AFL Player #27: Mason Redman 🐕

[Lore]

Contract Status: Free Agent 2028
My Boy Draft 2024: Pick 24, ghostdog

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

Throwing these together coz I looked up why Hewett got off







it's best to think of careless/intentional from the POV of "did they intend to commit a reportable action?". The easy example is a bump. Almost every bump is graded as careless, because it's legal to lay a bump. It's just if you stuff up and hit the head, you're in trouble. the exception is if the bump is off the ball, when bumps aren't legal, which led to Nathan Brown getting an intentional charge in 2018, because there was no doubt he intended to bump Saad, and it was an illegal action. I saw some people say Jimmy Webster should have been graded intentional, but it was perfectly legal for him to bump the player, but he had plenty of force behind him and got the head. I don't see a way to have Webster's bump to be a possible intentional act without it actually possibly banning the bump forever.

Anyway, it seems like what the AFL is trying to do with this new striking interpretation is to have a little bit of that "off the ball" dynamic apply. the ball had gone out of play way down the field when Redman/Newcombe got into it. when Hewett/Neale got into it, they were jostling around the ball-up contest that was about to start. and that difference is basically why Hewett didn't get intentional grading. (btw I do wonder if Redman may have been graded insufficient force if it was only one handed)

‘That’s semantics, surely?’ Great challenges AFL boss over strike verdict amid rule change hint

‘That’s semantics, surely?’ Great confronts AFL boss over strike verdict amid rule change hint

www.foxsports.com.au

However, to Mercurial89's point, Hewett's action was just a ****ing punch! I don't see what it's got to do with the new interpretations at all. It's a punch and since punches are always illegal, it should have been intentional, just like Neale's gut punch 2 seconds later was graded intentional. Absolutely bemusing.

Sicily got done for the kick, right? I'm ok with that, there's no reason for kicks. But I feel like plenty of times Sicily would have been let off for insufficient force.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Phone.

 

[faible]

In a season where we're not going to challenge I'm ok with not appealing to (try) teach Mason a lesson in his own stupidity. There's no reason to go near the head when shoving someone.

Generally I agree except it was Sicily who has a very punchable head. As does Ginnivan. Now both play for the same side conveniently.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Especially Sicily, not sure he even makes contact?

two for flinching?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

im embarrassed we aren't appealing this.

what the actual ****

This club really is soft as butter.

 

[Blind Turn]

Didn’t I read somewhere that our motto for the first game was ‘Stand Your Ground’. Not really inspiring us to follow suit if you know what I mean…

 

[cAsEy_18]

Didn’t I read somewhere that our motto for the first game was ‘Stand Your Ground’. Not really inspiring us to follow suit if you know what I mean…

Nah we embraced the marketing teams slogan of “dob in a don”. Apparently Nick Hind made a call to the MRP Sunday morning to highlight the Redman incident, and increase his chances for a game.

The club is very proud of him for it.

 

[Snake Charmer]

Nah we embraced the marketing teams slogan of “dob in a don”. Apparently Nick Hind made a call to the MRP Sunday morning to highlight the Redman incident, and increase his chances for a game.

The club is very proud of him for it.

Payback for when Tom Cutler called up about Hind and his bbq chook all those years ago

 

[eighties_bomber]

And yet you keep coming back.

and yet i havnt been a member for 8 years and havnt attended a game for 6 years. Whats your point?

 

[Beerfish]

and yet i havnt been a member for 8 years and havnt attended a game for 6 years. Whats your point?

That you're still here. I thought that was pretty clear.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Everyone is saying it's dumb or weak. Let me ask, what's the argument that gets it downgraded to a fine? It was low impact. Can't get lower. It was graded intentional. Hard to argue against that. It's hard to see how we win, which is the issue.

That it cannot be intentional when it's only natural instinct to punch a Hawthorn player in the head. It's an automatic reflex and you can't fight mother nature.

