MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Cornes: I haven't checked the chart or the rules around grading, but in my view the charge will be downgraded based on those 2 things I don't know about.
Just another Cornes media piece then
 
Kane Cornes always has an agenda.

Carlton plays the Crows next week, and he hates the Crows and knows Port will likely be in a battle with Adelaide for a top 8 spot.

So he wants McKay in.
 
Cornes: I haven't checked the chart or the rules around grading, but in my view the charge will be downgraded based on those 2 things I don't know about.
Unfortunately he is correct with this one. If it graded as a bump just like the Acres one last week then he has no way of getting it downgraded.

Christian knew exactly how to draw the charge up to make it look like he is doing his job, while giving Carlton the necessary avenue to have the charge downgraded.

I’m not sure how you grade the Acres one as a bump, but this one as a strike?
 
Unfortunately he is correct with this one. If it graded as a bump just like the Acres one last week then he has no way of getting it downgraded.

Christian knew exactly how to draw the charge up to make it look like he is doing his job, while giving Carlton the necessary avenue to have the charge downgraded.

I’m not sure how you grade the Acres one as a bump, but this one as a strike?
I don't know how a strike can be a lesser charge than a bump.
 
BLUES TO TAKE MCKAY CASE TO TRIBUNAL

Carlton is expected to appeal the one-week ban handed to Harry McKay in an attempt to clear him for the Gather Round clash against a resurgent Adelaide on Thursday.

McKay was handed a suspension for striking North Melbourne’s Harry Sheezel late in the last quarter of the victory over the Roos.

The Blues spearhead threw his arms at Sheezel but the Blues could attempt to argue it was a fending motion rather than an actual strike.

They will also likely use Gold Coast defender Charlie Ballard’s recent tribunal case as a precedent.

Ballard was handed a one-week ban for a strike that bounced off Essendon forward Matt Guelfi’s shoulder then hit him in the head.

Ballard was able to have his case overturned as he argued that he was tying to get to the contest.

“They (Essendon players) were trying to block me and stop me getting to the ball to defend,” Ballard said.

McKay’s hit on North’s Harry Sheezel. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

McKay’s hit on North’s Harry Sheezel. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)

While the tribunal agreed and allowed him to play against Geelong, former tribunal member Daniel Harford was furious at the leniency shown by the judiciary.

“The game has been done a disserve by that outcome. That is a joke. I’m so disappointed, so angry about that. I could not believe that got downgraded.”

McKay’s strike was labelled medium grading given the capacity to cause serious injury but he would escape with a fine if it was downgraded to low impact.

McKay was in hot form against the Roos with 16 disposals, 4.1 and 14 marks against the undersized Roos as he and Charlie Curnow formed a dynamic pairing.

Just from the pic alone you can’t challenge - elbow/forearm to the head is filthy and that’s if sheez had that ball. For no ball in hand it’s a downright snipe.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just from the pic alone you can’t challenge - elbow/forearm to the head is filthy and that’s if sheez had that ball. For no ball in hand it’s a downright snipe.
What exactly is he fending? He doesn’t have the ball so he’s not fending a tackler and the ball has left the area.

Surely taking the piss if they are trying to make people believe he is fending Sheezel off.

The system is cooked. As someone stated why is a late strike a lesser charge than a bump in a contest? Answer the AFL is a farce.
 
Just from the pic alone you can’t challenge - elbow/forearm to the head is filthy and that’s if sheez had that ball. For no ball in hand it’s a downright snipe.
There is indisputable photographic evidence that proves there was no contact to the neck or head of Harry. It was only his shoulder...
FtOY2fhaAAIFVAB
 
Acres was graded as a bump, this was graded as a strike, even though it was the same action.

Christian isn’t silly. Grade as a strike and watch him appeal and get it downgraded. If it’s graded as a bump you can’t have the force downgraded it’s automatically medium impact.

Regardless, from the moment it happened, I didn’t believe it was a bump. Basically, McKay, clumsily, clattered into Harry with his arms all over the place, like the awkward lug that he is. You can see he even tries to pull back but is too awkward to even manage that. As a small footballer (playing Gaelic, Soccer, Rugby), I always hated when big awkward guys used to accidentally catch me with their knees, elbows, shoulders, round-the-neck, arses - you name it. I can only imagine it’s worse in Footy.
I’d rub McKay out on the back of his awkwardness. However, I don’t believe that’s how it works.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
If McKay gets off then they aren't serious about reducing concussion.

He wasn't going for the ball. He lifted both arms to head height and unnecessarily ran them into Sheezel's head/neck.

If you can't pull up then the AFL wants you to either go low or tackle. Not cushion your impact with your elbows into a defenceless players head.

Logue was trying to stop his own concussion by bracing for contact. That isn't the case for McKay.
 

No way Lynch should be suspended for
No way Lynch should be suspended for this. The opposition player runs backwards directly against the flight into Lynch. What is Lynch supposed to do , pull out... not put his shoulder into the player running directly back , meet him front on with his ribs exposed to be cleaned up himself and not protect himself.

The Bulldogs player was an idiot , it's a cheap shot on his behalf, run back with the flight knowing that if he gets cleaned up he gets a free kick.

If you run against the flight if the ball in a contest and don't mark it you should be paid a free kick against, if in the process you get hit by a hip and shoulder then you deserve the consequences

This running back against the flight of the ball is not tough it's a cheap action.

Forwards need to be rewarded by being unimpeded against flying for a mark.



Unique tackling technique that 1.
 
McKay was clearly fending off Sheezel's cynical and aggressive attack. Fending being by definition, a shielding defence against an attack. If McKay hadn't put his elbows up to protect himself, then who knows what kind of awful injury he might have sustained.
You joke but there will be an equally absurd justification
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top