Brodie Grundy's tackle- what's the verdict?

[unplugged]

Probably only a few minutes away. I think there has to be a week, to avoid scrutiny. And then challenge and get off on technicality.

That said, he'll probably get ten weeks cos he plays for us.

 

[spook182]

Bit of uproar when it becomes public ..

Trust my source, he's like a brother to me, and as mentioned earlier 3 weeks, 2 with an early plea ..

Merrett: one week
Hawkins: two weeks
Duncan: one week
Mumford: two weeks

 

[Harambe Pie]

3 to 2 being reported.

Farcical

 

[unplugged]

Bit of uproar when it becomes public ..

Trust my source, he's like a brother to me, and as mentioned earlier 3 weeks, 2 with an early plea ..

Merrett: one week
Hawkins: two weeks
Duncan: one week
Mumford: two weeks

What about Cunnington?

 

[spook182]

What about Cunnington?

No mention of either Cunnington or Ziebell

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[jackcass]

Bit of uproar when it becomes public ..

Trust my source, he's like a brother to me, and as mentioned earlier 3 weeks, 2 with an early plea ..

Merrett: one week
Hawkins: two weeks
Duncan: one week
Mumford: two weeks

With only 3 weeks remaining I hope they challenge.

 

[DaVe86]

If it is 3 to 2, then we challenge.

If we accept it means Brodie comes back for 1 round. No point, just put him on Ice now and send him for any post-season surgeries etc. And just play Mason Cox.

I think this is a great case for the Tribunal. We have a rule which is ambigious at the moment, and it is important we have a judicial process where the rule is challenged.

If we just accept the MRP's finding, we learn nothing. This needs to be fleshed out.

If the Tribunal comes back with 3 weeks, well then it is a very clear message, and we can all live with that in the knowledge the rule has been clarified. But I wouldn't just be taking the MRP's word on it.

 

[unplugged]

 

[robertg22]

2 weeks. Disappointing outcome. Should have been 1 IMO

 

[Adz]

Club must appeal.

 

[Leviathan Pie]

Was always going to be suspended, but two weeks is excessive.

Challenge down to one, surely?

 

[TKiL]

I suppose it marries up with the way the Legal System works.

By law, you take a person as you find them.

For example, if you punch someone softly with a frail bones, and they die, it would be murder....whereas if you punched someone with all your might and they are strong so they survive, it would just be assault.

Same goes with AFL, if you tackle someone really hard but they bounce back up, then it probably goes unsighted. If they get concussed for something quite innocuous, you can get suspended.

It's really the only way to judge the force of the incident. So unfortunately the decision is largely determined by the outcome of the incident.

Just possible this over simplifies the situation at both common and statute law - not hard to do with the law - but I think you open up more questions than you provide answers

 

[TW Sherrin]

I understood he'd get a week but WTF.3 down to 2.

what about the flog cunnignton for knocking goldy out? nothing? they are a joke.

 

[wicksy]

I understood he'd get a week but WTF.3 down to 2.

what about the flog cunnignton for knocking goldy out? nothing? they are a joke.

Wait... Cunnington didn't get anything!?

 

[Unknown Identity]

So Dangerfield tackles, with a semi slinging action and the ball is basically on the wing by the time Kreuzer hits the ground...

1 week.

Brodie Tackles, Brown has the ball.. forward momentum was always going to dictate the way he fell.. on top of him trying to kick the ball, Grundy gets a free kick and a 2 week suspension.

How?

For the record i don't think either should be suspended.
Bad luck does exist in this game, it's not always someone's fault.

 

[BoxMatrix]

Ziebell slings Treloar. Treloar is ok. Not even looked at.

Brodie Grundy does the same thing. Injured Brown. Two match suspension.

Suspensions based on outcome rather than the act.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Goes back to my long held theory.

Collingwood always has to do that little bit more to get recognition eg Howe for AA selection.
Equally Collingwood is judged that bit more harshly. Eg Grundy two weeks for legal tackle, Dangerfield 1 week.

 

[Spatfers]

Ziebell slings Treloar. Treloar is ok. Not even looked at.

Brodie Grundy does the same thing. Injured Brown. Two match suspension.

Suspensions based on outcome rather than the act.

That's the bit that p*sses me off, Zieball is getting close to his 16 weeks perma-ban suspension so they don't slot him.

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

Brodie Grundy, Collingwood, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Ben Brown, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between Collingwood and North Melbourne, played at Etihad Stadium on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from North Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with high impact to the head. The incident was classified as a three-match sanction. The player has no applicable record with impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a two-match sanction.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

If it is 3 to 2, then we challenge.

If we accept it means Brodie comes back for 1 round. No point, just put him on Ice now and send him for any post-season surgeries etc. And just play Mason Cox.

I think this is a great case for the Tribunal. We have a rule which is ambigious at the moment, and it is important we have a judicial process where the rule is challenged.

If we just accept the MRP's finding, we learn nothing. This needs to be fleshed out.

If the Tribunal comes back with 3 weeks, well then it is a very clear message, and we can all live with that in the knowledge the rule has been clarified. But I wouldn't just be taking the MRP's word on it.

But is the tribunal "judges" working for the AFL?

Hmmmm.......

 

[DT_fanatic]

Would be surprised if we don't challenge. No reason not to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pie eyed]

1 week sentence reduced to a fine?

*Fingers crossed*

No-one seems upset that it may end HIS Brownlow chances?
What the?

 

[SuperSub17]

Realistically it was never going to be 1 week. If it was deemed a reportable offence the fact that Brown missed the entire game meant it had to be high impact - which is 3 down to 2.

If we challenge we have to prove it isn't a reportable offence, which given the current climate on pinning the arms seems difficult to do.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Things like this gives a reminder why people despise the AFL

 

[Morganashlee]

This is an absolute joke and if we don't appeal I'll be even angrier than I am now.