Chris

he should get one made out of a pearl coloured material that changes with light (red and blue of course). That way he can argue it is all one colour but still have a red and blue headband. Would love to see the rules committee deal with that. I do wonder what happens if part of a headband gets dirty and is then a different colour to the rest of it, are the AFL going to start making players wash their headband every time it gets dirty? Could be like the blood rule, play stops while the offending player leaves the ground to get their headband cleaned!

The ump just paid a lions free and advantage really late once they were clear (he paid the free late as well), a nothing free that will even the ledger a bit.

Umpire guessed that really late, conspiracy says it was once it was clear the dogs player wasn't clear.

Love how the dogs are so full of themselves that there is no recognition of the ANZACs on their jumper because Bob's 300th is far more important to recognise! Screw them.

No way that was 50!

I accept delayed concussion is real as well, and you have to accept the doctors findings. The issue is though why was the player not assessed during the game if he was at risk from concussion (as he clearly was as he ended up with it!). There is a manditory 20 minute concussion test period for any player who is suspected of having concussion. Rowe hit the ground fairly hard, hard enough to give him delayed concussion, he lay there for a while, why was he not tested? I can only think of three possible reasons why he wasn't, he was faking it and the club knew it, he was really hurt but the club thought he was faking, or the club didn't want to lose him for the rest of the game, or even the 20 minutes of the test. Same story for Cripps. No matter which one it is the CFC does not look good and should be asked some questions.

The other issue is if he was hit hard enough to end up with concussion then why was he not assessed at the game!

The Doc didn't even have to be sus. It could come down to a question of where is the line between low and medium impact? If you are annoyed that your team lost and two of your blokes get whacked you aren't going to be in a great mood. That mood may well have swayed it from one to the other, it may also have clouded their judgement. None of that is intentional, nor unforgivable, but it does show a problem with the system. The Fact neither player was immediately tested for concussion is interesting and questions should be asked.

Very very good question. As I have said before, Carlton really need to be asked some serious questions about their concussion management. Neither of these players left the field for a concussion test, yet one apparently had delayed on set concussion after the game (how do they really know he didn't have it during the game, they didn't check!), and now that same concussed player is playing this week. Medical reports need to be independent, too much is at stake for the offending team for it not to be. The medical reports should also have less weight at the ARP than they do as well.

Imagine the clubs doctors medical reports if they were guaranteed to not have that player next time they play!

The idea of suspensions as long as the injury comes up a bit but has some major failings. If you look at Lewis on the weekend, he threw a punch behind play, supposedly fractured the other players jaw, and was rightfully suspended, hitting someone behind play should be frowned upon and suspensions should be fairly hefty (Cripps may not miss a week so would Lewis serve any time?). Compare that to a player who clearly tries to bump, slips off the shoulder and collects the players head smashing their cheekbone. That would be a reportable offense, they probably should get time, but it was also unintentional and in play. The injured player may miss 10 weeks getting their face put back together. In this example you have someone taking a swipe behind play serving far less of a penalty that someone who simply made an accident in play. That wouldn't be to fair. What also happens if the person doesn't return from the injury, such as retiring from concussion?

Look at other results and you will see. Thompson intentionally elbowed a player in the face while he was lying down. He hit far harder than either of our players and with an elbow yet due to a different doctors report only got 1 week. The inconsistency is the issue as there is no way Thompson should be getting any less than our two players. There are heaps of other examples of this inconsistency. That is where the system is broken.

Precedent and dementia aren't really two things that go together too well.

Agreed but that actually isn't the point. The MRP is ridiculously inconsistent. Apparently you can elbow a bloke across the face while he is lying on his back and get less penalty than hitting bloke on the chin. Both wrong, both should be suspended, but the reason for the difference in suspensions is wrong and shows the systems is broken. The broken system is what is being discussed, not that our boys are innocent victims.

I have no issue with it being delayed concussion, fact is they didn't check at the time so they don't know if he was concussed straight away. Carlton need to answer some questions around why they were not assessed.

My thoughts. Problems with the current system - Reliant on reports from a doctor representing the aggrieved party. Not only are doctors varied in opinion, as is everyone, but they are also not immune from emotion playing a role in any report they write no matter how much they try and remove it, it is human nature. - The consequence has far too great an impact on the sentence when in fact it is the action we should be condoning. Probelm with this is a little tap on the wrong part of the jaw could cause a fracture while a big hit on a different part will have no impact. Currently the big hit gets off or less of a punishment than the little unluckily placed tap. - you realistically cant appeal Solutions - Each game should have an independent AFL paid for (of the irony of independence and the AFL) doctor present. This doctor should oversee the club doctors. During the game their role is to give final clearance for any concussion tests, or the need to do so. They over rule the club doctor but work with the club doctor in making a ruling. After each game the club is given 2 hours in which to make any medical reports of injuries sustained to the AFL doctor. If a report is made the AFl doctor will conduct their own assessment of the injured player and provide a report to the MRP if necessary. - Even penalties is a harder system to fix and make fair. I think degrees of actions must be the first step, something like hit to the head with little force = 1 week, hit to the head with medium force = 2 weeks, hit to the head with a lot of force = 3 weeks. Then you look at injuries, if no injury then no further punishment, injury where player will miss 1 or 2 weeks you add a week to the suspension, injury to the player of more than 2 weeks and you add 2 weeks to the suspension. You could set up this with lots of scenarios for kicks, bites, open handed hits, elbows, head high bumps etc etc etc. The only ambiguity is in determining the force of the impact. - I agree with not encouraging appeals as it drags the whole thing out, it has gone too far the other way. I like the idea of being able to appeal the sentence with no consequence. Take Jesse for instance, he should be able to appeal and say 'yes I am guilty but due to factors x,y,and z I think the penalty is too much. This at least gives him the chance to put his case forward. Appeals where you are looking to have a guilty changed to not guilty should stay with the extra week if you lose. I don't mind this as it is pretty rare you are found guilty when you aren't, it is far more common to be let off when you are guilty.

If the CFC took concussion seriously he would have been off the ground being assessed straight away, or even at three quarter time. Didn't happen though, wonder why.

So they test him after the fact and say it delayed yet didn't test him at the time to find out if it was there then. Sounds more and more like they either played the rules to keep them our there or put in the fix to get the boys rubbed out. AFL need to ask Carlton some questions, will never happen though.

the system is broken when you rely on the club doctors report, just like every other person they vary in opinion, Thompson smacked Dangerfield across the face with a elbow yet the Geelong doc only thought it was low impact. Inconsistent rubbish.

Just like when Bernie got done for elbowing a north player in the throat last year, the north player didn't even touch his throat afterwards which would indicate Bernie missed.

He was yapping away at Lewis 30 seconds after fracturing his jaw. No doc looked at it then, no concussion test, nothing. He very well could have done it in a contest in teh final minute of the game. Correlation and causation come to mind, Carlton and the MRP are working from correlation.

No concussion test either, I would have thought if you are hit hard enough to fracture your jaw a concussion test would be called for, and you wouldn't be up yapping at the opposition 30 seconds later.

So apparently both players had medium impact to their heads. I have a question about that, why is Carlton not being dragged over the coals for allowing two players to continue playing without undergoing concussion tests from the 'medium impact' they both sustained to their heads! sounds like the Carlton Doc has it in for us a bit, or the boys lied and the club didn't follow the AFL rules around concussion!

They wont give us game if we win more, that is a complete misnomer. They will give us better slots when our membership and ratings go up.

To me the Hogan one looks like he was trying to forcefully push his shoulder and slipped/went a bit high and managed to punch him in the jaw. I think he will miss 2, but may only be 1 with any luck.