How many weeks for Mckernan

[Demonic Ascent]

If Jack Ziebell did that he would've been suspended until 2015. Even back in the day Barry Hall or Plugger (St. Kilda days) would have got anywhere between 6-10 weeks. The AFL have lost touch with reality. This wasn't incidental contact during the course of play, this was an elbow to the head of an unsuspecting and unprotected player. So just so we're clear, a bump that most people deem to be a fair and natural part of the game can now earn you as much time or more on the sidelines as an elbow to the head. It's just astounding, I am actually quite shocked at the outcome though I should have learnt my lesson with the AFL by now - let's see what happens in the wash-up tomorrow; will they appeal the MRP finding? Surely they must.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

lol wow.

One of the most horribly flawed decisions of a horribly flawed system. Laughable.

 

[Gizza]

He didn't mean to hit him in the head.

Stupid and clumsy, but not deliberately head high. I thought 4 to 3; he's lucky, but it was a dumb mistake, no point crucifying him for it.
McGinnity getting 3 is a disgrace. Week at worst.

If he didn't mean to get him in the head he probably shouldn't have pointed his elbow at his head.

 

[Gizza]

Was clumsy, not malicious.

I agree he's lucky, just don't think people should portray McKernan as a thug who tried to knock someone out.

If you watch him play, he's a big, clumsy puppy dog - he's tried to add some intensity and aggression to his game (Christ knows he needs to); and he's made a mess of it.

Coming front on to someone as they bend down and clipping them in the head with your hip is clumsy. Raising your elbow as you come in to hip and shoulder them is not. The former is what reckless should be for. The later (ie this) should be what intentional is for.

 

[Crows4Eva]

I thought he'd get 6 at least, clumsy and dumb thing it was. Really shows the flaws in the system we currently have, McGinnity shouldn't have got 3 either, there was nothing malicious in what he did, it was just a bit unfortunate Vince's head hit the ground.

 

[arfadunger]

Looks like the AFL wants to bring back the biff then. Look out if you're someone burning it up one day, because the opposition can now send in a thug to lay you out and only risk 2 weeks.

 

[Slax]

Ok, so Brown got two for appealing a lovetap suspension and McKernan gets two with an early plea for snipping someone after the kicked the ball and were unable to defend themselves? Yet the AFL continue to say the MRP do a good job

 

[GOAUS!]

I'm not exactly up to date on my rules, what charge has to be laid to get this sent straight to the tribunal?

 

[Oneiros]

This one is up there with the Embley decision. The Maths add up but it's not sensible.

 

[Vader]

I'm not exactly up to date on my rules, what charge has to be laid to get this sent straight to the tribunal?

Would have needed to be intentional (which it probably was) and severe impact (which it clearly wasn't). A severe impact basically would have required a broken jaw. Sheppard left the ground for a concussion test, which he passed, returning to the ground 20 min later. McKernan was probably unlucky to cop a "high" grading - it could easily have been "medium".

Swings and roundabouts.. probably should have been intentional/medium, instead they called it reckless/high. Same end result.

As for why it was striking and not rough conduct, people really need to read the rules before flying off the handle. The MRP guidelines talk about a strike as being "usually .. by hand, arm, or even head and will generally not apply to other contact using the body.". The definition of rough conduct talks about high bumps, bumps to the body and dangerous tackles.

I would have loved for McKernan to be charged with rough conduct, as the penalties are higher. Sadly, it was never going to happen.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Would have needed to be intentional (which it probably was) and severe impact (which it clearly wasn't). A severe impact basically would have required a broken jaw. Sheppard left the ground for a concussion test, which he passed, returning to the ground 20 min later. McKernan was probably unlucky to cop a "high" grading - it could easily have been "medium".

Swings and roundabouts.. probably should have been intentional/medium, instead they called it reckless/high. Same end result.

Any blow to the head like that cannot/should not be classed as "medium" impact - the result of the hit should be completely irrelevant, it can only be luck that would see a player with a concussion test rather than a broken jaw. If he had hit him a couple of centimetres lower he could very well have cracked his jaw. Considering the focus on head injuries over the last few years, specifically in the States, there is no argument whatsoever for going lenient on thuggish acts like that displayed by McKernan.

