AFL Round 11 - MRP - Dale Thomas May Be Cited?

[Scodog10]

Thomas is appealing. Looks like he'll get 2 weeks for the cheap shot now anyway. I can't see what excuse he could possibly come up with... the ball was 10m or so away.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/thomas-to-appeal-onematch-suspension-20110607-1fq2m.html

Pfft... the headline says he's risking 2 weeks.. the article writes this:
"Thomas has little to lose by appealing as the penalty would remain at one match even if he entered an early guilty plea."

Caroline Wilson still heading a tight ship over at the AGE.. POOR!

Bit tough on Caroline if he is still afforded the 25% discount for a clean record over the past 5 years! Probably more a mistake by the headline writer than Wilson.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/clean-record-cant-save-thomas-20110606-1fp9q.html

The fact Thomas's discount for a good record is not tied to a discount for a guilty plea may prompt Collingwood to challenge the ban at the tribunal, on the basis that even if it lost, the ban would remain at one game, albeit with 68.75 carry-over points instead of 25.56.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/clean-record-cant-save-thomas-20110606-1fp9q.html

 

[syl]

Is he risking anything by appealing?

 

[collingwood1992]

Is he risking anything by appealing?

just more carry over points

 

[4#Didak#4]

Most appeals are unsuccessful, but if it doesn't mean any extra weeks the why not have a go at getting it downgraded. Otherwise get him on a plane to Arizona!

 

[damuzzdu]

@AFL

Collingwood will challenge Dale Thomas' striking charge. Follow the tribunal hearing live on afl.com.au from 5pm AEST. http://afl.to/mNzvzF

 

[Stifler's mom]

In the unlikely event that the appeal is successful and the charge is downgraded to allow Daisy to play, then surely he'll have more carry over points hanging over his head than he would if he accepts the 1 week.

 

[PieBeast]

Ridiculous decision to appeal, no chance of it being successful whatsoever.

The only thing it ensures is MRP will come down on us like a tone of bricks next time one of our players transgresses.

 

[damuzzdu]

In the unlikely event that the appeal is successful and the charge is downgraded to allow Daisy to play, then surely he'll have more carry over points hanging over his head than he would if he accepts the 1 week.

No. If successful it will be 5 activation pts. This will equal 125 pts less 25% (early plea - as you get to keep it if you win) then less another 25% for 5 yr good record = 70.3125 carry over pts plus the reprimand.

It is a no brainer !!!

 

[damuzzdu]

Ridiculous decision to appeal, no chance of it being successful whatsoever.

The only thing it ensures is MRP will come down on us like a tone of bricks next time one of our players transgresses.

Thank god you dont run the CFC !!!

 

[Optimax]

Ridiculous decision to appeal, no chance of it being successful whatsoever.

The only thing it ensures is MRP will come down on us like a tone of bricks next time one of our players transgresses.

No we risk nothing

Whether he has a 30/40 points or 90 points whatever he does next will be a suspension, the only issue is that a 2 week would be 3 or 3 to 4 etc. Seeing as we have a chance of having him for this week if we him and will only lose him for a week regardless of the result just spend the night at the tribunal

 

[PieNSauce]

No we risk nothing

Whether he has a 30/40 points or 90 points whatever he does next will be a suspension, the only issue is that a 2 week would be 3 or 3 to 4 etc. Seeing as we have a chance of having him for this week if we him and will only lose him for a week regardless of the result just spend the night at the tribunal

No, I don't get it. There must be more to this than meets the eye. Why waste time on a prima facie case unless they've got something we don't know about. The only thing I can think of is that they might do it out of a sense of duty to Daisy because he feels he is some chance of a Brownlow but other than that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me without some additional grounds.

 

[PieBeast]

Thank god you dont run the CFC !!!

CFC=carlton, yes thank god for that.
Also thank god your prediction of Daisy not getting suspended (in the injury thread) came true....

No we risk nothing

Whether he has a 30/40 points or 90 points whatever he does next will be a suspension, the only issue is that a 2 week would be 3 or 3 to 4 etc. Seeing as we have a chance of having him for this week if we him and will only lose him for a week regardless of the result just spend the night at the tribunal

I get that mate, I'm just worried we're antagonising MRP unnecessary.
The chances of Daisy's action being downgraded from intentional to reckless are next to none. We were lucky to get away with our Maxwell appeal couple of years ago, rightfully appealed Dawes' joke suspension and now putting ourselves at risk of a harsher suspension next time one of our players does something silly. I feel like this is the case of going back to an already quite shallow well once too often.

This is one of the very rare occasions that the criticism and possible consequences to our Club will be warranted IMHO.

 

[Syphoncom]

Ok, so you're ripping into peeps who are saying that, on the face of it, this is an unrealistic and unnecessary challenge? Because hey, that's what it is.

Would be interesting to see if Daisy gets done in a qualifying final, missing an additional week because and only because of this challenge, and misses the GF.

He doesn't even deserve to get off, 1 week is nothing for what he did. He's lucky to be able to use an early plea and a 5 year GB to get it down to 1.

Unbelievable imo, but then again, it's just that, my opinion.

 

[Tommykins]

Ridiculous decision to appeal, no chance of it being successful whatsoever.

The only thing it ensures is MRP will come down on us like a tone of bricks next time one of our players transgresses.

It does seem that just because you can appeal, doesn't mean they should. Anyone got any idea what grounds they'll be appealing on? Looks like he just had a brain snap and he'll have to spend a week out.

 

[Scodog10]

The only thing I can think of is that they might do it out of a sense of duty to Daisy because he feels he is some chance of a Brownlow but other than that it doesn't make a lot of sense to me without some additional grounds.

His Brownlow chances are kaput no matter the outcome at the tribunal.

Also PieBeast challenging the charge has zero to do with the MRP as the tribunal is a completely separate body. So no dire consequences will come from challenging it.

 

[PieBeast]

Also PieBeast challenging the charge has zero to do with the MRP as the tribunal is a completely separate body. So no dire consequences will come from challenging it.

Yeah nah, next time the MRP will hand us a far harsher sentence just to ensure we cope our right whack in case we appeal.

I honestly don't know how to explain it any better.....

 

[mdc]

Yeah nah, next time the MRP will hand us a far harsher sentence just to ensure we cope our right whack in case we appeal.

I honestly don't know how to explain it any better.....

Try putting on your tin foil hat first

Seriously, the preciousness that I've seen re: this and Arizona recently is absurd. Thomas probably won't win his appeal, but he has nothing to lose and it's certainly not a 0% shot when you see that much more blatant strikes like Browns were assessed reckless.

We're not going to endear ourselves to the rest of the competition regardless of what we do, so there's no point worrying about stepping on toes.

 

[Scodog10]

Yeah nah, next time the MRP will hand us a far harsher sentence just to ensure we cope our right whack in case we appeal.

I honestly don't know how to explain it any better.....

Did they do that after we challenged the Dawes suspension? Or after we got Maxwell off when he clearly was in the wrong? Whilst I understand the point your trying to make, things simply don't work like that.

 

[mdc]

Or after we got Maxwell off when he clearly was in the wrong?

What's this about the Maxwell decision being "lucky" or "wrong"? He executed a perfect bump which unfortunately resulted in an injury. There's a reason they had to change the wording of the rule post-Maxwell; under the original rule (and the spirit of the game), there was nothing at all wrong with that bump.

 

[Scodog10]

What's this about the Maxwell decision being "lucky" or "wrong"? He executed a perfect bump which unfortunately resulted in an injury. There's a reason they had to change the wording of the rule post-Maxwell; under the original rule (and the spirit of the game), there was nothing at all wrong with that bump.

I personally didn't have a problem with what Maxwell did I just felt he was lucky, even under the old interpretation, because he still had a duty of care to not hit his head. Its just one man's opinion.

Edit: When I said clearly was wrong I meant under that interpretation not to do with what he did!

 

[mattys123]

Live chat has begun on the AFL website, probably the best place to keep up to date with what's happening tonight.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/115699/default.aspx

And we have hope;

17:05
Mark Macgugan:
Medical report from St Kilda doctor says Jones had a cold sore that was bleeding during the game. Jones didn't require any medical treatment as a result of Thomas' strike other than some vaseline being applied to his bleeding cold sore.

17:06


Mark Macgugan:
Dale Thomas now testifying, being questioned by his advocate Josh Wilson SC. Says he thought Jones still had the ball when he brought Jones to his knees, but couldn't see the ball.

 

[syl]

Jones did not get patched up due to this incident...

Medical report from St Kilda doctor says Jones had a cold sore that was bleeding during the game. Jones didn't require any medical treatment as a result of Thomas' strike other than some vaseline being applied to his bleeding cold sore.

 

[Cyril the Squirrel]

"Medical report from St Kilda doctor says Jones had a cold sore that was bleeding during the game." lol, herpes.

 

[syl]

Mark Macgugan:
Thomas saying he caught a glimpse of the ball and attempted to knock it on. Gleeson suggesting his intention was to strike Jones in the head. Thomas disagreeing, admitting he was 'reckless' in making contact with Jones' head, but didn't intend to do it.

Here we go.... if he pulls this off the MRP is officially a waste of time.

 

[bucksisbest]

The cold sore thing is all good, but aren't we arguing over intentional rather than force? Am I missing something by thinking that evidence doesn't help Thomas in getting the strike downgraded to reckless?!