MRP

[annew]

Well I am confused at the penalty to McGlynn, he tried to stop from falling into Scully, and Scully hit his head on the ground and McGlnn gets 4 weeks for that????

- - - Updated - - -

[liz]

Well I am confused at the penalty to McGlynn, he tried to stop from falling into Scully, and Scully hit his head on the ground and McGlnn gets 4 weeks for that????





It's a little hard to see from the only vision I have watched of the incident, but I think McGlynn must have made contact to the head before Scully fell all the way down. But intentional? Compared to the McKernan incident? Even the grading of high impact seems harsh as I think some of the impact Scully suffered was his head hitting the ground afterwards. Even if McGlynn did strike Scully, should he be accountable for that later impact too?

[longmile]

i fail to see any reportable incident here ... ridiculous

[Ludwig]

If Scully would have been able to continue to play, I am sure it wouldn't have even been reported. Agree that it seems McGlynn is actually trying to avoid going into Scully's back and accidentally makes contact to the head. Seems to me to be incidental on the ball contact.

[floppinab]

i fail to see any reportable incident here ... ridiculous

You've got be kidding me you guys.

Vision here

Scully subbed out - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-07-14/scully-subbed-out)

Although I doubt McGlynn was intending to get Scully high he was certainly trying get a cheapy into the guts or ribs (swinging arm and fist), but with the ball wrong footying Scully he was always going to go to ground to try and gain possession, resulting in McGlynn taking him high instead. You can see Scully's head snap to the side on impact. McGlynn knew exactly who it was and went in with intent.

[Ludwig]

You've got be kidding me you guys.

You can see Scully's head snap to the side on impact........................ McGlynn knew exactly who it was and went in with intent.

Disagree. The is loose and bouncing around. McGlynn is going after ball, but Scully dives in front to grab the ball and accidentally runs into McGlynns arm. An intentional act takes minimum around 400 milliseconds. This seems like a fraction of that time.

[Nico]

Deadset gets 4 weeks for being dumb. Didn't have to do it and I don't know what he was supposedly trying to do. He got him right in the side of the head.

[SwanFromWA]

Oh well McGlynn might need 4 weeks to rest his Hammy anyway.No loss for McGlynn. :smile:

[MightyBloods]

Deadset gets 4 weeks for being dumb. Didn't have to do it and I don't know what he was supposedly trying to do. He got him right in the side of the head.

When I saw it live I thought he was in trouble. Why would he swing a round arm with fist clenched in that situation? Very stupid by Benny. The hamstring injury softens the blow of a suspension.

[DA_Swan]

Ben got we he deserved - has always sailed close to the wind trying to play tough - would not have been happy if a swan player got cleaned up like Scully did - hope he learns his lesson but i doubt it - likes to play angry and gives away a lot of frees

[CureTheSane]

He is the one Swan who flirts with going too far regularly.

I didn't even know he was reported, and looked at the clip with interest.
I was waiting for that clip to be a prelude to real impact - and then it ended. I remembered seeing it happen (on my phone - so the resolution wasn't great)
Then I watched it again, and again and the more I watched it, the worse it got.
I'm left thinking that he went in for the tackle, saw Scully's head and then went for a bit of a whack.
4 weeks seems legit.

[undy]

He is the one Swan who flirts with going too far regularly.

I didn't even know he was reported, and looked at the clip with interest.
I was waiting for that clip to be a prelude to real impact - and then it ended. I remembered seeing it happen (on my phone - so the resolution wasn't great)
Then I watched it again, and again and the more I watched it, the worse it got.
I'm left thinking that he went in for the tackle, saw Scully's head and then went for a bit of a whack.
4 weeks seems legit.

I agree 100 %. It took a few replays, but then you pick up the swinging arm. Was there some niggle between them before this - otherwise (to me) it seems uglier play than BBBH hitting Stalker having been driven to distraction with no help from the umpires. This just looked like a sneaky thuggish act.

[jono2707]

Yep pretty much got what he deserved. Whilst I love the aggression Benny brings, playing that way is always with the risk of overstepping the mark, as has happened in this case.

[chalbilto]

4 weeks is rubbish! The club should go to the tribunal to appeal the verdict and severity of the finding. Adelaide player deliberately elbows to the head and only gets 2 weeks. An elbow to the head is a dog act!

[annew]

I agree the more you look at it the worse it gets as I didn't see the hit to the face the first time but I don't reckon it is worth 4. As to the hamstring makes me wonder if he really had a problem as he looked ok seconds before the end of the second quarter.

[hot potato]

Ben should take his medicine, chip back onto the fairway and take a triple bogey.

[Alan]

Yep, a pretty poor decision by our little nuggety forward. Probably suffers from small mans syndrome at only 171cm tall. He is probably shorter than his Nan. Scully had eyes for the ball and Benny had a very cheap shot. He will be disappointed with himself.

