So it's good to see that Luke Parker was cleared by the Match Reveal Panel of any wrong doing with the accidental hit on Chad Wingard. Not even facing him, accidental and no intent to hurt at all. But can somebody please explain how Sam Mitchell gets off for this? Not even a fine? #FreeKickHawthorn Check out the vid on the AFL site and make up your own mind!
It is just incredible isn't it? Mitchell swung AT Watts, he knew where is head was and he went for it. Can't have Hawthorn lose and drop out of four now, can we?
MRP: Star Hawk Mitchell in the clear, but teammates charged - AFL.com.au
It definitely was a clenched fist, however it would not have bruised a grape. The MRP would have been better to say insufficient force to warrant a charge. Karma is bound to get him and his team mates.
Out of all the Hawthorn incidents, including 2 for Rioli (I thought he could have also been charged for a dangerous tackle when he lifted the leg of a player), the Sicily one was the least problematic as it was in a marking contest, and yet he was the one that got a week.Makes you wonder sometimes.
I don't understand the Rioli assessment for his bump on Oliver as Careless and Low impact, as this seems extremely generous. I think he should have gotten 3 weeks, like Zak Dawson got for hitting Lloyd. Looked about the same to me.
Last edited by Ludwig; 8th August 2016 at 06:13 PM.
It is simple really. Sicily is bottom six player = expendable and cops a ban for appearance sake. Mitchell and Cyril are top six in the squad = move along, nothing to seeOriginally Posted by Ludwig
Out of all the Hawthorn incidents, including 2 for Rioli (I thought he could have also been charged for a dangerous tackle when he lifted the leg of a player), the Sicily one was the least problematic as it was in a marking contest, and yet he was the one that got a week.
I don't understand the Rioli assessment for his bump on Oliver as Careless and Low impact, as this seems extremely generous. I think he should have gotten 3 weeks, like Zak Dawson got for hitting Lloyd. Looked about the same to me.
They updated the article on the afl website:
Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head
Hang on, are you saying that the MRPs full Statement was changed after it was first posted? This Statement: Match Review Panel full statement: round 20 - M.afl.com.au ?
Twitter was originally saying that the MRP deemed no contact to the head, which made their decision to fine Rioli all the more strange because if it's not head, it's body, which means no case to answer.
Changing the 'article' is entirely bizarre given it's their full statement. What did the statement say before it was updated? No head contact?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Captain, I am detecting large quantities of win in this sector
A copy of the original statement is on the NM Big Footy website. The original statement had the words 'low impact to the body.' The statement was later revised and the word 'head' was substituted for 'body'. Every other player involved in a similar incident this year got at least 2 weeks. It seems to me that Sicily took the rap for Mitchell and Rioli since he hasn't been playing well and was likely to be dropped anyway.
It's hard to tell if the Mitchell hit was with a closed fist or open hand, but seems to be a hit rather than a push, as the motion looks continuous. But the MRP have other videos I believe.
Could you just imagine the outcry if Adam Goodes had been let off for either one of those incidents.
Ok, so this gets interesting. In changing its Statement in this way, I think the MRP has changed its decision....AFTER it has met. Does this happen often? Surely this cannot be a printing error. They meet, review and take a record of it. Are they saying they got their decision wrong?
A deliberate hip and shoulder that makes contact with the body = no charge, that I know. What happens when it's the head? I thought that is an automatic suspension, the severity of which is determined by the medical report and whether the player impacted remains on the ground?
What I'n getting at is whether it's body or head, their decision is quite bizarre in both scenarios. This was pointed out across the Internet, so the MRP subsequently changes their decision to the least of the two?
There's quite a few other lines to read between on this, but I won't go there. Perhaps it was really a typo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Captain, I am detecting large quantities of win in this sector
It was a bad day at the office at the MRP. They will have to start drug testing the typists soon.
Apparently someone named Corsica was suspended for a week, but was revised later to read Sicily.
They also misspelled the word 'punch' as 'slap'.
Oh well. I'm sure they'll get it fixed up by the time someone NOT from Hawthorn is reported.
No, don't think that's right. Careless/high/low impact = a fine. It has to be at least medium impact and high/groin to be a suspension.What happens when it's the head? I thought that is an automatic suspension, the severity of which is determined by the medical report and whether the player impacted remains on the ground?
I heard on bigfooty a former Hawthorn CEO is the head of the MRP.
Hawthorn are one goddamn corrupt club.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks