2024 MRO & Tribunal

[sue 8,463]

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

no, it's not - because stanley won the tap

it's unfortunate that gawn got the knee to the back of the noggin, but the simple fact of the matter is as stanley won the tap it was play on and if he'd missed the ball it'd be a free to gawn

it's crazy how difficult the game of footy is to umpire

I think the AFL is crazy but surely it can't be that crazy?

If you (blatantly) shove a player in the back and take the mark, that doesn't give you a free pass for the shove just because you took the mark. Why should head high contact via knee be a special case?  

[monoccular 16,281]

On 06/05/2024 at 14:12, whatwhat say what said:

no, it's not - because stanley won the tap

it's unfortunate that gawn got the knee to the back of the noggin, but the simple fact of the matter is as stanley won the tap it was play on and if he'd missed the ball it'd be a free to gawn

it's crazy how difficult the game of footy is to umpire

Well that is ludicrous and emphasises yet again the blatant hypocrisy of the AFL in their "head is sacrosanct" charade.

And, isn't high contact (or in the back for that matter)  in a ruck contest a free kick?  I have certainly seen it paid.

Edited May 7 by monoccular

[Bitter but optimistic 21,389]

How can you get 5 weeks for a slur but the wet lettuce leaf slap for belting a guy?

Edited May 9 by Bitter but optimistic

[Jaded No More 58,627]

32 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

How can you get 5 weeks for a slur but the wet lettuce leaf slap for belting a guy?

And 0 weeks for ending the career of a guy 

[Bitter but optimistic 21,389]

29 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

And 0 weeks for ending the career of a guy 

The bull [censored] continues.

[Moonshadow 16,346]

1 hour ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

How can you get 5 weeks for a slur but the wet lettuce leaf slap for belting a guy?

Whilst the slur was appalling and no reasonable person would condone it, the fact that Clarko only got a fine shows this is now AFL virtue signalling at its finest

[GCDee 3,064]

That last replay showed a it was touched!? What the actual [censored] could the AFL be more corrupt 

[monoccular 16,281]

2 hours ago, GCDee said:

That last replay showed a it was touched!? What the actual [censored] could the AFL be more corrupt 

They certainly don't seem to even try to dispel those suggestions.  But then, Carlton are still in the race, so, as GWBush infamously said "mission accomplished".

[monoccular 16,281]

Will that Carlton player who elbowed ANB in the face get cited?  

Is there a suggestion of corruption in the AFL  and MRO?

Both questions could be answered concurrently.

Also I think it was ANB again who received a gut punch after disposing on the outer wing in Q2 - any suggestion by the commentariat that this should be cited, or did they think it was "just. a love tap"?

[Gawndy the Great 7,640]

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Will that Carlton player who elbowed ANB in the face get cited?  

Is there a suggestion of corruption in the AFL  and MRO?

Both questions could be answered concurrently.

Also I think it was ANB again who received a gut punch after disposing on the outer wing in Q2 - any suggestion by the commentariat that this should be cited, or did they think it was "just. a love tap"?

They should both be cited. The elbow is late, high and player left the ground. Minimum 2 weeks, should be 3. Carlton tax probably gets off with the old no sufficient contact was made.

 

the gut punch is as late and intentional. Should be 1 but will be a fine. It’s written in stone watch it come true

Edited May 9 by Gawndy the Great

[Redleg 37,906]

On 10/05/2024 at 00:02, monoccular said:

Will that Carlton player who elbowed ANB in the face get cited?  

Is there a suggestion of corruption in the AFL  and MRO?

Both questions could be answered concurrently.

Also I think it was ANB again who received a gut punch after disposing on the outer wing in Q2 - any suggestion by the commentariat that this should be cited, or did they think it was "just. a love tap"?

Both fines.

Newman incident an elbow to ANB’s jaw same as Kozzie on Soligo, also after leaving the ground, deemed low impact and not raised to medium, because of propensity to cause injury, like Kozzie.

No explanation of why treatment different.

Continues Carlton’s magical run at MRO and Tribunal.

[spirit of norm smith 13,175]

https://twitter.com/7AFL/status/1788528363025387548/video/1

leaves the ground 

contact made 

propensity to do damage 

so why a fine ???  
 

MRO is corrupt.
Kozzy incident was the same. Soligo got up immediately.  I thought the AFL wanted to stop such actions   

 

Edited May 10 by spirit of norm smith
O

[GM11 695]

Now we wait for the AFL to appeal............................🤣

[daisycutter 28,636]

5 minutes ago, GM11 said:

Now we wait for the AFL to appeal............................🤣

[monoccular 16,281]

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

Both fines.

Newman incident an elbow to ANB’s jaw same as Kozzie on Soligo, also after leaving the ground, deemed low impact and not raised to medium, because of propensity to cause injury, like Kozzie.

No explanation of why treatment different.

Continues Carlton’s magical run at MRO and Tribunal.

No explanation needed.  Bleeding obvious. 

[demon3165 2,006]

Have no problem with Newman getting off, not much in it.

[spirit of norm smith 13,175]

17 hours ago, demon3165 said:

Have no problem with Newman getting off, not much in it.

Leaves the ground 

Elbow out 

No attempt to tackle 

Kozzzy got suspended for the same incident but it was determined that it “could” have caused a serious impact.  But it didn’t.  
 

MRO is inconsistent.  That’s the issue time and time again. 

[monoccular 16,281]

On 11/05/2024 at 18:43, demon3165 said:

Have no problem with Newman getting off, not much in it.

 

On 12/05/2024 at 12:42, spirit of norm smith said:

Leaves the ground 

Elbow out 

No attempt to tackle 

Kozzzy got suspended for the same incident but it was determined that it “could” have caused a serious impact.  But it didn’t.  
 

MRO is inconsistent.  That’s the issue time and time again. 

IF theories were reversed, would Kozzie get time?  Of course he would.

And the AFL of course let the gutless gut punchers go off free (well a petty cash fine) - I guess if one of our guys try it??

[demon3165 2,006]

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

IF theories were reversed, would Kozzie get time?  Of course he would.

And the AFL of course let the gutless gut punchers go off free (well a petty cash fine) - I guess if one of our guys try it??

There will always be inconstancies until they say it doesn't matter what the outcome is you do it and it's 2 and then graded on how bad it was weeks or more and don't get me started on gut punches or an open hand slap it should be mandatory 2 weeks full stop, no school yard excuse he touched me first.

But if that happened the media would complain about that.

[Palace Dees 2,032]

As predicted.  This obvious multi week offence results in just a fine. Impossible for the MRO to defend this decision.  A forearm straight to the face FFS.

 

MATCH REVIEW: Warner learns fate for Pittonet elbow - https://www.afl.com.au/news/1131785

[Fromgotowoewodin 797]

14 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

As predicted.  This obvious multi week offence results in just a fine. Impossible for the MRO to defend this decision.  A forearm straight to the face FFS.

 

MATCH REVIEW: Warner learns fate for Pittonet elbow - https://www.afl.com.au/news/1131785

It’s time we admitted to ourselves that this is our own fault, through our superior physical preparation and the natural physical attributes of our players “potential to cause injury” only applies to Melbourne players, other players just aren’t as inherently dangerous as we are