[longmile]

the alternate angle does make it look worse

[jono2707]

4 weeks is rubbish! The club should go to the tribunal to appeal the verdict and severity of the finding. Adelaide player deliberately elbows to the head and only gets 2 weeks. An elbow to the head is a dog act!

I think everyone now knows that to give McKernan 2 weeks for what he did was a gross miscarriage of justice. However unfortunately that doesn't help Benny this week and if anything, the MRP have taken a harsher line on a few players to perhaps try to reassert their authority.

[Ludwig]

I know Benny can get a bit agro, but to whack someone in the head in a contested ball situation, early in the game, doesn't make sense. I think it was an aggressive act, but believe that the head contact was accidental. To me it seems that Benny was thinking of contesting the ball, but realised that Scully was over it and he would fall onto Scully's back, so took a clumsy swing in the direction of the ball, and unfortunately, Scully's head got in the way. In real time, you hardly realise anything has happened, and even the commentators thought the problem was Scully hitting his head on the ground. The MRP has taken a harsh view of things this week. So it goes.

[ernie koala]

It was a swinging arm, with clenched fist.... he was looking to hit him somewhere.

As it turned out, it was to the side of the head putting Scully out for the game with concussion....And he looked sick to me.

It seems pretty clear to me, and I doubt very much the Swans will appeal.

[Bloodthirsty]

OK. This is ridiculous. 4 WEEKS for that is a joke. Getting struck like that wouldn't hurt a grandma. It was Scully hitting his head on the ground because he fell into it face-first that caused his concussion, plain and simple. Reckless, low-medium impact, 1 week. If the MRP want to lash out with gross over-reactions to their own prior incompetence, then cut out one square foot of the SCG turf and suspend it for 4 weeks. For 4 weeks there would be a little square patch of dirt on the SCG.

One word: Mckernan.

I will be very disappointed if the Swans don't front up with a QC pointing out the obvious, to at least get this down to 1 maybe 2 weeks.

BTW - I can't stand Mark Fraser, MRP chairman. His annoying pseudo-calm matter-of-fact demeanor ruining people's seasons with illogical and inconsistent reasoning makes me want to strike him intentionally, high contact, high impact.

[Jeffers1984]

The alternate angle of the incident clearly shows Mcglynn hitting Scullys face flush with a clenched fist. Don't know why the Swans website doesnt show that particular footage.

Stupid act.

Deserves the holiday.

[annew]

The alternate angle of the incident clearly shows Mcglynn hitting Scullys face flush with a clenched fist. Don't know why the Swans website doesnt show that particular footage.

Stupid act.

Deserves the holiday.

Where is the alternate angle vision

[707]

Stupid act but harshly dealt with, particularly when the McKernan dog act was given a pathetic three weeks.

Agree with you Bloodthirsty on Mark Fraser, like your comment - four weeks for your hit on him!

Think Benny would have had a couple out with the hammy anyway so doubt we'll appeal.

[Jeffers1984]

Where is the alternate angle vision
It was shown during the match i believe in the 3rd quarter and most likely at the end of the game.

[Plugger46]

Dog act. Deserves every bit of the 4 weeks. If one of our blokes had been hit like that, we'd all be going berserk.

McKernan's was assessed incorrectly in my opinion but that's another story.

[Jeffers1984]

Dog act. Deserves every bit of the 4 weeks. If one of our blokes had been hit like that, we'd all be going berserk.


Exactly. Extremely poor disgraceful act from Mcglynn.
I can imagine the uproar if someone did that to a Hannebery or Jack taking him out for the rest of the game like Scully was.

- - - Updated - - -

I've uploaded the alternate angle (well slow mo version of it)
http://youtu.be/B5awiJmdaaU

[Xie Shan]

I didn't pick it up on the initial replay they showed, and wondered what the MRP was on about, but there was definitely a swinging arm, totally unnecessary and deserved a holiday.

[Bloodthirsty]

I didn't pick it up on the initial replay they showed, and wondered what the MRP was on about, but there was definitely a swinging arm, totally unnecessary and deserved a holiday.

Yeah not a 4 week holiday. Scully was concussed because he landed on his face, not because of the force of McGlynn's arm.

[CJK]

Accepted the 4 weeks

[Bloodthirsty]

Now Swans players are getting injured and suspended at the same time. Did we do something to anger the footy gods?

[neilfws]

Accepted the 4 weeks

3 with the early plea.

Didn't look like any force in the swing to me, but there you go. Guess you can't be waving fists near faces.

[Swansongster]

3 with the early plea.

Didn't look like any force in the swing to me, but there you go. Guess you can't be waving fists near faces.

Deservedly so. I agree with previous posters; we would have been ropeable if someone took out one of our midfield guns in such a manner.

[wolftone57]

Disagree. The is loose and bouncing around. McGlynn is going after ball, but Scully dives in front to grab the ball and accidentally runs into McGlynns arm. An intentional act takes minimum around 400 milliseconds. This seems like a fraction of that time.

