MRP / Trib. 2013 MRP/ Tribunal News & Reports (keep it all in here)

Remove this Banner Ad

Yep. Like I said, standing up trying to dispose of the footy. When warnock falls to the ground, rioli let's go. Adams was on the ground with a carlton player on top of him and no chance of disposing of the ball. Big difference.

Yeh what ever...
 
In hindsight, does anyone else think we should have challenged the Waite head butt suspension?

RE Hodge, lots of eloquent discussion about the rights and wrongs but from my point of view his being able to play against West Coast is good news for us. Woo hoo!
 
In hindsight, does anyone else think we should have challenged the Waite head butt suspension?

RE Hodge, lots of eloquent discussion about the rights and wrongs but from my point of view his being able to play against West Coast is good news for us. Woo hoo!

I think Carlton chose not to challenge the Waite head butt because it was a stupid brain fade and they probably wanted to teach Waite a lesson.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

In hindsight, does anyone else think we should have challenged the Waite head butt suspension?

RE Hodge, lots of eloquent discussion about the rights and wrongs but from my point of view his being able to play against West Coast is good news for us. Woo hoo!

And good news for my Supercoach given the bye!!! :eek:
 
Yep. Like I said, standing up trying to dispose of the footy. When warnock falls to the ground, rioli let's go. Adams was on the ground with a carlton player on top of him and no chance of disposing of the ball. Big difference.

So because he chicken winged him standingup makes it acceptable? That tackle injured Warnock badly....arguably worse than Adams, so some consistency please
 
In hindsight, does anyone else think we should have challenged the Waite head butt suspension?

RE Hodge, lots of eloquent discussion about the rights and wrongs but from my point of view his being able to play against West Coast is good news for us. Woo hoo!


You should have....it should have been deemed not forceful enough to warrant a report.
 
You should have....it should have been deemed not forceful enough to warrant a report.

The umpire was a metre away when it happened and thought that too.

But nobody is game to second guess what kind of mood the MRP is in on any given week, or what they are imbibing, or which set of spectacles they have on. Truly a farce.
 
The umpire was a metre away when it happened and thought that too.

But nobody is game to second guess what kind of mood the MRP is in on any given week, or what they are imbibing, or which set of spectacles they have on. Truly a farce.


But its not the MRP you're dealing with when you contest a charge. Can you be suspended for intent? I'm not even sure Waite made any contact if he did it was minimal at best and the force wasn't strong enough to warrant a report, if you notice the Melbourne player pushes him way near the point of impact.
 
But its not the MRP you're dealing with when you contest a charge. Can you be suspended for intent? I'm not even sure Waite made any contact if he did it was minimal at best and the force wasn't strong enough to warrant a report, if you notice the Melbourne player pushes him way near the point of impact.
The tribunal is worse than the MRP. Only 2 players have been let off their reports in recent years and that includes Hodge.
 
But its not the MRP you're dealing with when you contest a charge. Can you be suspended for intent? I'm not even sure Waite made any contact if he did it was minimal at best and the force wasn't strong enough to warrant a report, if you notice the Melbourne player pushes him way near the point of impact.

The MRP decides if its going to charge you what the level of your impact (severe, high, medium and low), level of conduct (intentional, reckless, negligent etc.) and then where you hit (head, body or groin). So yes you can be suspended for intent, and thats where the difference was between Henderson and Waite's i think in that Waites conduct was intentional even though it was a low level of contact while Hodge's was just accidental damage when he jumped off the ground.
 
I reckon Hodge went in to take his one week and points off record, came out clean :)


Either way it was always going to be a win/win for Hodge and Hawthorn.

Lose at the Tribunal and cop a I week suspension with no carry over points or he would be cleared and the slate wiped clean.

Pretty sure Hawthorn couldn't care less if Hodge was unavailable against West Coast this week.
Better than have points hanging over his head going into the 2nd half of the season and into the finals.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I am concerned about the message the tribunal has sent in exonerating Hodge. If a player is in danger of cleaning up one of his teammates, he should do everything he can to avoid this, even if it means cleaning up an opposition player instead. It is now ok to hit the opposition, rather than your teammate.


Seems that way msr.
 