 

[Nifft]

You don't try to hit someone with both hands at the same time

Unless you're going for the double ear slap...

 

[boncer34]

Gobsmacked
Easy decision to challenge

On what grounds?

 

[brutus76]

MRO = Mystery Random Offerings

Like what the actual fruit? Hewett's hit was arguably harder and he got a fine.

 

[boncer34]

This explains why Hewett got a fine and you can extrapolate why Redman "off the ball" got a week instead.

It's not a great explanation but it's a clear line in the sand from the AFL.

 

[Phone]

This explains why Hewett got a fine and you can extrapolate why Redman "off the ball" got a week instead.

It's not a great explanation but it's a clear line in the sand from the AFL.

In the article announcing the changes, the AFL website wrote:

The action of a player ruled to have committed a strike when intentionally shoving or fending an opponent will now be graded as Intentional rather than Careless (watch Charlie Ballard incident below, cited by the AFL as an example)

Explained: All the new rule changes for the 2024 season

The AFL has confirmed rule changes ahead of the 2024 premiership season

www.afl.com.au

The video isn't on youtube so people will have to go to the AFL site for it, but I'd say the Ballard incident on Guelfi is similar to Redman's incident.

Now Kane is highlighting an "off-the-ball" interpretation which the AFL hasn't clearly wrote in the article or MRO, but that's standard fare for them. The action that Redman did is almost the poster child for the type of action that the AFL is targeting. Away from the ball and contest, and a shove that's ended up clipping the player high. There's no chance in hell that Redman was beating the charge. Would have been a total waste of money which ends up counting against the soft cap iirc

The Hewett thing is bull but it's bull regardless of Redman and regardless of the changes they've made. That should be graded as an intentional strike and it's bizarre that the AFL is writing it off as a bit of push and shove, a bit of play fighting. But they've made that call and it is different to Redman's.

 

[TheGrizz]

Anyone moaning about the Redman suspension needs to pay a little more attention.

The AFL effectively closed the loop on off the ball strikjng motions over summer in February.

See:

• The action of a player ruled to have committed a strike when intentionally shoving or fending an opponent will now be graded as Intentional rather than Careless (watch Charlie Ballard
  10

  Charlie Ballard

  Age

  25

  Ht

  196cm

  Wt

  95kg

  Pos.

  Def

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  11.9

  3star

  K

  8.8

  3star

  HB

  3.1

  3star

  M

  4.7

  4star

  T

  1.2

  3star

  MG

  185.6

  3star

  D

  11.3

  3star

  K

  7.7

  3star

  HB

  3.6

  2star

  M

  4.9

  5star

  T

  1.3

  2star

  MG

  158.9

  3star

  D

  9.4

  3star

  K

  7.0

  3star

  HB

  2.4

  3star

  M

  3.6

  4star

  T

  1.4

  4star

  MG

  156.0

  3star

  incident below, cited by the AFL as an example)

Explained: All the new rule changes for the 2024 season

The AFL has confirmed rule changes ahead of the 2024 premiership season

www.google.com

Mason struck him with both arms, 50m off the ball and ended up getting him high.

Its a pretty straight forward week off, and i dont know what way you could argue it to get him off with a fine without sounding like an idiot (like trying to argue it wasnt a strike).

Edit: See post by Phone above

 

[Phone]

there's probably a recent example, but back when I was regularly playing attention to this, I can't recall a charge ever being downgraded based on level of impact. Intentional/Careless or High/body, or getting it thrown out altogether, sure yep, you can find technicalities like Carlton have done. But if the AFL says it's low impact, you're kinda stuffed. Plus things like striking charges have carve outs that say the MRO can consider the potential for harm, so even if Redman has barely left a mark, the potential harm is enough to mean there's no chance of getting it downgraded

 

[HirdsTheWord]

In the article announcing the changes, the AFL website wrote:

The action of a player ruled to have committed a strike when intentionally shoving or fending an opponent will now be graded as Intentional rather than Careless (watch Charlie Ballard incident below, cited by the AFL as an example)

Explained: All the new rule changes for the 2024 season

The AFL has confirmed rule changes ahead of the 2024 premiership season

www.afl.com.au

The video isn't on youtube so people will have to go to the AFL site for it, but I'd say the Ballard incident on Guelfi is similar to Redman's incident.