Ludwig you are now being ludicrous. Benny went in with intent, let's face it the little man plays it hard he knows no other way. A bit tough getting 3 matches with what I saw as a 1-2 matcher and having no current priors. Stevie J did something far worse with intent ad got 1 week, what he did was a dog act kneeing a player in the head. If you look at the vision of that one Stevie stops before he knees his opponent in the head, bloody coward. Some things a player should never do, grab the goolies, kick a player or knee a player in the head.

Yes it is one rule for the Melbourne clubs and one rule for the interstaters. Pav got 3 for an accidental hit.

[liz]

McKernan's was assessed incorrectly in my opinion but that's another story.

My initial reaction was that the grading seemed harsh compared to the McKernan one. But I agree that if we just accept the McKernan one was wrong, it is better not to use that as the basis against which to grade others.

He's been playing a little angry for a while now, and was a little lucky not to have his slam tackle last week looked at a bit closer. I hope Jack also pulls back his aggression a little. He too has had incidents over the past two weeks where, while he didn't make contact that would draw a suspension, he was a little fortunate that he didn't make worse contact.

[ScottH]

Accepted the 4 weeks

3 weeks! ;)

McGlynn accepts three-match ban - SYDNEYSWANS.com.au (http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2013-07-16/mcglynn-match-review-panel.workspace)

[CureTheSane]

Yeah not a 4 week holiday. Scully was concussed because he landed on his face, not because of the force of McGlynn's arm.

Well, you don't know that, and even if so, perhaps McGlynn's whack contributed to the face in the ground.
3 weeks is right.

[barry]

3 weeks is a good outcome. Get you hammy right McGlynn, you dont want to miss another grand final.

Hopefully Morton is available as a like for like replacement.

[Rod_]

So now the question is...

What was the ice pack for on the leg after half time? And will 3 1/2 weeks be enough to cool him off...? (OK technically 2 questions..)

Rod_

[CJK]

Jumped the gun - 3 weeks it is.

#MyBad.

[Nico]

My initial reaction was that the grading seemed harsh compared to the McKernan one. But I agree that if we just accept the McKernan one was wrong, it is better not to use that as the basis against which to grade others.

He's been playing a little angry for a while now, and was a little lucky not to have his slam tackle last week looked at a bit closer. I hope Jack also pulls back his aggression a little. He too has had incidents over the past two weeks where, while he didn't make contact that would draw a suspension, he was a little fortunate that he didn't make worse contact.

Probably angry because he misses so many easy goals.

[top40]

3 weeks is a good outcome. Get you hammy right McGlynn, you dont want to miss another grand final.

Hopefully Morton is available as a like for like replacement.


There is a potential huge silver lining here. If Benny had not been suspended, the nature of his present injury means that he would most likely have come back in two weeks or so, being the Richmond game. That may have proven to be too early, whereupon he may have re injured his hammy. However an extra two weeks related to his suspension, until 10th August v Collingwood, means that there is less chance of a recurrence of further injury.

[undy]

There is a potential huge silver lining here. If Benny had not been suspended, the nature of his present injury means that he would most likely have come back in two weeks or so, being the Richmond game. That may have proven to be too early, whereupon he may have re injured his hammy. However an extra two weeks related to his suspension, until 10th August v Collingwood, means that there is less chance of a recurrence of further injury.

I like your glass.

[stellation]

Probably angry because he misses so many easy goals.

For the first time I now hope that Sam doesn't fill out into those shoulders of his!

[annew]

Now Swans players are getting injured and suspended at the same time. Did we do something to anger the footy gods?

Yes we took Tippett that upset all the oozy gods

[Doctor]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-07-15/mrp-full-statement-round-16

Apparently his hammy had him out for 2 anyway so accepting 3 weeks was a no brainer. I'm disappointed because we have such a good record in terms of suspensions and I don't like to see any of our players incur the wrath of the MRP. What counts against McGlynn here are (IMO) Scully being concussed and subbed out as the MRP have stated more than once that injury to the recipient will make a difference in the level of culpability attached to the protagonist; McGlynn's eyes, which were not on the footy; the stiff arm with clenched fist.

As to whether it was worth 4 weeks down to 3 we have to consider a couple of things. Comparing it to the McKernan one is a red herring as that was clearly wrong and has been accepted as such by all but the MRP and the most fervent Crows fans. The next thing is you have to look at the grading of the incident. McGlynn's hit on Scully was assessed as intentional, high impact, high contact. If you think 4 weeks down to 3 is too many, you have to argue that any or more than one of those 3 are graded too high. It's hard to argue with any of them really other than possibly the intent. You could argue that it was reckless rather than intentional but the MRP disagrees and the club have obviously decided that the MRP is right or that it's not worth fighting. The above link has the details of the charge.