Murphy's report - what do we think?

[jazzadogs]

Murphy's contact was assessed as negligent, medium impact and high, which drew 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension.

His good record means he can reduce that to 168.75 points and a one-game ban through an early guilty plea.



Negligent? Is that legal-talk for accidental?

Would have thought it was far more incidental than negligent.

What happened to the 95 carry over points everyone was saying he had? Clearly that should deny any good record? As well as increasing his points...

 

[Gridlock'd]

Take it I reckon.

 

[slapper]

No way was murphy's actions negligent. You are allowed to lay a shepard if the ball is within five metres. Murphy was simply playing within the laws of the game, the high contact was accidental, simple.

 

[Boof09]

I think it is a joke that Murphy gets the same penalty as the other two when they have bumped blokes who had there head down over the ball.

His was a great hip and shoulder what is this game coming too....

 

[soupaman]

What happened to the 95 carry over points everyone was saying he had? Clearly that should deny any good record? As well as increasing his points...

I think after a year or so they don't matter.

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

Fight it, once they realise you're playing St.Kilda next week they'll let him off before you can count to 0.01.

Very, very soft, flipping tribunual/MRP whatever it is are so inconsistent...that guys knock on Clarke was heaps worse and he got off somehow...

Meh. You guys wont need him anyway.

 

[Snake Livermore]

Yeah, I'm pretty much similar to everyone else - it looks like a fair enough bump, but deep down inside I knew he was gone given the leagues stand on head high contact lately.

Murph could argue that it was incidental, but will that reduce the loading to below 100 points? Do you get anything for incidental?

I hate it how you get punished for arguing your case. Murph should be able to have a crack at reducing the suspension without having the threat of missing the Brisbane game hanging over his head. It's not fair, and probably results in players taking the rap for things they didn't do, eg Sam Mitchell taking 93 points last week because he didn't want to risk getting a game. And it's all just to save some lazy pricks from having to WORK (omg) for their money, and get off their arses on a Tuesday night and hear some evidence. I felt sorry for Sam Mitchell. Nobody should be put in the position he was in last week. And now Murph might have to take a week and forego his chance of getting off.

And to finish an overly long post on a good note - first doggie to get weeks this year anyway - good job on the discipline!!!

 

[paul scholes]

Trent West got off for something very similar.

Yes so let me think the head wasn't sacrosant that weekInconsistent joke

 

[RedWhite&Blue]

I'm glad he only got one week as I really thought he'd get more.
With Callan and Murph out next week surely we'll see Callan Ward make his debut against the Saints. That's something to look forward to.

 

[kookadog]

If Ellis had more awareness and didn't run into a fair hip and shoulder there'd be no problem. I suppose gias hit on kozi would be a week these days.

 

[scooter600x]

What rule did he break?

 

[X_box_X]

Pretty disgusted at the decision. My mate told me he thought Murphy was immediately in trouble, but I think our game is sadly in trouble if blokes are getting suspended for minor incidental contact.

I don't think he broke any laws - he approached the contest like a smart person would - by fairly stopping the opposition player from being in a position to contest the ball. It's just a shame Murphy made contact to Ellis' head, which forced him from the field. Had he not have been sent off with the blood rule, pretty sure Ellis would have been fine to resume play immediately.

 

[Power King]

Would just like to say that I feel as though his report was absolute bull____

A grey area over rule interpretation has certainly opened up in recent weeks regarding the bump

Murphy's report reminded me of a similar one by Byron Pickett against Carlton in 2005, albeit because of pickett's larger frame, the bump was probably a bit harder

 

[saintsownthedome]

Guys, I dont usually wander onto other teams boards, but I think the problem here is how much the game has changed, and how hard it is for players to curb their instincts.

Bulldogs fans - I am pretty sure it was Robert Murphy who cleaned up Nick Dal Santo with a ripping hip and shoulder at the MCG (maybe 2005 or 2006), and rightly no action was taken.

This incident was less forceful, less impact but he's going to get a week because it seems to be the rule the AFL are strongest on at the moment.

If we're frustrated, how must the players be feeling ?

 

[daffo]

I don't usually go into other teams boards either, but i think it shouldn't of even be reported. How could he pull up?

My feelings is that he will take the one week so he can be there for the more important game (Brisbane). he should get off, there was nothing there.

