MRP / Trib. Geelong MRO & Tribunal decisions 2023

[Baudolino]

I watch the Cats play, as much as I can, because I love the club, but the joy of football itself has dwindled for me, hence I don't watch other games as avidly as I once did.

The rule changes, the bewildering interpretations, the plummeting quality of the umpiring, and the AFL's meddling has taken a fair bit of the gloss off for me.

Fair enough if that's your point of view. I disagree but I respect where you're coming from.

Footy's still the best sport in the world by an absolute mile despite the fact that there are areas in which the direction the game is being taken worries me, so I love it even despite my points of criticism.

 

[Joey JoJo Shabad]

I'm going to email this to the club to help Brad get cleared of the charge. I'm sure a fake name change will go a long way to helping him tomorrow night.

 

[Mr Meow]

I saw it as a 50 / 50 game last week, and was reassured (different poster) that we'd win by '10 - 12 goals'.

We fought hard for a 4 goal win, and 2 of those came at the death. Along the way we lost Danger.

The positive is that we lost him at 1/2 time, but our MF stood their ground, although the Crows gave us a good scare.

Can we do it again for a full game without Danger?

EDIT: getting OT here.......

FWIW my prediction was a 5-6 goal game but that poster wasn't as far off the mark as you think.

Only bad goal kicking and Dangers injury kept it close-ish. Crows also converted the best they have this year. We won every quarter. As I said, converting the same rate as Adelaide would've made it an 8 goal win. Throw Danger in and there's your 10 goal game. Sometimes things just go against you.

 

[Cataholic]

FWIW my prediction was a 5-6 goal game but that poster wasn't as far off the mark as you think.

Only bad goal kicking and Dangers injury kept it close-ish. Crows also converted the best they have this year. We won every quarter. As I said, converting the same rate as Adelaide would've made it an 8 goal win. Throw Danger in and there's your 10 goal game. Sometimes things just go against you.

True, but all that is called 'reality'.

At the end of the day the Crows took it right up to us, and it was a hard fought win. You were close, but they gave us a hell of a scare there at the end.

It wasn't the stroll on GMBHA park that some predicted.

Anyhow, we got the win. Now we've lost Danger, will probably lose Close, and have to try and repeat it against a side who desperately want to win, and against us especially.

 

[Gunf]

Richmond into $3.34… people finally realising we’ll be minus almost half of our b22!

I expect it to come in a bit more yet as well.

 

[Mr Meow]

True, but all that is called 'reality'.

At the end of the day the Crows took it right up to us, and it was a hard fought win. You were close, but they gave us a hell of a scare there at the end.

It wasn't the stroll on GMBHA park that some predicted.

Anyhow, we got the win. Now we've lost Danger, will probably lose Close, and have to try and repeat it against a side who desperately want to win, and against us especially.

If you refuse to look at context then it's pointless. I knew after the game a few would "Crow" about how close it was and thus we were "matched".

Unless you said before the game "I think this will be close because our conversion will be way down and Adelaides will be the best for the year. And we will have in game injuries and horrendous umpiring"

The calls were made because it was thought Adelaide would match us. Which they failed to do in any statistical category even without Dangerfield in the second half. If we live in a world without context we give ourselves over to madness.

Do you expect Richmond to match us in a similar way to above? Or to match us in general play and scoring opportunities?

 

[Cataholic]

If you refuse to look at context then it's pointless. I knew after the game a few would "Crow" about how close it was and thus we were "matched".

Unless you said before the game "I think this will be close because our conversion will be way down and Adelaides will be the best for the year. And we will have in game injuries and horrendous umpiring"

The calls were made because it was thought Adelaide would match us. Which they failed to do in any statistical category even without Dangerfield in the second half. If we live in a world without context we give ourselves over to madness.

Do you expect Richmond to match us in a similar way to above? Or to match us in general play and scoring opportunities?

I made the comment with 'gut feel'.

I said I thought it was a 50 / 50 game, the Crows were in form, and our mounting injuries had us nearing a tipping point = my gut feel it'd be a close game.

It transpired that the Crows gave us a good run for our money, and a couple of goals right at the death made the final margin look better than it otherwise was.

Anyhow, it's water under the bridge.

Richmond want to win (they need it) and I suspect their motivation to beat us in particular is very strong.

