Bontempelli's hit on Haynes

[whatis]

Wow that is pretty late and to the throat, and broke it. Actually amazed he didn't go.

 

[Giant Strides]

AFL proves once again that it's corrupt - who's surprised?

 

[TheBont]

am i missing something?

sucks that he broke it but there was nothing in it.

 

[whatis]

am i missing something?

sucks that he broke it but there was nothing in it.

Looks innocuous enough I guess but my understanding was that any illegal action (free kick was paid) that causes injury was automatic weeks.

Edit: Or for that matter even close enough to causing an injury. For example Naitanui was famously suspended for an in-the-back tackle last year. Or McGovern being suspended for a late, non-high bump that caused a player to fall into a plastic chair on the boundary etc.

 

[bresker]

I’ve never heard of a broken larynx before. Ouch. Won’t be seeing Haynes down karaoke night for a while.

I think Bont got off because he threw up his arms in a ‘whoops! Silly me!’ gesture after effecting the bump.

He was lucky , he meant to hurt him. I’m surprised Bont doesn’t get frustrated more often with the pathetic off the ball digs and scragging he has to contend with.

Finished with a lazy 27, nine contested despite the attention.

 

[kernelT]

Pick the contest where the recipient didn't miss any weeks of football.

Even the captions are hilarious.

 

[Chattanooga]

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how many Haynes ends up missing.

My prediction - less than ‘expected’.

What’s up Doc?

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Even for Toby Greene kick to the face of Dahl (from a handball) that received nothing but a fine

 

[The Warlord]

If you’re still going on about it, at least finish the story and include the part where North put a target on his back and focussed on roughing him up the next time the teams met, only for the Bont to get 3 Brownlow votes and make them look incredibly stupid

On topic had to laugh in the article where apparently the Giants, of all clubs are apparently privately upset about perceived Vic bias

Luckily we learned the lesson from that and comfortably accounted for the Dogs last time we played.

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Gobsmacked by this decision. I thought the rule was if you choose to bump, the onus is on the bumper to ensure you do not get the player high. Given the larynx injury, how could this be argued any other way? Injury has to be taken into account. It is a proxy measure of the impact. The whole point of the tribunal is to eliminate acts that could potentially injure a player.

BTW I've been on the end of a similar hit. I already had copped a knock to the jaw (which was subluxated) and the red mist had descended. I lined up an opposition player to bump - he put up the elbow and I cop a second hit to the throat. The coach sensibly took me from the field but I came back on and played out the game. I stupidly then went to watch the AFL - my wife went beserk at me when I came home, went down to the hospital, had my jaw clicked back in and an otolaryngologist came in to have a look at my throat. My larynx was bruised and bleeding but otherwise OK. Point being, you can play with a larynx injury. We lost that game but won the rematch the next year - probably the most satisfying game I've played in. And no, we didn't go the knuckle.

 

[HairyO]

So the MRO should have delayed just in case GWS updated their medical report ?

I wonder if the AFL could even appeal? They have to find error based on facts presented.

At the time the MRO made the right call.

 

[peternorth]

If a Richmond player was in Haynes position, Id be calling for suspension to the offender.
If a Richmond player was in Bonts position, Id be arguing vehemently the action did not cause injury.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I’ve never heard of a broken larynx before. Ouch. Won’t be seeing Haynes down karaoke night for a while.

I think Bont got off because he threw up his arms in a ‘whoops! Silly me!’ gesture after effecting the bump.

He was lucky , he meant to hurt him. I’m surprised Bont doesn’t get frustrated more often with the pathetic off the ball digs and scragging he has to contend with.

Finished with a lazy 27, nine contested despite the attention.

And yet it’s the second one in a week - Liam Jones says hi.
Or he would if he could speak .

 

[Mofra]

The question has to be asked of GWS medical staff that put Haynes back on the field if his injury was so severe.
If Haynes had not continued to play Bont would have been suspended, it's the way the MRO seems to work.

 

[RAPPA]

What a howler. Dogs supporters defending the outcome - no surprise.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

What a howler. Dogs supporters defending the outcome - no surprise.

how the fu#$ is that a howler??

he clearly went to smother the ball (in the act of smothering). Haynes then kicks it and both "collide" into each other and bont is bracing for protection as both players are vulnerable to contact.
he doesnt jump/ he doesnt raise shoulder.

he doesnt collect him in the head, which is the most important issue.

unfortunate incident, but tbh nothing in it

 

[HairyO]

What a howler. Dogs supporters defending the outcome - no surprise.