I'd be pissed off if i was a Bulldogs supporter.

 

[always right]

He was always going to go....unfortunately. My biggest concern is that it removes perhaps our greatest weapon for this week's game against the Saints. There are a handful of players in the AFL that provide match-up nightmares for opposition coaches. Murphy is one of those.

It will be interesting to see how we structure to overcome his loss. i know he is only one player but his absence could have a major bearing on our performance this week.

 

[Benno From Berwick]

He was always going to go....unfortunately. My biggest concern is that it removes perhaps our greatest weapon for this week's game against the Saints. There are a handful of players in the AFL that provide match-up nightmares for opposition coaches. Murphy is one of those.

It will be interesting to see how we structure to overcome his loss. i know he is only one player but his absence could have a major bearing on our performance this week.

Murphy is one of our three most important players along with Cooney, Acker and just ahead of Hudson. His absence will hurt. I would not risk further.

 

[Turtle]

Disgraceful report. How does he get 2, when Trent West gets off earlier in the year???
The new crackdown is to protect players bent over the ball from front on contact to prevent neck injuries. Both players were standing up, no chance of a serious injury to Ellis. Good bump.
This type of contact happens numerous times throughout a game, in all levels of footy.
As soon as there is some blood, the report card is out!

 

[always right]

Whatever people think of the report you can bet one thing...the club will have already moved on. The important thing now is how we structure to cover his loss.

Callan goes out and Ward comes in IMO.....but who else gets a game? I expect Tiller to play CHF.....could be a watershed game for him having shown great signs last week. For the first time I saw something in Tiller that suggested he could be a long term player.

 

[Dogs Dinna]

I'd really like to see the Club take this one to the tribunal.

The clash happened right in front of us and we were surprised to see Ellis actually end up hurt & then even more surprised to see Murphy get reported!The head high contact was purely accidental & the bump within the rules of the game.
I reckon it's worth the risk of a two match penalty to challenge the MRP as eventually one club needs to make a stand to get these rules sorted. There's no dispute that Waters and Burton's charges were fair enough - they copped players with their heads over the ball but as Dancin' Dougie says in today's HUN "Leigh Matthews would have been lucky to play 50 games under the current regime".
Challenge it Dogs because I reckon the result is more important for the game itself than it is for our club's fortunes over the next 2 weeks.

 

[lindsay_bulldogs]

Take out the head contact and there is no issue that is the whole argument with these bumps.

 

[Turtle]

Challenge it Dogs because I reckon the result is more important for the game itself than it is for our club's fortunes over the next 2 weeks.[/quote]

I agree 100%, with the above.
Was there not more intent to hurt on Big Will's bump on Lewis?
Was there not more intent to hurt on Mitchell's coathanger on Griffen?

In Rugby League, Mitchell would have got weeks for a head high tackle.

 

[always right]

I'd really like to see the Club take this one to the tribunal.

The clash happened right in front of us and we were surprised to see Ellis actually end up hurt & then even more surprised to see Murphy get reported!The head high contact was purely accidental & the bump within the rules of the game.
I reckon it's worth the risk of a two match penalty to challenge the MRP as eventually one club needs to make a stand to get these rules sorted. There's no dispute that Waters and Burton's charges were fair enough - they copped players with their heads over the ball but as Dancin' Dougie says in today's HUN "Leigh Matthews would have been lucky to play 50 games under the current regime".
Challenge it Dogs because I reckon the result is more important for the game itself than it is for our club's fortunes over the next 2 weeks.

Stuff the game itself. I will be ropeable if he ends up copping two weeks. We have entered a period where we play a number of top eight contenders and it could be a season defining period. Of all the games, the St Kilda game is the one we are justified in being confident about so take the one game suspension and move on.

 

[Turtle]

I want him to be found Not Guilty, as i'm worried about the carry over points for later in the year if he does cop the ban.
Then again if found guilty, that ruins all of that.
I just cant see how he wont get off, if he contests it.

 

[Dogs Dinna]

I want him to be found Not Guilty, as i'm worried about the carry over points for later in the year if he does cop the ban.
Then again if found guilty, that ruins all of that.
I just cant see how he wont get off, if he contests it.

Ditto Turtle -I'd be be very confident common sense would prevail too. Roll the dice!