They'll go after Stewart, the crowd will be very hostile, and I suspect the game will be fiery.

Our captain is out, our VC will have his hands full with his own troubles, and it'll come down to how well our MF and youngsters cope with that heat.

 

[Mr Meow]

I made the comment with 'gut feel'.

I said I thought it was a 50 / 50 game, the Crows were in form, and our mounting injuries had us nearing a tipping point = my gut feel it'd be a close game.

It transpired that the Crows gave us a good run for our money, and a couple of goals right at the death made the final margin look better than it otherwise was.

Anyhow, it's water under the bridge.

Richmond want to win (they need it) and I suspect their motivation to beat us in particular is very strong.

They'll go after Stewart, the crowd will be very hostile, and I suspect the game will be fiery.

Our captain is out, our VC will have his hands full with his own troubles, and it'll come down to how well our MF and youngsters cope with that heat.

How can you say the couple at the end made it seem less close than it was but refuse to acknowledge that the massive conversion differential made it closer than general play dictated? It just doesn't make sense. But if being right matters more I guess you can keep the blinkers on regarding context.

Richmond want to win? Oh my goodness. Luckily none of our last 5 opponents did. Motivation at this level is so overrated. They were not failing to try through their losing streak. We were not "less motivated" rounds 1 to 3.

Stewart thing absolutely irrelevant. Crowd will be small.

Captain out is your first salient point. Big one. VC will perform admirably as he did the day of the incident last time, getting Brownlow votes if I recall.

Midfielders Blicavs, Holmes and Atkins in great form and matched Adelaides more fancied ones. Bruhn started to step up too.

Richmond have at least as many youngsters as us.

Game will be decided at each team's forward and defensive line as much as midfield. We have huge advantages in these areas that are being dismissed. Richmond have arguably won two midfield battles all season: Vs Adelaide and Vs West Coasts WAFL team.

 

[cats_09]

Hi all

It feels like over the last couple of pages that we've moved off the topic of the MRO & Tribunal decisions, and into match analysis - happy for that discussion but can we please take it to the relevant threads

Cheers

 

[Cataholic]

How can you say the couple at the end made it seem less close than it was but refuse to acknowledge that the massive conversion differential made it closer than general play dictated? It just doesn't make sense. But if being right matters more I guess you can keep the blinkers on regarding context.

Richmond want to win? Oh my goodness. Luckily none of our last 5 opponents did. Motivation at this level is so overrated. They were not failing to try through their losing streak. We were not "less motivated" rounds 1 to 3.

Stewart thing absolutely irrelevant. Crowd will be small.

Captain out is your first salient point. Big one. VC will perform admirably as he did the day of the incident last time, getting Brownlow votes if I recall.

Midfielders Blicavs, Holmes and Atkins in great form and matched Adelaides more fancied ones. Bruhn started to step up too.

Richmond have at least as many youngsters as us.

Game will be decided at each team's forward and defensive line as much as midfield. We have huge advantages in these areas that are being dismissed. Richmond have arguably won two midfield battles all season: Vs Adelaide and Vs West Coasts WAFL team.

I'm sure we can both hold a conversation without making personal comments.

I happily acknowledge the disparity in conversion, and all the magical data, but for all that it was still a pretty close game, wasn't it? I'm not into the 'could've should've would've' but that's just me.

You've also been a bit flippant with my comment about wanting to win. Of course everyone wants to win, but then I'm sure you know want I meant. The Tigers want our scalp in particular, and are looking for a bit of payback imo.

Anyway, I'm sure we're boring everyone else in this thread with a discussion that's not being very productive, or OT.

Hopefully the boys get a good win Friday night

 

[cats_09]

 

[cats_09]

Tonight's schedule

 

[jim boy]

clubs they think milestones matter

some do matter - especially the 100 game milestone for father-sons

 

[Stocks_go_Up]

This is an absolute joke MRP cooked to the brim - absolutely top class tackle no other option - if he bumps he gets rubbed out - if he goes softer the player gets an easy handpass off. No second motion just a good old bloody AFL tackle - stop ruining the game muppets

 

[Cattery]

Tonight's schedule

Brad goes up at 4PM, so by 4.15PM we should get the good news that his penalty has been chucked out.

