2 minutes ago, 58er said:

Agree

Hunter could have cleaned Rozee up if he was trying to hurt him, compare it to Lycett hitting Gawn - Lycett intent was punch ball while smashing into Gawn!

11 hours ago, fr_ap said:

Pretty clearly elected to bump in my view..had plenty of time to put his head down and contest. Chose not to, lead with the hip and the player contesting the ball in the right way was collected high as a result. Protecting the player with his head over the footy is literally why these rules exist. Umpire immediately reported so must have thought similiar 

Pretty cut and dry imo, the outrage & bleating is not justified and only shows that most here do not take notice when players on other teams cop their whack for this 

I'm not going to get into this specific incident, but if he should have done what you said :

"had plenty of time to put his head down and contest",

then I don't quite see how that instruction is likely to lessen head injuries.  Seems to me that is asking for players to collide heads which isn't that much safer than your hip running into my head or my head running into your hip.

Surely there must be a moment when it is safer for one player to pull back.  If a player does that and gets both stick from the coach and supporters for being a whimp AND gets rubbed out for high contact, I don't know where we are heading.

13 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I can’t believe Jonas won the free but got suspended. What a farce the AFL is

The AFL has to be the only sport in the world where a player gets a penalty awarded to them on field, and then gets suspended for the same action after the game is over.

Don’t ask why you get so much umpire abuse AFL. You undermine them publicly every week.

3 minutes ago, sue said:

I'm not going to get into this specific incident, but if he should have done what you said :

"had plenty of time to put his head down and contest",

then I don't quite see how that instruction is likely to lessen head injuries.  Seems to me that is asking for players to collide heads which isn't that much safer than your hip running into my head or my head running into your hip.

Surely there must be a moment when it is safer for one player to pull back.  If a player does that and gets both stick from the coach and supporters for being a whimp AND gets rubbed out for high contact, I don't know where we are heading.

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. 

12 minutes ago, sue said:

If a player does that and gets both stick from the coach and supporters for being a whimp AND gets rubbed out for high contact, I don't know where we are heading.

We're already there. No-one knows what's going on: the players, the coaches, the umpires, the MRO, the tribunal. Least of all the fans. It evolves each week like a soap opera, dramatic twists here and contradictory turns there, unpredictably. 

Main difference being that even a soapie has a plot. The AFL has lost theirs.

45 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

What? Where did I suggest that?

Take the week and move on was an acknowledgement of it being relatively clear cut (in my opinion). Hunter not adding significantly to the current side anyway is a separate issue and only goes to the impact next week of his absence, which is something that is worth discussing.

Let me be clear - it wouldn't be worth challenging regardless of who it was.

Sure, the impact grading could be debated. I could see the rationale for that. Not sure our case is strong, but it's debatable. 

As for me apparently not understanding the game - this year they have moved from penalizing the outcome to at least attempting to penalise the behaviour (as it should always have been). They've done a poor job, but the shift has been evident. Were you aware of that? Do you pay any attention to things outside the MFC?

I agree Rozee not being concussed helps a potential case to make the impact grading low, but people need to get past this "No concussion = no suspension" thing. It doesn't work that way anymore. 

It is beyond laughable you think Rozee "made no effort at all". If you're capable (I doubt it), put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He was literally bending over to pick up the ball. That's his effort, he is playing the ball as he should. Its wet and he fumbled it along the ground for a metre or so. As he pursues it, his head is greeted with the point of Hunter's hip. Yes Hunter was relatively stationary, but it doesn't matter - Rozee has a right to be able to pursue the ball on the deck without risking his head and neck meeting the point of a hip. There are several other things Hunter could have done and he had plenty of time to do so. Petracca or Clarry would have bent down to try and pick up/paddle the ball on their own, and this is what the current rules encourage. They would not have turned to lead with the hip. 

If the club wants to challenge the impact grading then great. I hope we win.  

It honestly makes for ridiculous reading though in here week after week when you claim that there is some secret agenda against the MFC or that every report or suspension 'challenges the fabric of the game' or something similarly dramatic. 