Now Kane is highlighting an "off-the-ball" interpretation which the AFL hasn't clearly wrote in the article or MRO, but that's standard fare for them. The action that Redman did is almost the poster child for the type of action that the AFL is targeting. Away from the ball and contest, and a shove that's ended up clipping the player high. There's no chance in hell that Redman was beating the charge. Would have been a total waste of money which ends up counting against the soft cap iirc

The Hewett thing is bull but it's bull regardless of Redman and regardless of the changes they've made. That should be graded as an intentional strike and it's bizarre that the AFL is writing it off as a bit of push and shove, a bit of play fighting. But they've made that call and it is different to Redman's.

dont know what Lauras position in the AFL is but jesus h christ

what an utter shit explanation.

 

[Vindicater]

They've accepted the ban

Weak as piss club does what a weak as piss club will do

 

[blitzer]

I think its fair enough that he gets a week for that honestly. He should be smarter about things next time and keep his arms lower and he wouldn't get the week.

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

In the article announcing the changes, the AFL website wrote:

The action of a player ruled to have committed a strike when intentionally shoving or fending an opponent will now be graded as Intentional rather than Careless (watch Charlie Ballard incident below, cited by the AFL as an example)

Explained: All the new rule changes for the 2024 season

The AFL has confirmed rule changes ahead of the 2024 premiership season

www.afl.com.au

The video isn't on youtube so people will have to go to the AFL site for it, but I'd say the Ballard incident on Guelfi is similar to Redman's incident.

Now Kane is highlighting an "off-the-ball" interpretation which the AFL hasn't clearly wrote in the article or MRO, but that's standard fare for them. The action that Redman did is almost the poster child for the type of action that the AFL is targeting. Away from the ball and contest, and a shove that's ended up clipping the player high. There's no chance in hell that Redman was beating the charge. Would have been a total waste of money which ends up counting against the soft cap iirc

The Hewett thing is bull but it's bull regardless of Redman and regardless of the changes they've made. That should be graded as an intentional strike and it's bizarre that the AFL is writing it off as a bit of push and shove, a bit of play fighting. But they've made that call and it is different to Redman's.

How do they define the 'contest?

 

[eth-dog]

One of the guys at my footy club is a lawyer. His firm handles three clubs at the tribunal (no idea which ones). Basically said that if you strike someone above the shoulders off the ball you don't have a leg to stand on. It would be a waste of time.

 

[Phone]

How do they define the 'contest?

Well that's the problem and it's gonna cause an issue when a player gets charged with intentional conduct and it happened 15 meters away and it does get downgraded. They've left too much wriggle room, but Redman was well beyond that

 

[Nifft]

One of the guys at my footy club is a lawyer. His firm handles three clubs at the tribunal (no idea which ones). Basically said that if you strike someone above the shoulders off the ball you don't have a leg to stand on. It would be a waste of time.

So it's best to bide your time and smack them when the ball is nearby?

 

[bombreys]

One of the guys at my footy club is a lawyer. His firm handles three clubs at the tribunal (no idea which ones). Basically said that if you strike someone above the shoulders off the ball you don't have a leg to stand on. It would be a waste of time.

So Hewett was deemed to be on the ball/in the contest/however they want to define it?

Seems a dud rule. Essentially because Hewett was near a ball up he was allowed to whack him in the face. Which was more of a punch to the jaw. Redman’s was barely more than a jumper punch, with Newcombe laughed about afterwards cos he sucked him in.

Makes it a bit of a grey area to me