Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2023, part I

[Cataholic]

They can always find someone worse

Really.....is that possible??!

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Narkle comes in...

I think Rioli's ban will be downgraded to one week at the tribunal, so he will play against us. Should never have been graded as medium impact. It was low impact.

 

[Cataholic]

I think Rioli's ban will be downgraded to one week at the tribunal, so he will play against us. Should never have been graded as medium impact. It's low impact.

Then again, if they're serious about the head being sacrosanct, and punishing the action rather than the outcome, his ban should stand.

Whether or not the impact was low or medium, his intent was to go at his opponent's head. It was a deliberate action.

That's an outright no no.

 

[cats_09]

What's the odds for a draw

 

[cats_09]

 

[Turbocat]

Parish will probably be next.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Then again, if they're serious about the head being sacrosanct, and punishing the action rather than the outcome, his ban should stand.

Whether or not the impact was low or medium, his intent was to go at his opponent's head. It was a deliberate action.

That's an outright no no.

I don't disagree it was a shitty act. But it was only a slap, not even a punch. It should never have been given 2 weeks. One week is enough and I think the tribunal will agree.

 

[Cataholic]

I don't disagree it was a shitty act. But it was only a slap, not even a punch. It should never have been given 2 weeks. One week is enough and I think the tribunal will agree.

Whether it was a slap or a punch is beside the point though.

It's the action - he deliberately targeted the head. That's the start and end of the story.

The AFL has to strongly demonstrate that the head is not to be targeted under any circumstance.

 

[cats_09]

Whether it was a slap or a punch is beside the point though.

It's the action - he deliberately targeted the head. That's the start and end of the story.

The AFL has to strongly demonstrate that the head is not to be targeted under any circumstance.

Apparently it occurred in play & Murphy caused the high contact

 

[Cataholic]

Apparently it occurred in play & Murphy caused the high contact

They clearly hold the footy public in disdain, and think we're all blind idiots.

What a contemptible, condescending 'explanation'.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

They throw the word "star" around a lot don't they..

 

[Lana]

They throw the word "star" around a lot don't they..

Well to be fair there a lot of stars in the night sky, relatively speaking we should be calling elite players sand.

 

[cats_09]

 

[Cataholic]

So attacking the head is ok as long as you don't go too hard.

The AFL just can't get past 'outcome' to 'intent', can it?

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

It's the action - he deliberately targeted the head. That's the start and end of the story.

It was intentional, yes. But it was low impact, not medium impact. So it only deserves a one-week suspension. And guess what? The tribunal agrees with me.

 

[Cataholic]

It was intentional, yes. But it was low impact, not medium impact. So it only deserves a one-week suspension. And guess what? The tribunal agrees with me.

And I'll keep saying they're wrong.

On one hand they're declaring the head as sacrosanct, but have then condoned a deliberate strike to the head.

Sacrosanct means untouchable. Contact is not to be tolerated.

If they were fair dinkum they'd stomp on actions like Rioli's, and ram home the message that you do not, under any circumstance, target the head.

But here they go again. Outcome, not intent.

His slap on the wrist won't deter anyone.

 

[cats_09]

It was intentional, yes. But it was low impact, not medium impact. So it only deserves a one-week suspension. And guess what? The tribunal agrees with me.

It was intentional contact to the head - that alone deserves a minimum of 2 weeks before even considering the apparent impact

The MRO & Tribunal need to start making the action the focus for suspensions, rather than the outcome

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

It was intentional contact to the head - that alone deserves a minimum of 2 weeks before even considering the apparent impact

Intentional

High (head)

Medium Impact It was low impact because the Collingwood player suffered no injury from the slap.

That makes it a one-week suspension.

 

[Cataholic]

It was intentional contact to the head - that alone deserves a minimum of 2 weeks before even considering the apparent impact

The MRO & Tribunal need to start making the action the focus for suspensions, rather than the outcome

Absolutely.

He CHOSE, in that moment, to impact the head.

It's the deliberation of that choice that should be punished.

Whether the blow draws blood, or merely dents a player's pride, the unmistakable message has to be that you cannot go at the head without incurring a harsh penalty.

 

[Cataholic]

Intentional

High (head)

Medium Impact It was low impact because the Collingwood player suffered no injury from the slap.

That makes it a one-week suspension.

A player shouldn't have to suffer a injury for the action to be deemed serious.

The action itself, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT CAUSES AN INJURY OR NOT, should be harshly dealt with, if the AFL is fair dinkum about the head being sacred.

 

[cats_09]

Intentional

High (head)

Medium Impact It was low impact because the Collingwood player suffered no injury from the slap.

That makes it a one-week suspension.

I don't think you're fully grasping the point that both Cataholic & myself are making - and I know it's something I've argued on plenty of occasions over recent seasons

**** the level of impact, it shouldn't be the determining factor in MRO & Tribunal decisions

The key factors when determining a sanction should be -
Contact: low/groin, body or high
Conduct: careless or intentional

We're repeatedly told that the head is sacrosanct, so how about the MRO & Tribunal start acting like it:

• High contact = starting point of 2 weeks on the sidelines
• Careless conduct/In Play/Football Action = nil additional weeks
• Intentional conduct = 1 additional week

From there then you factor in impact:

• Low = zero additional weeks
• Medium = 1 additional week
• High = 2 additional weeks
• Severe = straight to tribunal with a minimum of 3 additional weeks

Start actually punishing the action and not the outcome

 

[Cataholic]

I don't think you're fully grasping the point that both Cataholic & myself are making - and I know it's something I've argued on plenty of occasions over recent seasons

* the level of impact, it shouldn't be the determining factor in MRO & Tribunal decisions

The key factors when determining a sanction should be -
Conduct: careless or intentional
Contact: low/groin, body or high

We're repeatedly told that the head is sacrosanct, so how about the MRO & Tribunal start acting like it:

• High contact = starting point of 2 weeks on the sidelines
• Careless conduct/In Play/Football Action = nil additional weeks
• Intentional conduct = 1 additional week

From there then you factor in impact:

• Low = zero additional weeks
• Medium = 1 additional week
• High = 2 additional weeks
• Severe = straight to tribunal with a minimum of 3 different weeks

Start actually punishing the action and not the outcome

They declared the umpires as sacrosanct, and they tolerate absolutely no form of deliberate contact with them.

Any such contact is taboo.

They can easily do the same with contact to the head.

 

[cats_09]

Brisbane - 0
Gold Coast - 1

 

[catempire]

What's the odds for a draw

I see you.

Chucked $10 on @$51.

 

[And_ROOS]

Brisbane - 0
Gold Coast - 1

Thats a rare win for the Suns over Brisbane.