So the MRO should wait until mid week to hand out suspensions?

Or maybe the Thursday night teams?

At the time it was a dodgy bump where the player finished the game so it was rated low.

 

[Unknown Entity]

Disgraceful and unprofessional conduct by the MRO.

Either chuck out the medical report determining suspensions or you need to wait until you have the medical report to hand down decisions. It would be like if the AFL was trying to determine Stephenson's suspension for his betting, they hadn't concluded findings into how many bets he put on so they erred on the side of minimum sentencing. Couple of days after the hearing it comes out the betting was far worse, would the AFL just go "Sorry, already given our decision"?

I don't think that action and that outcome should get weeks but under the current guidelines, it simply should have been given weeks. Completely unprofessional.

 

[RAPPA]

So the MRO should wait until mid week to hand out suspensions?

Or maybe the Thursday night teams?

At the time it was a dodgy bump where the player finished the game so it was rated low.

It was ready by Monday night. The bump was reportable and the MRO was aware that the medical evidence was not finalised. There was no risk of the investigation not concluding in a timely manner or principles of natural justice being compromised by waiting.

There was nothing compelling the decision to be made when it was made, and it was not unreasonable for the decision to be delayed until receipt of the medical evidence. MRO failing.

 

[Bald]

Just did a quick google search as I'm no doctor.

"A laryngeal fracture can occur following direct trauma to the neck region and may lead to life-threatening airway obstruction. For this reason, a patient suspected of having a fractured larynx should be treated in an emergent manner."

Yet GWS let him back on in the second half? Lol, it's on them.

 

[Sentinel]

It was ready by Monday night. The bump was reportable and the MRO was aware that the medical evidence was not finalised. There was no risk of the investigation not concluding in a timely manner or principles of natural justice being compromised by waiting.

There was nothing compelling the decision to be made when it was made, and it was not unreasonable for the decision to be delayed until receipt of the medical evidence. MRO failing.

An argument could be made on the flipside that unusually delaying the MRP ruling would be unfair to the Bulldogs, who have a match to prepare for this Sunday and should be told whether Bont had a case to answer or not by the normal time. Whether that delay is 2 days or as short as a few hours, it's still a delay.

FWIW I think we were very lucky that the extraordinary circumstances were in our favour and would be annoyed if the shoe was on the other foot, but at the same time the process needs to be adhered to (ie the MRP ruling is handed down on Monday arvo on the basis of available evidence) and it's nowhere near as simple as just saying 'delay the ruling until the evidence can be compiled'.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

An argument could be made on the flipside that unusually delaying the MRP ruling would be unfair to the Bulldogs, who have a match to prepare for this Sunday and should be told whether Bont had a case to answer or not by the normal time. Whether that delay is 2 days or even 1 hour, it's still a delay.

FWIW I think we were very lucky that the extraordinary circumstances were in our favour, but at the same time the process needs to be adhered to (ie the MRP ruling is handed down on Monday arvo on the basis of available evidence) and it's nowhere near as black and white as just saying 'delay the ruling until the evidence can be compiled'.

There are things like delayed concussion, perhaps other injuries that aren't immediately detected. Due to the quick turn around between games there does have to be a limit to how much time elapses between the game, the examination of the tapes, requesting/receiving a medical report and making a determination on the evidence available at the time.

GWS clearly were not diligent enough with their player. Mind you, Haynes didn't help himself by playing out the game (Clay Smith?). If he'd lain on a bench or been whisked off to hospital they may have diagnosed him sooner.

And did anything else happen during the game that might have worsened the injury? It's hard to tell.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

"No Chrisso, that's not what I meant when I said Nick Haynes isn't talking"

 

[HairyO]

It was ready by Monday night. The bump was reportable and the MRO was aware that the medical evidence was not finalised. There was no risk of the investigation not concluding in a timely manner or principles of natural justice being compromised by waiting.

There was nothing compelling the decision to be made when it was made, and it was not unreasonable for the decision to be delayed until receipt of the medical evidence. MRO failing.

The reports are provided Monday morning and then the MRO spends the day working on the findings.

Why in this particular case should the structure be changed, when as far as the MRO was aware, there was no injury caused by the bump?

The decision was made when it was made because that is the rule. Maybe push for the MRO to report on Tuesdays and see how much the media and clubs complain.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

Bump was fair. Injury happened, which is unfortunate.

Trouble is, MRO has set precedent that fair bumps can be a suspendable action if injury occurs. Common sense would be to review the case again.

And then change the way they operate next year, because injuries happen in a ****ing contact sport. Stiff shit.