We can all be parochial in our support of the club, but at least try and insert a modicum of objectivity. If Clarry was pursuing the ball along the ground and met an oppo player's hip, you'd all be shouting from the rooftops. It is no different to yelling for every free kick for MFC at the footy and thinking the equivalent ones paid the other way weren't there. I'm not suggesting all umpiring or MRO decisions are beyond reproach - far from it - only that if you've been paying attention and can take off your Dees jumper for a moment, it's not a surprising suspension. 

It's as clear as Sparrows was. Neither player got concussed. There was a similiar outcry when his suspension was first announced. 

Whatever though - I don't need to waste any more time when all I get in response  are jokes about my forum name (who cares?)

Where did I say about a vendetta?  Yes some have and I don't agree but it is most unDemonlike for 3 successive reports which indicates the AFL mania for trying to control the concussion/ head debate.
The MRO Officer is not consistent never has been and where a loophole or vision to break his jarred version of carrying out the AFL mantra is available let's challenge it. 
This is an opportunity as Spartow was clearly up against precedent. 

The Tribunal have at least shown they are open to grading changes and this  one is wide open for that challenge. 

Your judgement on Lachie Hunter seems harsh and I doubt you would be the same it it was Trac or Clarry or Gawny. He was one of our better players ( not so hard to figure) and he has some style quirks but to say he wouldn't be missed on his season   so far by any poster is totally biased and unfair on Lachie.  

I believe if both Harmes and Sparrow played we would have won based on tagging and a more physical approach by our on ballers, placing more pressure on their youngsters, much the way Maxy was treated like in 2019 by Port when it was perhaps not physically challenged early and strong enough. 

Let's see what happens this week. 
 

3 minutes ago, 58er said:

Where did I say about a vendetta?  Yes some have and I don't agree but it is most unDemonlike for 3 successive reports which indicates the AFL mania for trying to control the concussion/ head debate.
The MRO Officer is not consistent never has been and where a loophole or vision to break his jarred version of carrying out the AFL mantra is available let's challenge it. 
This is an opportunity as Spartow was clearly up against precedent. 

The Tribunal have at least shown they are open to grading changes and this  one is wide open for that challenge. 

Your judgement on Lachie Hunter seems harsh and I doubt you would be the same it it was Trac or Clarry or Gawny. He was one of our better players ( not so hard to figure) and he has some style quirks but to say he wouldn't be missed on his season   so far by any poster is totally biased and unfair on Lachie.  

I believe if both Harmes and Sparrow played we would have won based on tagging and a more physical approach by our on ballers, placing more pressure on their youngsters, much the way Maxy was treated like in 2019 by Port when it was perhaps not physically challenged early and strong enough. 

Let's see what happens this week. 
 

I didn't say he wouldn't be missed. I said he doesn't kick to our advantage. I also said he's very good positionally. 

Agree on the need to play more younger physical defensive midfielders.

17 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

I didn't say he wouldn't be missed. I said he doesn't kick to our advantage. I also said he's very good positionally. 

Agree on the need to play more younger physical defensive midfielders.

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! 

14 hours ago, fr_ap said:

I must be in the minority on this one but I think it is a clear 1 match suspension. 

Lachie had plenty of time to bend down and try to win that footy with his hands and head down...he didn't and elected to lead with his hip. Yes, Rozee ran into him but Hunter elected not to contest the footy whilst Rozee chased it the right way 

Take the week and move on, I'm pretty far from in love with what Hunter is bringing anyway. Valuable width and positional stuff but he continually asks too much of his teammates by handballing to their feet or kicking scrubbers not to their advantage. Further, he has a gawn-esque hook from a set shot and very hit and miss distance wise. 

Bullfrap!!!!!!!!!

13 hours ago, chookrat said:

The club statement on the suspension has left the door open for us to challenge. I suspect the club will look at Hunter's action, whether he elected to bump, and weigh up an appeal based on their odds of a successful challenge.

My take is it's pretty line ball whether Hunter bumped, braced or turned sideways to protect himself and gather the ball in the same motion. Players are allowed to brace or protect themselves when gathering the ball but if they elect to bump then they are in trouble.

A bump implies forward momentum. Hunter simply braced himself.