 

[Agent93]

The MRP guidelines talk about a strike as being "usually .. by hand, arm, or even head and will generally not apply to other contact using the body.". The definition of rough conduct talks about high bumps, bumps to the body and dangerous tackles.

One could argue that he intended (there's that word again) to bump, but missed, resulting in contact only with the elbow.

In the end of season review the MRP needs to sort out the difference between this incident and those involving Goodes, Kelly, Sylvia, Kosi, Ziebell and Hodge in that half of these incidents were classified as striking, the other half rough conduct. It's my belief that they were all the same type of play, being that a player attempted to bump his opponent (clumsily) off the ball, resulting in an elbow or shoulder to the head of the opponent.

In the case of bumping, many poor bumps involve a player raising his arm at the point of contact, and as far as I was aware the shoulder was still considered part of the arm. Based off the incidents, as in the passage of play they occur, it is really hard to classify them neatly into the definitions of the striking or rough conduct.

And lastly the striking definition mentions contact by head, which is also covered under the Misconduct (head-butt) definition. So was Thomas' suspension a misconduct or a strike?

 

[Oneiros]

Would have needed to be intentional (which it probably was) and severe impact (which it clearly wasn't). A severe impact basically would have required a broken jaw. Sheppard left the ground for a concussion test, which he passed, returning to the ground 20 min later. McKernan was probably unlucky to cop a "high" grading - it could easily have been "medium".

Swings and roundabouts.. probably should have been intentional/medium, instead they called it reckless/high. Same end result.

As for why it was striking and not rough conduct, people really need to read the rules before flying off the handle. The MRP guidelines talk about a strike as being "usually .. by hand, arm, or even head and will generally not apply to other contact using the body.". The definition of rough conduct talks about high bumps, bumps to the body and dangerous tackles.

I would have loved for McKernan to be charged with rough conduct, as the penalties are higher. Sadly, it was never going to happen.

Considering it was not a standing strike but an elbow that was part of a charging motion, he is probably lucky in the classification of the offence.

I don't think the classification of high rather than medium could be considered lucky. High impact was clearly the most likely category considering how he was laid out and left the field for quite some time. Medium-impact would have been fantastically fortunate, severe would have been incongruously unlucky. If he had been standing next to Shep and threw the elbow it would have been medium, but clearly his forward momentum must be considered.

I have a devilish little suspicion that the MRP may have thought that the Paddy's sling tackle was the grievous offence because of the result and went with the gentler gradings of reckless and striking to avoid what they probably thought would draw the greater outrage - McKernan (whose player passed his concussion test) receiving a more serious punishment than Paddy (whose player was concussed). In doing so they have actually crafted a worse result in the eyes of the public, however. This last bit is, of course, veering dangerously close to tinfoil hat territory, I'll admit

 

[Vader]

Any blow to the head like that cannot/should not be classed as "medium" impact - the result of the hit should be completely irrelevant, it can only be luck that would see a player with a concussion test rather than a broken jaw. If he had hit him a couple of centimetres lower he could very well have cracked his jaw. Considering the focus on head injuries over the last few years, specifically in the States, there is no argument whatsoever for going lenient on thuggish acts like that displayed by McKernan.

The MRP guidelines state that contact to the head should not be graded as "low". It (quite rightly) doesn't state that the grading for incidents involving the head should start at "high" - and suggesting that a blow to the head should be "high" as a minimum is ridiculous. That's what the "contact" grading is there for.

The MRP also doesn't take into account what "could have happened if things turned out differently" - only what did happen. Earlier this season Franklin laid an extremely crude "spoil", which turned into a headlock as he fell to the ground, landing directly on his opponent's head. The incident had the potential for an extremely serious neck injury, possibly even paralysis. No action was taken by the MRP, because (thankfully) the Adelaide player didn't suffer any actual injury.

For what it's worth, the MRP guidelines do state that "a raised forearm or elbow is usually conclusive that the strike was intentional". McKernan is very lucky to get away with "reckless" intent.

** I am not in any way seeking to defend McKernan. I would have loved for the MRP to have rubbed him out for the rest of the season. I don't rate him at all and I think our team will be better off without him. Rubbing him out forces the hands of our selectors, who seem weak at the knees when it comes to selecting duds like Smack.

My intent here is purely to explain the reasoning of the MRP.. and how they came to a judgement of just 2 weeks, when so many here were (rightly) baying for blood.

