Autopsy Round 4, 2022: Hawthorn v St.Kilda

[gringo2011]

Yes - would make for an interesting argument at the tribunal given the guidelines relating to "Impact" also say

"In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact."

In the end, Christensen just applies the algorithm and leaves it to the clubs to decide if they want to argue subtlety and nuances of intent at the Tribunal if they want to go that way.

There is also a huge trial by media effect too. The media during and after the match was all about punishing him. King was trying to wind everyone up to make an example of Paddy "for the good of the game" or some shit. Once the old ladies start to gossip you are basically tarnished and it would take a brave MRP to deny them their sacrifice.

 

[D2D3]

There is also a huge trial by media effect too. The media during and after the match was all about punishing him. King was trying to wind everyone up to make an example of Paddy "for the good of the game" or some shit. Once the old ladies start to gossip you are basically tarnished and it would take a brave MRP to deny them their sacrifice.

Yeap it’s exactly the same thing that happened to Long. Was gone before it even got looked at.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Yes - it is but only because the MRO determines the charge and guilt in the same action without consideration of intent.

People may get charged by police or the PP with a serious crime but in court are then found guilty of a less serious charge after further consideration of proving "intent".

Interesting thing (for those people weird enough to find this s*** interesting) is that the AFL Tribunal guidelines don't actually define what constitutes "Severe, High, Medium, Low" impact.

No wonder its a dogs breakfast.

I'm not prepared to believe the people at the afl are so stupid as to not see the same issues.
That being the case, l can only believe the whole dog's breakfast theme across the MRO/ Tribunal process is their method of keeping the waters so muddy that it allows the league to dictate outcomes at whim whilst keeping the public clueless and preventing challenges to the rulings since inconsistency has become the norm and in the absence of just cause they can retrospectively invent a new law such as was done with Longy.

The fact that the MRO/Tribunal are tools of the AFL rather than judiciary bodies shouldn't surprise. A puppet show is exactly what they want.

 

[ScrappyDo]

There is also a huge trial by media effect too. The media during and after the match was all about punishing him. King was trying to wind everyone up to make an example of Paddy "for the good of the game" or some shit. Once the old ladies start to gossip you are basically tarnished and it would take a brave MRP to deny them their sacrifice.

King isn't a stupid as people like to think. Parroting the AFL narrative is good for your career. Sticking the boots into StKilda is part of it.

 

[phantom13]

Yes - would make for an interesting argument at the tribunal given the guidelines relating to "Impact" also say

"In addition, consideration will be given to the body language of the offending Player in terms of flexing, turning, raising or positioning the body to either increase or reduce the force of impact."

In the end, Christensen just applies the algorithm and leaves it to the clubs to decide if they want to argue subtlety and nuances of intent at the Tribunal if they want to go that way.

Big part of the issue is having one guy applying the algorithym. Look at it this way, weve all discussed the English incident and said (for the vast majority) we think its extremely similar, if the one guy who says it isnt is Michael Christensen then its always gonna be a problem.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Big part of the issue is having one guy applying the algorithym. Look at it this way, weve all discussed the English incident and said (for the vast majority) we think its extremely similar, if the one guy who says it isnt is Michael Christensen then its always gonna be a problem.

Yeah - the issue in this case (as opposed to English) is that because of the the current discussions about CTE and concussion Christensen basically squibbed it.

In a straight easy path reading of the Guidelines - two weeks for Ryder is pretty much expected. Careless, High Impact, High Contact - two weeks.

The problem is as that when CTE is not in the headlines, Christensen assessed the English incident as a non issue when the most liberal interpretation would be Careless, Low Impact, High Contact - Fine

But because it wasn't in the headlines, Christensen took into account what English was doing as well.

“After disposing of the football, Blakey is met by the Western Bulldogs’ Tim English,” the MRO statement said.

“English gets to a stationary position before turning his body and making contact with player Blakey. It was determined by the MRO that English’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.“

and lets him off completely because he classifies the contact as "not unreasonable" so there is no basis for a charge so not even a fine.

There lies the problem.

If the AFL were serious about stamping out head high contact they should have appealed the English one, even if to just get a fine imposed.

