MRP / Trib. Panel set to punish Broughton's slide

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I wouldnt call that a slide bearly slide at all,more dropping on the ball.
If the panel threw out the last one why on earth do they think this will stick..
 
If Broughton goes for that, then the MRP is a complete joke.

What is he supposed to do, slide in head first?

He clearly got to the ball first and Swallow should have gotten out of his way.
 
BS call

Not only did he win the ball, but got hit in the head after and he's the one who gets cited

[youtube]k2qnXb_oSn8[/youtube]

Mayne and Deboer involved in similar incidents (with a GC player) in the space of 40 sec after that one - just no one got hurt - happens nearly every center bounce and stoppage - just don't know how they can stop it...Maybe don't make the head so sacrecent? seems that teams are getting in lower and getting frees for it - just ask wc for some tips...
 
Watched that youtube vid again and honestly laughed. Laughed out loud at the idea that can be reportable in a supposed contact sport.

It's such an innocuous incident that if Swallow hadn't turned his ankle no one would even notice it had happened.
 
Watched that youtube vid again and honestly laughed. Laughed out loud at the idea that can be reportable in a supposed contact sport.

It's such an innocuous incident that if Swallow hadn't turned his ankle no one would even notice it had happened.

Completely right. Would happen 10-15 times a game. Bloody knee-jerk governance by the AFL.
 
He got reprimanded for that????

Is that fair dinkum or is this a late version of April Fools?

It happens 10-15 times a match and really I don't see 10-15 players per game punished for this.

What a joke this is and as for Whatley and Robbo, they can both **** off as they're both oxygen thieves
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Watched that youtube vid again and honestly laughed. Laughed out loud at the idea that can be reportable in a supposed contact sport.

It's such an innocuous incident that if Swallow hadn't turned his ankle no one would even notice it had happened.

Same sentiment. Watched again (third time all round) and I'm dumb founded they've called this in. Not surprised on one level though, as I said earlier they love to make examples out of a 'low profile' players for the AFL's pet issue of the day and here we are.

Fighting it is a big call though. Broughts gets off with an early plea, challenging could mean loosing another player who can run through our depleted midfield for a week.

... if we had any doubts that the MRP/Tribunal system is based on the legal system of a tribe of lobotomised monkeys, then this puts it to rest.
 
Same sentiment. Watched again (third time all round) and I'm dumb founded they've called this in. Not surprised on one level though, as I said earlier they love to make examples out of a 'low profile' players for the AFL's pet issue of the day and here we are.

Fighting it is a big call though. Broughts gets off with an early plea, challenging could mean loosing another player who can run through our depleted midfield for a week.

... if we had any doubts that the MRP/Tribunal system is based on the legal system of a tribe of lobotomised monkeys, then this puts it to rest.

Your points very valid, but I would challenge because this type of incident can't be found guilty in our game. If upheld go on an offensive against the AFL until it is cleared. If he misses then we stood up for what's right (whilst others blindly give in) and still beat Port without Broughts...Daryl Kerrigan style.
 
I am quite dumbfounded after watching that video. I simply can't believe it.

I don't think anyone has mentioned it, but it might be worth remembering that this involves Swallow ... while he might not be an AFL golden child of the ilk of Ablett and Judd, he is supposed to be the GC's premier player (after Ablett) in a few years, and the AFL want to be seen to be protecting that investment.

I can guarantee 100% that if the roles were reversed, then Swallow would not be cited/reprimanded.
 
Your points very valid, but I would challenge because this type of incident can't be found guilty in our game. If upheld go on an offensive against the AFL until it is cleared. If he misses then we stood up for what's right (whilst others blindly give in) and still beat Port without Broughts...Daryl Kerrigan style.

We will just need to cite the Mabo case, say it's about the 'vibe' and case be thrown out.
You bloody little ripper!
 
Just watched the footage - its an absolute joke. This is what happens when you have petty rule makers focusing on definitions without being able to see the big picture.

Broughton did not slide directly into an opponent. He got to the ball first and shielded it. Given the ball was on the ground , the only alternatives were as follows.

1. - Bend over to pick the ball up on the run. This would have put his head and neck in a dangerous position to take the impact.

2. Squib it.

Protecting yourself should not make you , as the tribunal guy said, have a case to answer.
 
On the first part of the footage that shows it from the centre square bounce Broughton is first (albeit only slightly) and down sliding before Swallow goes for the ball. Therefore Swallow actually has an obligation to avoid hitting Broughton as his opponent has made the play first. Broughton was not reckless. As others have said he slid in and protected the ball because the space was free. Had Swallow been hovering over the ball, then even a purple eyed one can see an interpretation of recklessly sliding in. However in this instance clearly Broughton is making the play and Swallow is second to the contest.
 
"After the Lindsay Thomas decision at the tribunal, the AFL sent out a memo to the clubs stating players risked offending under the rough conduct rule if they slide feet or knees first where they should know that contact to an opponent could result," he said.

"We believe based on this that Broughton has a case to answer." (MRP chairman on AFL site)

Watch the footage again - watch where swallow started his run from - on the opposite side of the center bounce to Broughton.

Even in Slow motion you can see Broughts only has eyes for the ball - Swallow puts the afterburners on when he sees the ball coming out the direction he was running in and he accelerates past the ruck contest and puts himself in the way of broughts slide - players need to stop trying to play for free kicks by putting themselves in danger - they need to sort out the interpretation of the head high conduct to stop players from placing themselves in danger!

The MRP obviously only watched the slow motion footage just prior to the contact - they are a joke as is Whatley and Robinson for their lack of respect for Broughton by saying he should get sighted for something, when clearly he has no case to answer - Broughts is a fair player and i will be major pissed if FFC do not challenge this ruling to clear his name!
 
This is a bloody bad joke. We have to fight this. Eyes only for the ball, it didn't even look like he saw Swallow till the contact occurred.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

MRP / Trib. Panel set to punish Broughton's slide

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top