of half concedes a case for reduction of impact from medium to low bring debatable. Thsts what all our defence is trying to approve. They may even have a case for it to be all Lachie could or under the circs and highlight Rozees scary approach as he cannoned into Lachie with no thought of a safeguard for his own health. 
The fact that the 7 commentators initially said basically no  case to answer ( they may change that later of course) is an opinion that with this present climate should be tested accordingly. It's the MRO that has the hung ho approach as he picks and chooses potential disasters and charges even when the result is not a drama. 
well done Dees test this climate and MRO as long as you like if there is a reasonable chance of overturning his idiocy and peculiar judgement at times. 

23 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

But appealing is a waste of time and money and it’s an unnecessary distraction. 
This should never have been a suspension. 

Really that's why you appeal!!!! HVe you no logic Jaded? 

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Hunter was able to stop to the point he could turn and stand his ground - he could not stop on a dime to completely move out of the way (and nor should he). What you are suggesting would have resulted in a severe head clash, far worse than the incident which actually occurred.

Just because something is worthy of a free kick does not make it worthy of a report/suspension. You can accidentally get someone high without it being rough conduct.

The rules of the game allow for physicality. Hunter was playing the ball and turned to protect himself and his opponent at the last second when it was clear he would not beat his opponent to the ball. These incidents are inevitable in a 360 degree contact sport played in the elements.

This gets forgotten about a lot lately when these incidents get discussed. It's as if us arguing that the act didn't deserve a suspension means that we think that footy isn't tough enough anymore and that should have been play on. 

The JVR incident was the perfect example of this: Attempted to play the ball, incidental contact high and should have been a free kick against him, period. I believe this should have been the same outcome.

19 minutes ago, layzie said:

This gets forgotten about a lot lately when these incidents get discussed. It's as if us arguing that the act didn't deserve a suspension means that we think that footy isn't tough enough anymore and that should have been play on. 

The JVR incident was the perfect example of this: Attempted to play the ball, incidental contact high and should have been a free kick against him, period. I believe this should have been the same outcome.

Even more to the point is that Jonas gets a free kick for assaulting McDonald, then gets suspended. Like I say, the AFL Industrial Complex is becoming an even bigger joke.

18 minutes ago, Monbon said:

Even more to the point is that Jonas gets a free kick for assaulting McDonald, then gets suspended. Like I say, the AFL Industrial Complex is becoming an even bigger joke.

And Port elected not to contest says it all really 

3 hours ago, 58er said:

The issue user ste in a trigger happy MRO climate so we need to respond accordingly. 
Surely Rooys case was not trigger happy ? That's ridiculous if you believe that as we followed it up and win the appeal! Tick tick 

Now I believe Lachie's appeal is a no brainer. Fr-ap has bought up his home made lounge room simulation which in my opinion is more a toilet version if the circumstances. 
Interestingly he sort of half concedes a case for reduction of impact from medium to low bring debatable. Thsts what all our defence is trying to approve. They may even have a case for it to be all Lachie could or under the circs and highlight Rozees scary approach as he cannoned into Lachie with no thought of a safeguard for his own health. 
The fact that the 7 commentators initially said basically no  case to answer ( they may change that later of course) is an opinion that with this present climate should be tested accordingly. It's the MRO that has the hung ho approach as he picks and chooses potential disasters and charges even when the result is not a drama. 
well done Dees test this climate and MRO as long as you like if there is a reasonable chance of overturning his idiocy and peculiar judgement at times. 

In the great recent history when have you seen the club so quick and keen to appeal...and in Roos case appeal again ?

" Trigger happy" was somewhat tongue in cheek  ;)  but by comparison to our previous  (in the main )   dour 'look the other way' approach it seemed apt.

17 hours ago, McQueen said:

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!

But the AFL "integrity of the game" mantra is that nobody has any idea of who is leading in the Downlow at any time - not even 2022 at a round or 3 before the finals.  And Santa and the tooth fairy will be good to you if you behave.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/melbourne-demons/afl-2023-tribunal-hearing-live-updates-blog-lachie-hunter-bump-on-connor-rozee-arguments-how-to-follow-latest/news-story/429fce1a05f83e461d94f70dec6454fc

 

It's started

Gleeson refused to accept videos of similar incidents as it does not comply with the infamous Rule 5.5

oh dear, we have to stop meeting like this 

i don’t watch appeals. 

i only watch re-appeals

To be clear this is "contesting at the tribunal" not "appealing" which was the second JVR hearing.

19 hours ago, McQueen said:

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!

This is why we are so sick of the AFL

From their own site, their own rules

THE AFL will introduce legislation immediately to give the Match Review Panel the power to suspend players for stomach and jumper punches.

After a spate of incidents across the past few weeks there have been calls for any type of punch to be punished with a suspension.

In the past, players have usually been given a fine for punches deemed low impact.

AFL football operations boss Simon Lethlean told SEN radio it was up to him to give the MRP greater powers to suspend players.

"I think a change is required. Clearly the deterrent of fines is not stopping on-field punching in various forms and we want to stamp that out," he said.

"It's unusual (to make rule changes mid-season), but we're going to. We don't want punching to continue. We're unequivocal about that and we'll make that really clear to the players and clubs.

"We'll make a change that gives the MRP the right equipment in their classification to ensure sanctions are now matches compared to fines.

"Across the past few years, broadly, the MRP done a good job in classifying on-field incidents in the way they've been directed to."

The MRP offered North Melbourne's Ben Cunnington a $1000 fine with an early plea for a stomach punch deemed intentional but of low impact that forced Demon Bernie Vince to double over and dry retch.

Richmond's Trent Cotchin accepted a $1000 fine for a jumper punch judged careless and low impact to the head of Fremantle's Lachie Neale in round eight.

Lethlean said the new rules would see such incidents graded at a higher impact level.

"It's up to me now to re-orient (the MRP) and say, 'Don't worry about what you've done in the last year or so under our direction, here's a new direction and assess it on that', and that's what we'll do,' he said.

"It's a tough role, but they'll make decisions now going forward based on a harsher method and a harsher deterrent and I think that will hopefully stamp (punches) out."