Is there an offical explanation as to why Jack Steele’s incident was deemed as low impact while Hunter’s was deemed medium when both victims went on their merry way after the respective incidents?

We should’ve admitted guilt but attempted to downgrade the impact from medium to low. Thus he could’ve gotten a fine not a suspension.

 

The way that they are looking at these reports is all wrong.

Rozee and players that put themselves in danger like this need to do time to take responsibility for their actions.

It was a stupid non football move...anyone that's played the game in the past would never have done this.

He put his head down into an oncoming player. This is becoming more prevalent and we're going to see serious injury and it will be the AFL's fault for not stamping this out of the game.

They have is a...up

Edited May 23, 20232 yr by rjay

We tried. Gotta decide now whether it’s worth the time and energy appealing a 1 game ban. Not sure it is. We have a tough game on sat. Rather we focused on that and move on.

Hunter should have just stood there and let Rozee barrel forwards into his legs and knock him over, free kick, taking out the legs 🤷‍♂️

Redleg has requested that Exhibit A be posted here:-

1 minute ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Redleg has requested that Exhibit A be posted here:-

Thanks WJ.

I have the legal explanation as to why the above  is not illegal.

It’s because Duncan is from a powerful club and Hunter is from the MFC.

When the AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods put it to him that he could have simply stepped to the left or the right to avoid contact, Hunter swiftly dismissed it.

"No, because you're asking me to concede the ball to Port Adelaide," Hunter said.

"I can't see any situation where I would just let him tap the ball and let them carry the ball down the field."

What a peanut you are Andrew Woods? Lachie should have replied, have you played a game of contact sport before Andrew?

 

Edited May 23, 20232 yr by YesitwasaWin4theAges

This has been a week from hell. Not one thing has gone right for the club.

I stopped posting in this thread a couple of days ago as the more I tried to explain my contrarian POV, the deeper the hole I dug and the more I was lambasted. Some of this was on me as it was a nuanced point I probably failed to get across, but it was suggested I was out of touch, didn't understand the landscape or footy in general, or was advocating dangerous attacks on the footy that would injure players to the extent i "shouldn't be involved in junior footy". 

I never held the view that players should charge around at top speed head first into contests as some of you characterised. I had the view that in this specific scenario with a ball moving towards Lachie (not stationary when you really can get sideways over the ball effectively), Rozee couldn't get side on and therefore Hunter could have contested with his arms in a way that didn't put either head in danger, rather than turning and leading with the hip. This turned out to be pretty close to the finding. 

I support the same team as you so I'm not pleased Hunter is suspended. It is also not a good feeling to have your logic validated by what we can all agree is typically of the most illogical and backward organisations in the country. I didn't even think we would appeal, so I was wrong on that. Maybe we'll appeal again. 

All that said, the comments directed my way in response to what's ultimately been judged to be an appropriate assessment under the current rules were pretty disappointing.

If nothing else, this shows I wasn't on an island like I was made out to be and that some of you should probably revisit your own interpretations of the incident, the rules, your assessment, or at least have some consideration for a point of view that's not your own. 

I originally posted my view knowing it would be unpopular but interested in having the debate. 

Some people responded in the right way but many of you didn't and I was pretty insulted when it was suggested I had complete disregard for head safety or that of our kids.

I'll keep my views to myself next time. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber. 

29 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Calm down. It’s a one week suspension. The President has been very good.

Youre missing the point.

And im not entirely sure what this Prez has actually done !!

Please understand.  2 separate issues.

9 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Youre missing the point.

And im not entirely sure what this Prez has actually done !!

Please understand.  2 separate issues. 

Nothing as far as facilities goes.

13 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

I stopped posting in this thread a couple of days ago as the more I tried to explain my contrarian POV, the deeper the hole I dug and the more I was lambasted. Some of this was on me as it was a nuanced point I probably failed to get across, but it was suggested I was out of touch, didn't understand the landscape or footy in general, or was advocating dangerous attacks on the footy that would injure players to the extent i "shouldn't be involved in junior footy". 

I never held the view that players should charge around at top speed head first into contests as some of you characterised. I had the view that in this specific scenario with a ball moving towards Lachie (not stationary when you really can get sideways over the ball effectively), Rozee couldn't get side on and therefore Hunter could have contested with his arms in a way that didn't put either head in danger, rather than turning and leading with the hip. This turned out to be pretty close to the finding. 

I support the same team as you so I'm not pleased Hunter is suspended. It is also not a good feeling to have your logic validated by what we can all agree is typically of the most illogical and backward organisations in the country. I didn't even think we would appeal, so I was wrong on that. Maybe we'll appeal again. 

All that said, the comments directed my way in response to what's ultimately been judged to be an appropriate assessment under the current rules were pretty disappointing.

If nothing else, this shows I wasn't on an island like I was made out to be and that some of you should probably revisit your own interpretations of the incident, the rules, your assessment, or at least have some consideration for a point of view that's not your own. 

I originally posted my view knowing it would be unpopular but interested in having the debate. 

Some people responded in the right way but many of you didn't and I was pretty insulted when it was suggested I had complete disregard for head safety or that of our kids.

I'll keep my views to myself next time. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber. 

Don’t stop posting.

Forums are for different views and hopefully in future your views will be treated respectfully by all.