 

[Saints TV]

The result is more important than the action. Think of it the same way as different levels of assault using legal framework. Assault vs actual bodily harm vs grievous bodily harm. Comes down to outcome. This is what the AFL MRP is trying to reflect.

But in the long term how do you stamp out injuries? You fix THE ACTION. You punish THE ACTION. If Paddy stands still and someone runs into him and happens to get concussed, does suspending Paddy actually reduce the number of injuries moving forward? No it doesn't. If someone runs into a bloke, hits him head high and raises an elbow and is clearly off the ball, but the player is not concussed, is that action deemed unpunishable? You see what I mean.

Punish the action, and the outcomes will become less and less common.

 

[phantom13]

Yeah - the issue in this case (as opposed to English) is that because of the the current discussions about CTE and concussion Christensen basically squibbed it.

In a straight easy path reading of the Guidelines - two weeks for Ryder is pretty much expected. Careless, High Impact, High Contact - two weeks.

The problem is as that when CTE is not in the headlines, Christensen assessed the English incident as a non issue when the most liberal interpretation would be Careless, Low Impact, High Contact - Fine

But because it wasn't in the headlines, Christensen took into account what English was doing as well.

“After disposing of the football, Blakey is met by the Western Bulldogs’ Tim English,” the MRO statement said.

“English gets to a stationary position before turning his body and making contact with player Blakey. It was determined by the MRO that English’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.“

and lets him off completely because he classifies the contact as "not unreasonable" so there is no basis for a charge so not even a fine.

There lies the problem.

If the AFL were serious about stamping out head high contact they should have appealed the English one, even if to just get a fine imposed.

Sure but that seems absolutely absurd doesnt it?

“After disposing of the football, Blakey is met by the Western Bulldogs’ Tim English,” the MRO statement said.

“English gets to a stationary position before turning his body and making contact with player Blakey. It was determined by the MRO that English’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.“

If you take the same sentence and substitute Paddy and Day it would absolutely still align.

“After disposing of the football, Day is met by the Saints' Paddy Ryder,” the MRO statement said.

“Ryder gets to a stationary position before turning his body and making contact with player Day. It was determined by the MRO that Ryder’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.“

 

[stfan]

Unfortunately for Ryder and St Kilda concussion effects in AFL has been very prominent in the news over the previous week or so. So that may well have coloured the outcome of the MRO. It should not have, but I suspect it has.

 

[Saint Shags]

It was a good win and we played well but I have to say a few things. I didn't think I would come back but I have to make this clear.

I thought we played well and I am so happy for us winning the game. But I want to address a few things that I think are beyond the point of just forum banter and actually impacting the lives of other people.

I was at the MCG today with my missus and we were approached at half time by a man that said he was from BigFooty and evidently knew who I was. I was assaulted at half time and then I was followed for a short period after the conclusion of the game. I can defend myself, but this was no doubt a ridiculous moment and I am saddened to hear of it and experience it.

I know I have enemies on here, I know I don't get along with some people, but has it come to a point where this kind of behaviour is okay?

I have raised the issue with police. If it's you or you know who was involved please let me know. It will make everything so much easier.

I have had messages of support since I decided to leave on Monday but I know I have rubbed people the wrong way, however this is taking it to a new level. I want to be able to go to the football and enjoy myself. I would've thought this harassment would only be part of this forum and nothing more.

I am happy to PM anyone who thinks they have been wronged in the past and make things right.

I am happy for you to have a go at me or what I do, but I am at the football in a private setting with people I love. I don't know how these people found out about me but please leave me alone. I want to support the club like anyone else. It is not fair to have to live through this.

Have only just seen this. That's bullshit that you would be targeted in such a fashion.

Whoever it is can rightly **** off and never return. That kind of lowlife behaviour is not accepted. If you seriously need to intimidate someone verbally or physically because you don't like an opinion on an online forum, you have serious issues that need to be dealt with.

On a second note I hope we can find whoever it is and if they are a member of the club I would like to see their membership rescinded. Don't need 'supporters' like that.

I hope you and your fam are doing well George!

 

[Fehring]

Yeah I usually give people who are coming of ACLs 12 months once they are back.

Exception being Leonard Hayes. But he was made from the same stuff Captain America was.

Hayes came back like a jet from his second ACL, but took a good year to get form back after his first ACL.

 

[Browny2Carlisle]

Even purple is on paddy’s side.
People like David King should not be allowed to constantly parrot on determine an outcome before it’s been look at.

 

[Saint Shags]

The result is more important than the action. Think of it the same way as different levels of assault using legal framework. Assault vs actual bodily harm vs grievous bodily harm. Comes down to outcome. This is what the AFL MRP is trying to reflect.

Except if your name is Ben Long...

 

[lewdogs]

Even purple is on paddy’s side.
People like David King should not be allowed to constantly parrot on determine an outcome before it’s been look at.

Did you see the footage of Ben Brown that got one week?

That's one of the area where people are confused I think. Looked like a total dog hit off the ball and he gets 1, Paddy an accidental collision gets 2.

 

[SaintersUnite]

I feel like I’m the only person that wants it to go back to purely getting suspended for malicious actions with intent to injure. No accidents.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Dr Spaceman]

 

[phantom13]

Did you see the footage of Ben Brown that got one week?

That's one of the area where people are confused I think. Looked like a total dog hit off the ball and he gets 1, Paddy an accidental collision gets 2.

This is absolutely outrageous to me.

How on the balance of sense can you say that Ryder deserves twice the punishment an unprovoked, off the ball flying elbow is completely beyond me.

As usual no one will bother to hold the AFL to account.

 

[my name was taken]

Even purple is on paddy’s side.
People like David King should not be allowed to constantly parrot on determine an outcome before it’s been look at.

"No one has been expected to run away from contact" - purple for once makes sense, basically said Ryder did all he could to minimise impact at that point by bracing.

Watching slowmo 1000 times is completely unfair, Ryder had a split second

 

[Feerits Elf]

Yeah - the issue in this case (as opposed to English) is that because of the the current discussions about CTE and concussion Christensen basically squibbed it.

In a straight easy path reading of the Guidelines - two weeks for Ryder is pretty much expected. Careless, High Impact, High Contact - two weeks.

The problem is as that when CTE is not in the headlines, Christensen assessed the English incident as a non issue when the most liberal interpretation would be Careless, Low Impact, High Contact - Fine

But because it wasn't in the headlines, Christensen took into account what English was doing as well.

“After disposing of the football, Blakey is met by the Western Bulldogs’ Tim English,” the MRO statement said.

“English gets to a stationary position before turning his body and making contact with player Blakey. It was determined by the MRO that English’s actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.“

and lets him off completely because he classifies the contact as "not unreasonable" so there is no basis for a charge so not even a fine.

There lies the problem.

If the AFL were serious about stamping out head high contact they should have appealed the English one, even if to just get a fine imposed.

Who's Christensen?

 

[PostmanBish]

The whole MRO thing is a farce because it's a purely outcome driven process rather than intent/outcome driven.

If the courts operated as the MRO operates, if a person dies as a result of your actions (irrespective of your intent or the circumstances of the action) you must get a life sentence.

The other problem is that the head is not truly sacrosanct in the AFL. It's perfectly fine to s**tmix Hunter Clark or Jack Higgins in multiple situations, where you will be judged on the action, rather than the outcome. Then you have the Ben Long incident against the Doggies where one specific action, combined with a presumption of "potential to cause injury" sees weeks given when the "offended" player was completely unharmed and plays out the game.

My gears grind a bit on this, because we know St Kilda players are over-represented in concussion-related retirements, yet anytime our players get laid out, or damaged above the shoulders, it is a "football incident" (which apparently mitigates all possible outcomes of those concussions). On the other hand, I guess we can be thankful that the league doesn't give weeks every time Selwood leads with his head and has to break out the sticky tape.

To the topic at hand, I'd really like to see the club appeal Ryder's suspension, backed up with a proper biomechanical analysis of the Day incident, because if you watch it in slow-mo from behind, Day's change of direction is clear - had he stayed on the line he held up to the point of the kick, Ryder's action of stopping would have resulted in a glancing blow, at worst, rather than full contact.