Being slightly more serious, that tackle looked no worse then those applied to Close and Blicavs in recent weeks, and as far as I know (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) neither of those attracted a suspension.

 

[cats_09]

Brad goes up at 4PM, so by 4.15PM we should get the good news that his penalty has been chucked out.

Being slightly more serious, that tackle looked no worse then those applied to Close and Blicavs in recent weeks, and as far as I know (may be wrong) neither of those attracted a suspension.

Round 4: Will Day's tackle on Close, received an MRO sanction of 2 weeks

Round 7: Sam Durham's tackle on Blicavs, received an MRO sanction of 1 week

Durham didn't challenge, but Day did where he was unsuccessful in getting it either downgraded or overturned - took less than 30 minutes for the tribunal to uphold the 2 match suspension


This was part of Hawthorns argument:
The Hawks along with Day argued there was no aggression involved in the tackle and impact was primarily a result of a combination of both players’ momentum coupled with Day being off-balance.

Summation of Tribunal reasons for upholding Will Day's two-match ban:

 

[catempire]

That twitter account has never seen an incident he didn’t think worthy of suspension. It’s a shocker.

 

[catempire]

A Close suspension necessarily means players are being directed not to tackle a player whose momentum is already carrying them forward. Absurd. Can’t wait for that outcome.

 

[cats_09]

That twitter account has never seen an incident he didn’t think worthy of suspension. It’s a shocker.

They seem to be going with Van Rooyen to get off

 

[devilsnap]

This was mentioned in another thread, but I'd love to hear how 1.81m, 71kg Brad Close could possibly dump 1.92m, 91kg Jordan Dawson.

Brad goes up at 4PM, so by 4.15PM we should get the good news that his penalty has been chucked out.

Being slightly more serious, that tackle looked no worse then those applied to Close and Blicavs in recent weeks, and as far as I know (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) neither of those attracted a suspension.

Same goes for a Jez Cameron tackle in the 3Q

.

Almost looks like a suplex but I suppose the umps had better vision than what we had.
Not that we should draw MRP attention to it as a defense for Close though

 

[Cattery]

Round 4: Will Day's tackle on Close, received an MRO sanction of 2 weeks

Round 7: Sam Durham's tackle on Blicavs, received an MRO sanction of 1 week

Durham didn't challenge, but Day did where he was unsuccessful in getting it either downgraded or overturned - took less than 30 minutes for the tribunal to uphold the 2 match suspension


This was part of Hawthorns argument:
The Hawks along with Day argued there was no aggression involved in the tackle and impact was primarily a result of a combination of both players’ momentum coupled with Day being off-balance.

Summation of Tribunal reasons for upholding Will Day's two-match ban:
View attachment 1682815

Got that one wrong, doesn't make me feel confident about Brad getting off now damn it.

 

[cats_09]

- Brad Close is pleading not guilty to a dangerous tackle and, if guilty, that impact should be downgraded. In line with virtually all other appeals on dangerous tackles, which have been unsuccessful.

 

[Cattery]

This was mentioned in another thread, but I'd love to hear how 1.81m, 71kg Brad Close could possibly dump 1.92m, 91kg Jordan Dawson.



Same goes for a Jez Cameron tackle in the 3Q

.

Almost looks like a suplex but I suppose the umps had better vision than what we had.
Not that we should draw MRP attention to it as a defense for Close though

I give up after watching those, didn't see much (if any) difference in the three of them (Close, Cameron and Laird) yet only one of them draws a suspension.

 

[cats_09]

Ben Ihle (Geelong) & Andrew Woods (AFL) the legal reps.


Brad Close's height and weight - along with the height and weight of Jordan Dawson

12

Jordan Dawson

Age

27

Ht

191cm

Wt

91kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.0

4star

K

11.4

4star

HB

5.7

4star

M

4.8

5star

T

2.8

4star

CL

0.6

3star

D

15.7

4star

K

10.9

4star

HB

4.9

3star

M

2.9

3star

T

2.0

3star

CL

0.4

3star

D

11.8

3star

K

7.8

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

5.0

5star

T

3.0

5star

CL

0.6

3star

- will be used as evidence by Geelong.

 

[Cattery]

Other then the fact Dawson got up holding his face and appeared distressed for a few seconds, while Bruhn didn't react, do you see any difference in the two incidents, because I'm buggered if I can?