42 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Calm down. It’s a one week suspension. The President has been very good.

Calm down !!???? If it was Pendles, Buddy, Hawkins et all or kow and behold Easy ball winner Daicos would It be different??? Sheeit yeah🤮🤮🤮🤮 AFL Are full if sheeit and this decision is worse than JVR JUST PAAAARK OF MUPPETS🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

3 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

it's all in those "eyes"

Hunter initially says he's "fairly sure" his eyes are on the ball for the whole duration of the contest, but on re-examination admits it is "slightly harder to tell" near the point of contact.

Wouldn’t it be logical that whilst he had his eyes on the ball most of the time he would have had to glance at the kamikaze Rozee at least mementarily?  
And what rule says that one cannot glance to see what is coming?   I seem to recall that Gleeson somehow in the JVR case seemed to determine that his eyes deviated from the ball for 0.3 seconds - what absolute cr@p from Gleeson.  How can that even be determined let alone be against any rule in the book? Gleeson seems to be able to make things up on the fly - he is a lawyer I guess and that is what they do.  

1 hour ago, Tom Dyson said:

Corrupt decision 

And you are surprised that what many may believe is a corrupt arm of a corrupt organisation comes to corrupt decisions?  Starts with the inept Christian who didn’t even asses the impact correctly - took a guess. 

11 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Calm down !!???? If it was Pendles, Buddy, Hawkins et all or kow and behold Easy ball winner Daicos would It be different??? Sheeit yeah🤮🤮🤮🤮 AFL Are full if sheeit and this decision is worse than JVR JUST PAAAARK OF MUPPETS🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

You are correct on this matter Picket. This one is a joke. I just do not understand what Lachie is as meant to do except stay away from the ball/ contest in anticipation that Rozee might get there. The game is becoming more and more difficult to understand 

33 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

I stopped posting in this thread a couple of days ago as the more I tried to explain my contrarian POV, the deeper the hole I dug and the more I was lambasted. Some of this was on me as it was a nuanced point I probably failed to get across, but it was suggested I was out of touch, didn't understand the landscape or footy in general, or was advocating dangerous attacks on the footy that would injure players to the extent i "shouldn't be involved in junior footy". 

I never held the view that players should charge around at top speed head first into contests as some of you characterised. I had the view that in this specific scenario with a ball moving towards Lachie (not stationary when you really can get sideways over the ball effectively), Rozee couldn't get side on and therefore Hunter could have contested with his arms in a way that didn't put either head in danger, rather than turning and leading with the hip. This turned out to be pretty close to the finding. 

I support the same team as you so I'm not pleased Hunter is suspended. It is also not a good feeling to have your logic validated by what we can all agree is typically of the most illogical and backward organisations in the country. I didn't even think we would appeal, so I was wrong on that. Maybe we'll appeal again. 

All that said, the comments directed my way in response to what's ultimately been judged to be an appropriate assessment under the current rules were pretty disappointing.

If nothing else, this shows I wasn't on an island like I was made out to be and that some of you should probably revisit your own interpretations of the incident, the rules, your assessment, or at least have some consideration for a point of view that's not your own. 

I originally posted my view knowing it would be unpopular but interested in having the debate. 

Some people responded in the right way but many of you didn't and I was pretty insulted when it was suggested I had complete disregard for head safety or that of our kids.

I'll keep my views to myself next time. Until then, enjoy your echo chamber. 

Wow. More Disneyland.

The Tribunal has become a total dogs breakfast but I don't think we will appeal this.

38 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

Rozee couldn't get side on

Of course he could...he chose not too.

My belief is the Rozee put himself in danger.

I think players are putting too much faith in duty of care and are create dangerous situations for themselves.

In this case Rozee didn't need to keep on at the ball with his head down, he could have turned side on as Hunter did.

Edited May 23, 20232 yr by rjay

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

What are the reasons?

Was it he should have moved out of the way in a split second to allow uncontested possession?

El Matadore !!

It's the new play

 

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Redleg has requested that Exhibit A be posted here:-

Was this, this year? 

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Thanks WJ.

I have the legal explanation as to why the above  is not illegal.

It’s because Duncan is from a powerful club and Hunter is from the MFC.

This ones fine, Duncan's eyes are closed which is the AFL's preferred method of contesting the ball.

14 hours 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.

 

14 hours 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.

Point taken. Still think it's a step in the right direction for the club.

22 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Was this, this year? 

But were the closed for Gleeson’s magic 0.3 seconds, or more, or less.  Not that he of limited mental capacity, Mr Christian (was he a Bounty descendent by the way?) even made Mr Gleeson consider this vital piece of information. 

It's beyond a joke now. 

Hunter contests a ground ball by keeping his feet and turning to brace for contact (in the manner the AFL has tried to encourage since the sliding rule came in).

I'll repeat. 

Rozee dives at the ball head first, Hunter turns his body to brace. Both contest a ball in dispute. 

How is it so complicated. These are the unfortunate outcomes of these type of situations, both are lawful. Both can result in an outcome like this. And Rozee's choice to dive head first should be just as questionable given the ball was in dispute!!!! 

The AFL and the Tribunal are an utter clown house. 

Perhaps Gleeson and the AFL advocate could demonstrate what the hell they are talking about.