MRP / Trib. Caminiti hit on Murphy

[Bald]

When Gaff broke Brayshaw's jaw, he wasn't trying to hit him in the jaw. He did a reckless thing, that caused severe damage.

Given suspensions are very, very rarely classed as 'Intentional', the AFL clearly acknowledges that it is almost always reckless acts that cause guys to get knocked out and/or suffer other serious injuries.

Looking at the footage, it looks like Camineti tries to retaliate by hitting Murphy in the same place he hit him, but Murphy for some reason dropped a bit prior to contact - and as a result he was hit in the face.

So you have two reckless acts, but only 1 is considered a problem. It's ludicrous.

If the act that Murphy did was considered reckless and was outlawed from the game, dozens of concussions would be prevented.

Basically, Murphy was lucky his reckless act didn't cause injury, and Cameneti was unlucky that his reckless act did.

Agree with this. Under the matrix of intentional or careless, both acts surely get graded as intentional? The unfortunate part is - Murphy’s is to the body and likely low impact, resulting in a fine, whereas Caminitis has to be severe and high impact.

 

[Present Not Past]

When Gaff broke Brayshaw's jaw, he wasn't trying to hit him in the jaw. He did a reckless thing, that caused severe damage.

Given suspensions are very, very rarely classed as 'Intentional', the AFL clearly acknowledges that it is almost always reckless acts that cause guys to get knocked out and/or suffer other serious injuries.

Looking at the footage, it looks like Camineti tries to retaliate by hitting Murphy in the same place he hit him, but Murphy for some reason dropped a bit prior to contact - and as a result he was hit in the face.

So you have two reckless acts, but only 1 is considered a problem. It's ludicrous.

If the act that Murphy did was considered reckless and was outlawed from the game, dozens of concussions would be prevented.

Basically, Murphy was lucky his reckless act didn't cause injury, and Cameneti was unlucky that his reckless act did.

It was the kid's 5th game. He'll learn from it.
Unfortunately, Murphy won't and he'll be back with his coward punching in no time.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Caminiti should cop his punishment, but so should Murphy.

Caminiti will likely get a few weeks, but Murphy should be looking at a fine at least. Intentional, low impact, body contact = fine.

 

[ScrappyDo]

If Murphy's action are where you draw the line, we'd have 5 players knocked out cold in every single match.

No l don't think so. Contact to the face behind play will 99% of the time result in an altercation and investigation/suspension and that doesn't happen 5 times a game.

This was out of the ordinary, hence the reaction from Hammer.

 

[HBFlanker]

Murphy kidding himself with the niggly stuff. Copped one in return.

You cant do this stuff anymore, which Caminiti is about to find out.

Local footy this stuff still happens regularly.

 

[citizen-erased]

Caminiti should cop his punishment, but so should Murphy.

Caminiti will likely get a few weeks, but Murphy should be looking at a fine at least. Intentional, low impact, body contact = fine.

Suspect murphy is a fine (similar to ballard on one of our lads a few weeks back)

 

[my name was taken]

Cut the fake tough actions out of the game, always hated the needless niggling off the ball. What other sports allow it.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Suspect murphy is a fine (similar to ballard on one of our lads a few weeks back)

It SHOULD be. I just hope the AFL doesn't shy away from it for fear of looking like they are penalising the 'victim', given the concussion.
No reason why both can't get different penalties, reflective of their roles in the incident. Just get a sneaking suspicion that the AFL will balk at giving Murphy anything.

 

[citizen-erased]

It SHOULD be. I just hope the AFL doesn't shy away from it for fear of looking like they are penalising the 'victim', given the concussion.
No reason why both can't get different penalties, reflective of their roles in the incident. Just get a sneaking suspicion that the AFL will balk at giving Murphy anything.

Absolutely.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Agree with this. Under the matrix of intentional or careless, both acts surely get graded as intentional? The unfortunate part is - Murphy’s is to the body and likely low impact, resulting in a fine, whereas Caminitis has to be severe and high impact.

But this is the point. It's usually luck that determines whether a reckless act results in head high contact or not.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It’s fairly universally accepted that Gaff intended to punch Brayshaw in the chest. Nobody outside of Fremantle thinks Gaff is any sort of thug so I agree with this post completely.

Caminiti will likely cop a lengthy whack but nobody should look at him like a Barry Hall style thug imo.

I'm repeating myself here, but Murphy intended to whack Camineti in the chest too.

So you have three examples where guys think it is Ok to whack people in the chest - and you have a broken jaw and a concussion to show for it.


The AFL have to deter this stupid niggling shit off the ball, and start punishing reckless acts like Murphy's, regardless of the outcome.

 

[Bald]

I'm repeating myself here, but Murphy intended to whack Camineti in the chest too.

So you have three examples where guys think it is Ok to whack people in the chest - and you have a broken jaw and a concussion to show for it.


The AFL have to deter this stupid niggling s**t off the ball, and start punishing reckless acts like Murphy's, regardless of the outcome.

Completely agree. If it were up to me I’d start anything similar to what Murphy did at two weeks. I’m just looking at it for what it’s likely to be and less so what I want it to be.

 

[puppy_dog7]

Murphy kidding himself with the niggly stuff. Copped one in return.

You cant do this stuff anymore, which Caminiti is about to find out.

Local footy this stuff still happens regularly.

Yep, completely agree. Not that I condone it, but as a forward or (midfielder copping a tag), If your copping niggling hits to the chest/stomach all game, it gets to a point late in the game where, in the heat of the moment you get frustrated and retaliate back. Unfortunately retaliation is generally what an umpire will see and reward a free kick or 50m penalty accordingly.

In the case of the AFL, there's camera's everywhere so you can't get away with anything. So, maybe the AFL need to look more closely at defenders unnecessarily dishing cheap shots out all game and give fines for each hit. That's one way to stop events like this happening in the future.

 

[Schulzenfest]

This thread is a disgrace. Glad we beat that POS of a club yesterday.

If you haven't noticed very few of the neutrals are on your side here either.

 

[puppy_dog7]

Caminiti has no issues here. I thought double forearms to the neck/head are allowed?

St Kilda just need to say this was a forward technique they teach them to create space and he will get off.

They are if you're Harry McKay

 

[EconomicDecline]

Caminiti should cop his punishment, but so should Murphy.

Caminiti will likely get a few weeks, but Murphy should be looking at a fine at least. Intentional, low impact, body contact = fine.

Is a strike to the throat considered body?

 

[westie]

How long before players proffer charges against opposition offenders?

 

[TheNewEnsign]

Do MRO referrals for Sunday games normally take this long? Just to be clear up front, I think Caminiti gets ~4 weeks, he literally couldn't have picked a worse time to concuss a bloke and it was a poor act in any case.

It is an interesting one because the angle of the footage means the force behind the acts (and even the location of the hits) is subject to interpretation. The best interpretation for Caminiti is he got punched in the throat, turned gave his opponent a forearm shove and he (Murphy) was down low for some reason, fell over an got concussed when he hit the turf. Worst interpretation is Murphy gave him a mild tap in the chest, then Hammer turns and gives him the 1-2, bread basket first and then deliberate elbow (which should be like ~8 weeks).

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I don't think it's character assassination.

What Murphy did happens 100s time each round. The problem is that as you say, it's a reckless act that can result in really hurting someone.

And the AFL enables it. It's idiotic. They need to punish the act, not just the outcome of the act.

Murphy should get 4 weeks, as should everyone else that does that s**t.

That would stop it happening.

A free kick against would do the trick, since it's invariably a defender doing it to a forward (occasionally a tagger).

 

[EconomicDecline]

If anyone actually wants to look at the vision properly, it's from 2:57:28 on Kayo

 

[my name was taken]

I don't think it's character assassination.

What Murphy did happens 100s time each round. The problem is that as you say, it's a reckless act that can result in really hurting someone.

And the AFL enables it. It's idiotic. They need to punish the act, not just the outcome of the act.

Murphy should get 4 weeks, as should everyone else that does that s**t.

That would stop it happening.

The AFL like to pretend it is part of the game.

How many times have they trotted out the line "we need to set an example for grassroots footy", yet all these kids will attend games and see this happening all over the field, a lot of the time before the first bounce has even occurred. It's a little bush league in terms of being the most professional product of the sport.

Should have been stamped out a decade ago when Barry Hall was having a go at people, most of the time because his opponents knew he had a short fuse. Then you end of with the gut punch on Maguire, the Staker punch, the incident at the WB where he was shoved while tying his bloody shoes.

Im not on hall's side with this but alarm bells should have been ringing in the AFL to tidy up the sport and bring it in line with the rest of the world.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Is a strike to the throat considered body?

Who's throat? Looked to me like Murphy gave him a rib tickler first.
If that's not the case and he got him in the throat, then the grading changes. Simple.
I was just basing it on the fact that I thought he punched him in the gut.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

A free kick against would do the trick, since it's invariably a defender doing it to a forward (occasionally a tagger).

Needs to be seen first. A lot of these off the ball cheap shots just aren't seen because the umpires are usually focused on following the play.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Some truly baffling takes in this thread. Not surprising for a club that idolises pieces of shit like Allan Jeans. If you can't beat them, hit them.

What's baffling? I haven't read the whole thread, but it seems to me that most just want both players held accountable for their actions.
Both players made off the ball strikes. One initiated, one retaliated.

 

[Seedsfan]

Do MRO referrals for Sunday games normally take this long? Just to be clear up front, I think Caminiti gets ~4 weeks, he literally couldn't have picked a worse time to concuss a bloke and it was a poor act in any case.

It is an interesting one because the angle of the footage means the force behind the acts (and even the location of the hits) is subject to interpretation. The best interpretation for Caminiti is he got punched in the throat, turned gave his opponent a forearm shove and he (Murphy) was down low for some reason, fell over an got concussed when he hit the turf. Worst interpretation is Murphy gave him a mild tap in the chest, then Hammer turns and gives him the 1-2, bread basket first and then deliberate elbow (which should be like ~8 weeks).

Last year Maynard got two weeks for a spoil where the player was concussed when he hit his head on the ground. It didn’t save him at all