Up to the point of the kick, there's no sign that Day is going to change direction - After the kick, Day plants his right foot, and pushes into a direction change - Ryder is already visibly trying to stop his forward momentum.




At this point, I reckon the only thing Paddy could potentially have done would be to try and flop backwards, or de-materialize ... he does make every effort to stay low, however, and avoid high contact - his shoulder is noticeably lower than Day's at this point, and Day is actually airborne at the point of impact, facing approximately 90 degrees away from his original path.





It actually appears that Day's head impacts on his own hand, moreso than making any direct contact with Paddy.




By contrast to the English bump, where Blakey was running DIRECTLY at English throughout the clip, and English opts to turn to his left and brace the right shoulder, Paddy needed to be clairvoyant to be able to forsee that Day would turn basically 90 degrees from his original line and launch directly into him.










Given that Day played further time on ground, I'd also be interested to know if:

a) Day was PROPERLY assessed for concussion after the incident (he was only off the ground for a couple of minutes - is that sufficient time to administer a concussion test - was ANY consideration given to having him off the ground for the 20 minutes rather than expose him to more contact?) BEFORE being allowed to resume.
b) If not, why not? On what grounds was he allowed to continue? The speed at which he was interchanged back on raises questions which should be answered by the Hawthorn medical staff
c) Whether any of the contests that Day participated in following the Ryder incident influenced his halftime substitution following a seemingly hasty return to the field:

9:13 - Whistle blows on the Ryder contact
7:44 - Marking contest with Mason Wood
7:26 - Marking contest with Rowan Marshall and Sam Frost
7:24 - Tackled by Mason Wood (Day was still on his knees in back of frame 4 seconds later while Wood had regained his feet)
6:53 - Pack marking contest involving King, Wood, Marshall and another Hawk - looking at the reverse angle replay (around 6:37) it appears his head makes contact with King's right arm as well as his torso impacting with Marshall's back which would also be a fair jolt) - pretty sure he ran to interchange after this.
5:10 - Commentators state that Day was checked out by the doctors ... "All clear, just a little graze under the chin" - cut to shot of Day looking fine on the bench, with no signs of bleeding.

Then we get to the other side of halftime, and they start with the coordinated crucifixion of Ryder in a trial-by-media special.

Personally, I think the incident was worth the downfield free kick, possibly a 50m penalty, but not two weeks. Ryder's actions in the lead-up had every potential to AVOID injury to Day, had he not turned 90 degrees following the kick, which could not reasonably be foreseen, IMHO. There was no direct contact with Day's head, so really, even if you took the absolute worst interpretation of Paddy's intent, combined with the nature of the impact and outcome, there's no way it should be more than one week. I honestly think Hawthorn's medical staff have much more to answer for in rushing him back onto the field - imagine how WE would have been crucified, had we allowed Higgins to play on for one moment longer after the Ralphsmith tackle ...

 

[PostmanBish]

Even purple is on paddy’s side.
People like David King should not be allowed to constantly parrot on determine an outcome before it’s been look at.

Denial of natural justice, IMHO ... if an incident is potentially MRO-worthy, it should not be replayed or scrutinised in any way beyond the live screening until after the MRO hands down findings.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Who met who?

Did Blakely run into a static English? Or was it the other way round?

Did Day run into a static Ryder? Or was it the other way round?

English was standing still a spilt second longer than Paddy but the bottom line is both were not moving when the ball handler ran into them - yet one gets punished more severely because of a small scratch on the chin and unfortunately the player that ran into him is more prone to concussion issues

 

[PostmanBish]

Except if your name is Ben Long...

If I were Long and Ryder, I'd really have to question whether there's something more to it ...

 

[HunterClarksHeadband]

We’re challenging the decision. Thank f*ck

 

[Plugger35]

Have to wonder if us playing Gold Coast and GWS in the next couple of weeks played a part in Paddy getting the 2 week suspension.

I'm sure the AFL would prefer their 2 franchise clubs to get a win over us and rubbing Paddy out definitely improves their chances of beating us.

You would hate to think that would be a factor in the decision but it wouldn't surprise me if it was, it is out of whack when compared to other incidents.