I am concerned about the message the tribunal has sent in exonerating Hodge. If a player is in danger of cleaning up one of his teammates, he should do everything he can to avoid this, even if it means cleaning up an opposition player instead. It is now ok to hit the opposition, rather than your teammate.
I wouldn't be. The message is simply "accidents happen". It could've just as easily been a teammate Hodge collected after avoiding Roughy and then absolutely nothing would've come of it. Just look at the concussion to the two Geelong players the other week (Johnson and Christensen I believe) after they clashed heads going for the ball. It's a fast game, bodies everywhere going in every direction. It's amazing there aren't a lot more of these kind of impacts during games.
 
Could come in handy !! knowing that you have a defence ,If in the act of not taking out one of your own players its ok to take one of there's. If only i new that back in the day :D

As long as you didn't directly opt to make contact, you're all good. If you're seen to line anyone up though, the defence won't work.
 
Absolutely bewildered at the decision.

As I have stated in another post, intention has never been a defence before now, otherwise Betts would have got off due to his previous good record as he did not intend to break the players jaw.

The only consistency we can look forward to from the AFL seems to be inconsistent application of their own rules.

However, Betts did intend to bump, Hodge did not. Not saying Betts deserved the suspension but it is pointless comparing the two instances.
 
However, Betts did intend to bump, Hodge did not. Not saying Betts deserved the suspension but it is pointless comparing the two instances.

Hodges only intention was to protect himself,with an elbow! please absolute farce this guy knew how to take out Murphy.
 
I think you're a little confused. Hodge used his elbow to snipe Hendo - just after he violently drove his shoulder into Murphys face in an obvious attempt to take him out of the game.

Thankfully one of you shit and piss supporters knows the truth... well said sir well said
 
I wouldn't be. The message is simply "accidents happen". It could've just as easily been a teammate Hodge collected after avoiding Roughy and then absolutely nothing would've come of it.
Oh really, maybe if it was someone he didn't like or an unfamilar new player like Lake.

He was lucky, he got off, leave it at that.
 
The Hodge/Murphy one could set a very dangerous precedent. In the past when a 2nd player has approached the ball, while another player is over it with their head, they have generally pulled up and waited to tackle player 1, or been very circumspect with the way they challenge for the ball.

This non report of Hodge now means you can see a player with their head over the ball and now legally charge in and basically bump them out of the way as long as you turn your body at the last second 'to protect yourself', and also put your hands somewhere in the vicinity of the footy.

A very dangerous precedent has been set and I fully expect a number of head injuries if other players take note and employ these tactics

Hodge got his hands to the ball first. Siting him would have set a very lame precedent.

"Oh, you're 2 steps closer to a loose ball than me? But of course then, after you..."

Don't blame Hodge, blame the sliding rule. If either player had the option of going to ground to attack the ball, injury would have been much less likely.
 
Oh really, maybe if it was someone he didn't like or an unfamilar new player like Lake.

He was lucky, he got off, leave it at that.

He was well and truly in mid-air after having jumped to avoid running Roughead and it wouldn't matter who or what was in front of him at that point, he had no physical means to avoid contact with whatever was in his direct path. That's not an opinion, that's physics.

The MRP assesses incidents based on a regimented system of points and gradings, while the tribunal takes a lot more into account and things can be taken on a case-by-case basis. The fact the tribunal jury took a mere 2 minutes to find Hodge not guilty suggests there was no luck involved and that it should never have gone that far.

I know as a Carlton supporter you'd be feeling hard done by here but the general consensus from the majority of neutrals (supporters on Big Footy and the media) on this matter was that Hodge had done no wrong and in the end the final result is testament to that.

I also appreciate that this is your board and as such you're probably not interested in much of what I have to say so if that's the case ignore/delete this post. I'll only respond if quoted.

Good luck for the rest of the season! Your guys played brilliantly for large parts of that game :thumbsu:
 
Hodge got his hands to the ball first. Siting him would have set a very lame precedent.

"Oh, you're 2 steps closer to a loose ball than me? But of course then, after you..."

Don't blame Hodge, blame the sliding rule. If either player had the option of going to ground to attack the ball, injury would have been much less likely.
Bullshit Hodge got to the ball first. Now you are just making shit up.

Murphy got to the ball first, Hodge turned his body slightly and collected him. Even the commentators were saying that Hodges hands were nowhere near the ball at the point of impact.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. 2013 MRP/ Tribunal News & Reports (keep it all in here)

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top