As for the McGinnity case.. his crude tackle resulted in his opponent suffering a concussion (as distinct from Sheppard, who passed his concussion test). Both were given 2 weeks. Fair enough in my book. McGinnity also had an extra week tacked on because of carry over points from a previous offence. Do the crime, do the time. No sympathy on that front.

 

[Agent93]

As for the McGinnity case.. his crude tackle resulted in his opponent suffering a concussion (as distinct from Sheppard, who passed his concussion test)

Off topic: Whilst true, the time left in the game was less than time allowed for the concussion test, which sheppard undertook. In the Vince case the player not returning should be irrelevant, as if the Sheppard case had happened at the same time in the game he also would not have returned to the field.

 

[Vader]

Off topic: Whilst true, the time left in the game was less than time allowed for the concussion test, which sheppard undertook. In the Vince case the player not returning should be irrelevant, as if the Sheppard case had happened at the same time in the game he also would not have returned to the field.

The "impact" categorisation takes into account the post-match medical reports on the players involved. That report stated that Vince was indeed concussed (and his selection this week is no better than a 50-50 proposition). Sheppard was not concussed - according to the West Coast doctor, who allowed him to return to the field.

The timing of the McGinnity/Vince incident had no bearing on the final outcome.

 

[Agent93]

The timing of the McGinnity/Vince incident had no bearing on the final outcome.

In "The Verdict", MRP chairman Mark Fraser says "that's why we get the high impact, because he doesn't take any further part in the game".

 

[West Coast 06]

In "The Verdict", MRP chairman Mark Fraser says "that's why we get the high impact, because he doesn't take any further part in the game".

So in fact Shepperd actually missed more game time than Vince. He was off for longer doing the concussion test than there was time left in the game after the tackle on Vince.

Any way you want to spin it, they were both crap decisions.

 

[Agent93]

Any way you want to spin it, they were both crap decisions.

Not really, McGinnity's was warranted, and follows precedent set by the Merrett and Trengove suspensions, among others. He also has the carry over points which nets him the extra week.

McKernan's seems to be light based on the classification of the charge and the intent.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Maybe three. Sheppard passed a concussion test, however I think the impact ruling will depend on whether there is a lingering injury.

If Sheppard has scans and they find a fracture, with Sheppard then missing a match, or he has delayed concussion, 2-3, might turn into 4.

Bam.

Not that I feel happy about being right. The MRP is a shambles, that both McKernan and McGinnity attracted similar punishments is bizarre and evidence of a broken system, or at least an element of corruption with how the MRP operates.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

7-8 weeks is what it deserves....but im sure mark frazer and his mates will suprise us all.....

Fraser looked like he was shitting himself when he made those first two explanations. These punishments have been handed down on decree for who knows why and he had that look of a man spinning someone else's bullshit when he knew it wouldn't fly.

 

[Xsess]

In "The Verdict", MRP chairman Mark Fraser says "that's why we get the high impact, because he doesn't take any further part in the game".

Who is MRP chairman Mark Fraser, who appointed him and why is he allowed to ruin football?

 

[Xsess]

The "impact" categorisation takes into account the post-match medical reports on the players involved. That report stated that Vince was indeed concussed (and his selection this week is no better than a 50-50 proposition). Sheppard was not concussed - according to the West Coast doctor, who allowed him to return to the field.

The timing of the McGinnity/Vince incident had no bearing on the final outcome.

That justification fails the common sense test. The indirect action of someone hitting their heads into the turf during a legitimate football tackle, is not worse than running past the footy to deliver a classic 70's era elbow to the head. No amount of MRP spin changes that, just highlights the dysfunction within the system.

 

[FrancisX]

The guy is very lucky. He used a bent elbow to the head, something you don't (thankfully) see very often these days.

 

[Vader]

That justification fails the common sense test. The indirect action of someone hitting their heads into the turf during a legitimate football tackle, is not worse than running past the footy to deliver a classic 70's era elbow to the head. No amount of MRP spin changes that, just highlights the dysfunction within the system.

Who said anything about McGinnity's tackle being a "legitimate football tackle"? It was a dangerous "sling tackle", which resulted in Vince's head being slung forcefully into the ground. Vince's injury was worse than Sheppards'.