Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 50

Thread: #AFL Round 5 Weekly Discussion Thread

  1. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The thing that fascinates me about GWS is that their best players on the weekend were (i think) all taken from other clubs and not draft picks
    Draft picks are a lottery even low ones.

    GWS have a good list, but it's no where near the best ever and has plenty of holes in it.

  2. #26
    Watching some of the Brisbane Suns game. He’s shown a bit before but Hugh McCluggage is going to be one hell of a player.

  3. #27
    Senior Player dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    2,124
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    North 7 goals to Hawks 2 in the first quarter. Wow! I just heard Brian Taylor come out with one of the best pieces of 'observational comedy' just a minute or so ago. "He is highly respected by all the players is Matt Stevic". I highly doubt he is respected by any of our players thank you BT.......you knob.
    Yes, but BT probably thinks that Brian Taylor is highly respected by all the players.

  4. #28
    Does Tom Mitchell have anything to answer for with that elbow to Goldstein’s head? Deliberate, but not much in it (the size disparity meant it was like an ant nudging an elephant) but surely you can’t go around intentionally elbowing people in the head?

  5. #29
    Oh dear, what a day Shaun Higgins had.
    1. Birth of his daughter.
    2. decided to play although guessing he didn't have too much sleep.
    3. Knocked out cold and finished up in hospital, although the reports coming through from the rooms said he was talking and able to move all his limbs.

  6. #30
    Senior Player dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    2,124
    Quote Originally Posted by 09183305 View Post
    Does Tom Mitchell have anything to answer for with that elbow to Goldstein’s head? Deliberate, but not much in it (the size disparity meant it was like an ant nudging an elephant) but surely you can’t go around intentionally elbowing people in the head?
    Yes, on one hand, you would assume that the size disparity would count against him. That is, to actually make contact with Goldstein's head, then it had to be deliberate. On the other hand, he now plays for Hawthorn and their players have a long history of getting away with that sort of deliberate sniping. In a Hawks/Swans game a couple of years ago, I recall Sam Mitchell wandering up to Tom and deliberately elbowing him in the head. For that, I don't think he even got a fine.

  7. #31
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,212
    Joel Selwood has been offered a one match suspension for retaliatory action against Thomas, following the bump that laid out Scott Selwood. I'm a little surprised he wasn't just fined. The action is somewhat similar to Hunter's on Papley (for which he got a week) but looks more to the shoulder than the face and lower force too. My expectation is that Selwood and Geelong will whinge to the tribunal (and in all likelihood will get off).

    I'm just as surprised at Mitchell receiving a fine for his elbow to Goldstein's head. I'm not sure how they can come up with that. Surely it was either below the necessary force and hence no sanction should apply, or it was intentional/high/low, which the table says is a 1 match ban. A fine can only come about it were deemed careless rather than intentional. Not sure how any sane person could reach that decision based on other incidents that have been deemed intentional (Mason Cox, Jack Graham).

  8. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I'm just as surprised at Mitchell receiving a fine for his elbow to Goldstein's head. I'm not sure how they can come up with that. Surely it was either below the necessary force and hence no sanction should apply, or it was intentional/high/low, which the table says is a 1 match ban. A fine can only come about it were deemed careless rather than intentional. Not sure how any sane person could reach that decision based on other incidents that have been deemed intentional (Mason Cox, Jack Graham).
    Listening to the Superfooty podcast earlier today, they said that because he was in Brownlow contention, chances are he'll get away with it. If he wasn't he'd get a week. Think they got it right.

  9. #33
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,153
    Joel Selwood’s jumper punch caused the back of Thomas’s head to thump into the ground which is dangerous - Selwood deserves a week off.

    Agree with your summation re Tom Mitchell incident - either insufficient force and no penalty or a week off. Given Christian has made a lot of noise about how he will take into account potential for injury and not just actual injury, it should have been a week off in my view.

    I have been doubtful from the beginning about the claim that a one-man match review ‘panel’ would achieve more consistency. The tendency to fit the penalty to the subjective perception of the act/player, rather than according to the match review penalty table, is just as likely with one person as it was with three. Or perhaps more likely without others to counter argue. And that said, the AFL now explicitly gives the tick-off to decisions (which we assume they did before anyway). I suspect they have decided a fine will serve as a warning to Mitchell without putting him out of the Brownlow race.

  10. #34
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,153

    #AFL Round 5 Weekly Discussion Thread

    I’ve just read the Match Review statement. The Mitchell penalty was manipulated by deeming it to be the non-classifiable offence of ‘misconduct’, which is a financial penalty, rather than ‘striking’ which is classified by the penalty table.

    In fact there were a total of four ‘misconduct’ judgements in the statement - a classification used sparingly in the past.

    So when is an elbow to the head ‘misconduct’ and when is it ‘striking’? H’mmm .......

    Ps: and I can’t find a 2018 version of the Tribunal Guidelines. Really annoys me how hard the AFL makes it to get the most up-to-date versions of their rules/policies etc. The AFL website still shows the 2015 Tribunal Guidelines!

  11. #35
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,663
    The MRP (or should I say the AFL) chooses the penalty that suits the situation. Case in point last year when Cotchin was free to play in the grand final.

    As soon as I saw the Mitchell incident I said he would only get a fine because of the brownlow. It was behind play and he ran at the player, lifted his arm and hit him in the head. Can you imagine the outcry if that was Lindsay Thomas?

  12. #36
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,212
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post

    Ps: and I can’t find a 2018 version of the Tribunal Guidelines. Really annoys me how hard the AFL makes it to get the most up-to-date versions of their rules/policies etc. The AFL website still shows the 2015 Tribunal Guidelines!
    I don't have the full guidelines but I found a copy of the table here:

    One-man MRP in sweeping changes for 2018 - AFL.com.au

    It doesn't explicitly mention the concept of a "misconduct" charge.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 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