13 hours ago, fr_ap said:

Pretty clearly elected to bump in my view..had plenty of time to put his head down and contest. Chose not to, lead with the hip and the player contesting the ball in the right way was collected high as a result. Protecting the player with his head over the footy is literally why these rules exist. Umpire immediately reported so must have thought similiar 

Pretty cut and dry imo, the outrage & bleating is not justified and only shows that most here do not take notice when players on other teams cop their whack for this 

'Pretty clearly elected to bump in my view..had plenty of time to put his head down and contest. Chose not to, lead with the hip and the player contesting the ball in the right way was collected high as a result.'

You must either have tainted vision, or you live in Fantasyland: Hunter at no time attempted to bump. He braced himself when Rozee kept his kamikaze momentum...

1 hour 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. 

Rozee should've turned his body so that any collision was side on. Players these days just lead with their heads expecting the other player to move out of the way or at worse they get a free kick. No consideration for their own safety. Hunter was attacking the ball as he is entitled to do and upon realising he was going to get their second, turned to avoid a head on collision. You can say he should've stopped completely and waited for Rozee to collect the ball and tackle him but on a slippery night in bucketing rain stopping with that momentum would be impossible.

4 minutes ago, Monbon said:

A bump implies forward momentum. Hunter simply braced himself.

Yep, similar to Viney on Lynch all those years ago.

Just been watching The Round so far: check out at 9.10 into it: Buddy tackles, wraps the players arms and the North player's head bangs into the turf. Then again, there's one rule for the Cripps and Dangerfields and Buddies, another for Melbourne players.

 

Then at 9.50, a Sydney player shirt fronts a north player in a marking contest. If Christian leaves this alone....

 

The AFL is full of the word which involves excrement.

Edited May 21, 20231 yr by Monbon

35 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Rozee should've turned his body so that any collision was side on. Players these days just lead with their heads expecting the other player to move out of the way or at worse they get a free kick. No consideration for their own safety. Hunter was attacking the ball as he is entitled to do and upon realising he was going to get their second, turned to avoid a head on collision. You can say he should've stopped completely and waited for Rozee to collect the ball and tackle him but on a slippery night in bucketing rain stopping with that momentum would be impossible.

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.

4 minutes ago, 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.

ok ... i watched it and pretended i was rozee's mother.  i thought he was a very silly boy and he'll get an earful when he gets home

Edited May 21, 20231 yr by daisycutter

Did he actually get him in the head or shoulder? I thought shoulder.

My eyesight is not great but the few replays I saw were inconclusive. 

2 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. 

 

That’s just incorrect and not correct technique for approaching a ground ball head-on with an opponent.

If players are approaching head-on at speed it’s not just going to be a clash of arms but a clash of heads. You don’t go in at speed and clash arms and bounce off - arms reaching down for the ball are hardly strong enough to cause a bounce off between two physically strong athletes at speed.

That is why players are taught to turn their bodies when approaching a ground ball head-on. The correct technique would see side-to-side contact with both going for the ball rather than head-to-head contact if leading with the head. 

Your suggested technique would lead to many more head injuries from head-on ground ball contests.

 

I think for consistency sake the MRO should start every possible suspension with the supposition, “Would this be a suspension if it was Bont or Daicos?”

Then go from there.

17 minutes ago, DeeMee said:

I think for consistency sake the MRO should start every possible suspension with the supposition, “Would this be a suspension if it was Bont or Daicos?”

Then go from there.

Wouldn't work.  The MRO would just say "No, but it's not Bont or Daicos" and proceed as usual

.

Does anyone know how long we have to decide whether to challenge Hunter's suspension?  Based on our clubs home page we have not yet indicated whether we will accept or challenge.

Lloyd said on Sunday footy show that he deserved a week because Hunter’s attempt at winning the footy was insufficient. 
What a pielkop!

3 minutes ago, McQueen said:

What a pielkop!

And there's my new word for the day!

The media are 99% [censored]. Anything one of our players does gets a pile on that they have to be suspended. 

1 minute ago, Clintosaurus said:

The media are 99% [censored]. Anything one of our players does gets a pile on that they have to be suspended. 

Keep in mind ... it's invariably the AFL accredited media ;) ;) ;)