Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 106

Thread: Tribunal news from weekend's game - Thomas and Ted

  1. #1
    Veterans List aardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    4,964

    Tribunal news from weekend's game - Thomas and Ted

    Lindsay Thomas, North Melbourne, has been charged with a Level three engaging in rough conduct offence against Gary Rohan, Sydney Swans, during the first quarter of the round Four match between North Melbourne and the Sydney Swans, played at the SCG on Sunday April 22, 2012.

    In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

    Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), severe impact (four points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He also has 60 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 385 demerit points. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 288.75 points and a two-match sanction.


    There is a small amount of justice there.

  2. #2
    Veterans List aardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    4,964

    Richards reported

    Ted Richards, Sydney Swans, has been charged with a Level two striking offence against Lindsay Thomas, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the round Four match between the Sydney Swans and North Melbourne, played at the SCG on Sunday April 22, 2012.

    In summary, due to a five-year good record, he can accept a reprimand and 70.31 points towards his future record with an early plea.

    Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the North Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level one offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing five-year good record, which reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 93.75 points towards his future record and a reprimand. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 70.30 demerit points towards his future record and a reprimand.


    Did anyone notice this?

  3. #3
    On the Rookie List GongSwan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wollongong NSW
    Posts
    1,362
    Hmmmm, well I guess it's consistent in some ways, but still seems like Gary gets a year and the bloke who took him out gets 2 weeks, always been the way I guess
    You can't argue with a sick mind - Joe Walsh

  4. #4
    Formerly 'BBB' Triple B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,999
    Mmmm, I'll have to watch the replay for that. Teddy was down our end for that quarter as well and I certainly can't remember thinking 'Oh, he could go for that'.
    Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

  5. #5
    Senior Player monopoly19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,056
    Only thing I can think of is when his elbow hit the back of the other guy's head when he went in for a spoil?

  6. #6
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    12,948
    I am surprised he's been cited, to be honest. But not disappointed. If the AFL wants to clamp down on players slide into contests, they need to do so consistently, and I am more willing to accept Goodes' suspension if it is the start of a clamp down on all players doing this. I am surprised at the grading of the impact as severe, however, and I think Thomas is a little unfortunate in this. There was an element of bad luck in the fact that the injury that resulted was so severe, but I am not sure that the contact itself was severe.

    I am really looking forward to how the muppets on Fox are going to react to this, especially since Dunstall already declared yesterday on ATB that "Thomas did nothing wrong".

  7. #7
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    12,948
    Quote Originally Posted by monopoly19 View Post
    Only thing I can think of is when his elbow hit the back of the other guy's head when he went in for a spoil?
    That is the one. It looked accidental to me, but who knows how the MRP will adjudicate things nowadays. Presumably this means that Jack is in the clear? His also looked accidental (though a bit clumsy).

    Edit: On reflection, the one I am thinking off was in the fourth quarter, I thought. So maybe this is something completely different.

  8. #8
    Precedent is set, but I'm getting no satisfaction. Thomas was chasing the ball, so was Gary - very hard to say Thomas (or Goodes in last weeks case) is culpable for what is an awful, horrific accident.

    The whole situation has got me sad. A kid may be losing his career and the MPR is @@@@ing around with the essence of the game. It's all a mess.

  9. #9
    It's Goodes to cheer!! Site Admin ScottH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Master of the house, keeper of the zoo
    Posts
    23,519
    Blog Entries
    2
    Very interesting. I hope this continues. As liz said it makes Goodes penalty more acceptable.

  10. #10
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,456
    Ridiculous decision

    Two players going for the ball and an unfortunate accident occured

    Don't think Goodes should have been suspended either but even though the Port player was not ultimately hurt, his action was more reckless than that of Thomas

    Two wrongs dont make a right

  11. #11
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    12,948
    The AFL needs to come out very quickly with a definitive statement on sliding into contests. It needs to cover all aspects, including players sliding in head first to contests because at some point, a player is going to damage himself, never mind about an opponent. I recall 18 months ago when Benny McGlynn smashed his cheekbone sliding into a Freo player's legs (I think it was Zac Clark), Freo fans were up in arms about the incident because of the potential it had to injury Clark. In that case, it was Benny that came off second best, and while no-one could question that he was courageous, or that he was competing for the ball, it was a reckless act that injured himself badly and could have injured Clark.

    When Mummy became the first player to be suspended for a dangerous tackle, most of us were up in arms because it was an offence plucked from nowhere, something players had been doing for a while with no sanction. But other players have subsequently been suspended for similar acts and I think there is now some clarity about what is acceptable and what is not. And if it reduces the risk of injury, I have no problem now with this being an offence.

    Tackling the sliding into contests is going to be a tougher thing to crack because players are taught to attack the ball at all costs, including when it is on the ground. It is going to be incredibly hard for them to adjust, and to understand what they can or cannot do. But if some clear guidelines are set and applied consistently, and it means an end to horrific injuries like Gary's, and it stops a player breaking his neck because he slides head first into a contest, I am all for it.

  12. #12
    Veterans List aardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    4,964
    Regarding Jack...

    Contact between the Sydney Swans' Kieren Jack and North Melbourne's Andrew Swallow from the second quarter of Sunday's match was assessed. The ball was bounced in the centre and landed at Swallow's feet / knee area, as the North Melbourne player was attempting to take possession of the ball. Jack was running to contest the ball and made high contact with his opponent. A free kick was paid for the contact. It was the view of the panel that Jack had no realistic alternative way to contest the ball and no further action was taken.

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO