MRP / Trib. AFL Round 18 findings - Scott Thompson's hit on Johnson at the opening bounce

[TheHonestyPolicy]

Lined him up? He barely moved. How can you line someone up by standing still?

Johnson came flying through, Thompson braced for the impact. He's allowed to do that. I don't particularly care about other decisions and how stupid they have been (Ziebell's for instance), they got this one 100% correct.

If you're so confident on the issue why feel the need to exaggerate the point into an untruth?

The MRP said he was catapulted forward with a push, now you're saying he was stationary?
Yet they got it 100% right even though theoretically you completely disagree with why.

He never changes direction towards the football, he braces himself, that's all clear from the replay.
If you can slow down, it means you aren't being carried by a push. It also means you can mitigate contact. We all want hard bumping in the game but like everything else its balanced with risk and responsibility.

When did accidental/incidental contact in football not carry the potential for a free kick or report?

 

[topic97]

the fact that the Brownlow is even mentioned as a factor shows how crap the MRP system is

My point exactly.
If Vlad didn't run the afl like a dictatorship and the MRP were consistent on similar incidents it wouldn't rate a mention!

 

[The Gee Spot]

Yah kidding me here right? What really infuriates me is the media puppets tainted description of what actually happened. I have watched the replay many many times and there is no way they just bumped into themselves. If you look at the replay you’ll identify Thompson trying to wrestle,push and shove his way passed Corey when the ball is bounced and Corey trying to stop that! Now when you look at the ball it lands behind by a meter and half Johnson and Thompson is looking no where near the ball, he’s looking at Johnson and his body mechanics indicate he was well prepared for the bump, Certainly more prepared that Johnson was! Rest my case M-lord.

 

[vealesy]

Please, everybody stop watching slo mo replays.

They distort the concept of intent.

Its instinctive stuff and the mrp should not hang any player that makes unavoidable contact. This is nothing like ziebels or thomas' suspension.

A protective flinch is not a murderous act.

 

[_Me_]

Are you serious, any Geelong player would've been serving weeks? Just like Selwood for punching Raines or Hunt for stepping on Betts' arm? Get your hand off it mate.

The issue here is the MRP is just so inconsistent. Anyone who is a lover of football should be pleased Thompson is playing this weekend, but it'd be nice if all incidental clashes like this one (Ziebell) were treated in the same way.

Having said that, what's done with Jack Ziebell is done. I'd rather the MRP begin to get some decisions correct, than stick to their guns & continue ruining our game by penalising everyone like Ziebell.

there is bay 13
there is an afl board
there are 50 billion boards, why the fluffyk do we have all the morons from sa on our board

 

[RichardMarx]

there is bay 13
there is an afl board
there are 50 billion boards, why the fluffyk do we have all the morons from sa on our board

Haha good one mate. Just let the rest of BF know the Geelong board is not a place for actual discussion, only one-eyed opinion from the folk down at Kardinia.

 

[David the Cat]

You do that Richard.....thanks for coming.

Dont let the door hit your arse on the way out

 

[Partridge]

If you're so confident on the issue why feel the need to exaggerate the point into an untruth?

The MRP said he was catapulted forward with a push, now you're saying he was stationary?
Yet they got it 100% right even though theoretically you completely disagree with why.

He never changes direction towards the football, he braces himself, that's all clear from the replay.
If you can slow down, it means you aren't being carried by a push. It also means you can mitigate contact. We all want hard bumping in the game but like everything else its balanced with risk and responsibility.

When did accidental/incidental contact in football not carry the potential for a free kick or report?

Believe what you want. Obviously a poor Geelong player got hurt and therefore the opposition player needs to be suspended for 4 weeks regardless of what actually happened.

I don't apply Geelong-tinted glasses to every act on the football field. You are still going to get collisions and players are still going to get hurt from time to time. I'm glad - quite happy in fact - that Thompson got off. He did nothing wrong.

 

[TheHonestyPolicy]

Believe what you want. Obviously a poor Geelong player got hurt and therefore the opposition player needs to be suspended for 4 weeks regardless of what actually happened.

I don't apply Geelong-tinted glasses to every act on the football field. You are still going to get collisions and players are still going to get hurt from time to time. I'm glad - quite happy in fact - that Thompson got off. He did nothing wrong.

I am merely applying the rules and precedents set by the MRP to the clear evidence. And you?

Emotions like "happy" and "glad" really shouldn't enter the process of evidence gathering but if you have decided to let that dilute your own opinions, so be it. You're the one being parochial here.

People get hurt in football. Understood. Just trying to have an intelligent conversation about something that interests me, being the "judicial" MRP process.

Their inconsistencies are heading back to the bad old days of the Tribunal and need to be brought back into line well before the finals this year where something really silly could happen.

 

[SleazySimon]

Yah kidding me here right? What really infuriates me is the media puppets tainted description of what actually happened. I have watched the replay many many times and there is no way they just bumped into themselves. If you look at the replay you’ll identify Thompson trying to wrestle,push and shove his way passed Corey when the ball is bounced and Corey trying to stop that! Now when you look at the ball it lands behind by a meter and half Johnson and Thompson is looking no where near the ball, he’s looking at Johnson and his body mechanics indicate he was well prepared for the bump, Certainly more prepared that Johnson was! Rest my case M-lord.

Thats what I was thinking and I agree. Thompson was aggressive and there was malice in it. But he only wanted to bump him not cause serious injury, which is why he didnt get suspended. Having said both Scarlo and Ziebell got suspended for lesser incidents so who knows with the MRP lottery. The system is ****ed.

Does anyone listen to Geelong hater Mark Fine on SEN. That guys a serious Geelong hater saying Johnson deliberatly ran into him. What a C**t

 

[Partridge]

I am merely applying the rules and precedents set by the MRP to the clear evidence. And you?

Emotions like "happy" and "glad" really shouldn't enter the process of evidence gathering but if you have decided to let that dilute your own opinions, so be it. You're the one being parochial here.

People get hurt in football. Understood. Just trying to have an intelligent conversation about something that interests me, being the "judicial" MRP process.

Their inconsistencies are heading back to the bad old days of the Tribunal and need to be brought back into line well before the finals this year where something really silly could happen.

I take a different view. The explanation the MRP offers is not the same as how they actually arrived at the decision. I wouldn't mind betting they decided Thompson was in the clear then fumbled around for a way to explain it.

As I said previously, I don't dispute the inconsistencies or the shocking decisions that guys like Ziebell have received. But that doesn't mean they should make a wrong decision when to me it was correct.

Yeah, I'm being parochial. Obviously.

 

[TheHonestyPolicy]

I take a different view. The explanation the MRP offers is not the same as how they actually arrived at the decision. I wouldn't mind betting they decided Thompson was in the clear then fumbled around for a way to explain it.

As I said previously, I don't dispute the inconsistencies or the shocking decisions that guys like Ziebell have received. But that doesn't mean they should make a wrong decision when to me it was correct.

Yeah, I'm being parochial. Obviously.

I do understand your reasoning a fair bit better for sure with the bold. Agree with that.

And the use of the word "betting" was a nice touch!

 

[Grizzly_82]

Haha good one mate. Just let the rest of BF know the Geelong board is not a place for actual discussion, only one-eyed opinion from the folk down at Kardinia.

Yet if I went to the Adel board and wrote something simmilar or wrote with the attitude of a few Adel posters on here I would be given a nice holiday.

Piss off if you're not going to show respect to cats supporters on their own board.

 

[RichardMarx]

Yet if I went to the Adel board and wrote something simmilar or wrote with the attitude of a few Adel posters on here I would be given a nice holiday.

Piss off if you're not going to show respect to cats supporters on their own board.

Quote my post where I've shown disrespect. All I said was I don't think you can claim "if it was a Geelong player he would have been suspended". You guys have had a pretty good run with the MRP this year, and I don't think the Thompson hit warranted suspension, regardless of who he plays for. And if you guys don't want other club members coming on for logical discussion, just make that public knowledge.

 

[vealesy]

A pretty good run?

Explain where plz.

 

[RichardMarx]

A pretty good run?

Explain where plz.

Selwood on Raines & Hunt on Betts. Not saying they should have gone, but with the MRP these days would you have been surprised if either of these were suspended?

 

[Cattery]

What did thompson do to initiate the contact?

He was standing still looking straight at the ball, johnson got shoved towards the ball and ran straight into him.

Lined him up? He barely moved. How can you line someone up by standing still?

Johnson came flying through, Thompson braced for the impact. He's allowed to do that.

Think a couple of posters have money on Thompson for the Brownlow.

Not fazed that he got off, even after repeated viewings it's hard to form a clear decision one way or the other, but to say that Thompson was stationary and Johnson somehow initiated contact is stretching the truth beyond breaking point.

 

[Partridge]

Think a couple of posters have money on Thompson for the Brownlow.

Not fazed that he got off, even after repeated viewings it's hard to form a clear decision one way or the other, but to say that Thompson was stationary and Johnson somehow initiated contact is stretching the truth beyond breaking point.

No one said Johnson initiated contact. Thompson might have been moving (haven't seen it since Saturday) but I strongly dispute he lined him up. It was just one of those things. It wasn't anyone's fault.

 

[you pick one]

No one said Johnson initiated contact. Thompson might have been moving (haven't seen it since Saturday) but I strongly dispute he lined him up. It was just one of those things. It wasn't anyone's fault.

Correct
There was other vision from a different angle to the one I posted back in post 44 that clearly showed Thompsons forearm/elbow never came in to play.
Good decision.

 

[vealesy]

Selwood on Raines & Hunt on Betts. Not saying they should have gone, but with the MRP these days would you have been surprised if either of these were suspended?

I would have been pissed off!

What thompson did was worse!

 

[vealesy]

Think a couple of posters have money on Thompson for the Brownlow.

Not fazed that he got off, even after repeated viewings it's hard to form a clear decision one way or the other, but to say that Thompson was stationary and Johnson somehow initiated contact is stretching the truth beyond breaking point.

Not at all.

The day players get suspended for standing still watching the ball is the day i stop watching this basketball shit.

 

[RichardMarx]

I would have been pissed off!

What thompson did was worse!

Agree to disagree. In my eyes, anyone who bumps they way Thompson did does not deserve weeks. People who think he should have been rubbed out are the reason the game is becoming softer. Next players will be getting rubbed out for aggressive tackles that incidently hurt the opposition... oh.

 

[TheHonestyPolicy]

Agree to disagree. In my eyes, anyone who bumps they way Thompson did does not deserve weeks. People who think he should have been rubbed out are the reason the game is becoming softer. Next players will be getting rubbed out for aggressive tackles that incidently hurt the opposition... oh.

Whilst football purists lament and I completely understand why, the current match review process isn't about great bumps or great tackles, it's about the realisation the Tribunal didn't work in deciding on these great bumps and tackles in the past, it was too inexact, it was flawed, there was no structure to it, so they went about fixing it with set penalties via a process of discovery. Like it or not.

I think most people agree the only way to make it fair these days is to make it consistent.

 

[Cattery]

No one said Johnson initiated contact.

You forgotten your own words, "Johnson came flying through, Thompson braced for the impact." in other words Johnson initiated the contact according to you; and Vealsey say's much the same thing.

The day players get suspended for standing still watching the ball is the day i stop watching this basketball shit.

Same here, not sure how this applies to the case in question though, because Thompson certainly wasn't "standing still watching the ball' in this instance.

 

[vealesy]

Agree to disagree. In my eyes, anyone who bumps they way Thompson did does not deserve weeks. People who think he should have been rubbed out are the reason the game is becoming softer. Next players will be getting rubbed out for aggressive tackles that incidently hurt the opposition... oh.

I completely agree, saying thompsons was worse was me saying how soft the hunt and selwood ones were.