Sandilands can accept 1 match ban -- NAB Challenge

[Blinky Billl]

Freo bias? Please. Of course I want Sandilands to get off but that's as far as my "bias" goes. Look back over the thread and the media and you'll find most think he should have gotten off. I don't think that the incident shouldn't have been looked at - of course it should have. I just feel head high incidents should be looked at regardless of outcome.

Not saying that if there was no injury or concussion to Griffiths that I would have been campaigning for the Sandilands incident to be looked at if it wasn't, but thats my point - head high contact is head high contact regardless of outcome

Oh and If you thought that Griggs incident had not enough contact then you clearly haven't seen it properly. Elbows him flush on the chin.

Resulting injury will always be the main factor when deciding impact, which I think is fair enough and which you obviously don't.

One thing I will say is its absolute bullshit that you can be suspended in a preseason game for it to only count in the home and away season.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Resulting injury will always be the main factor when deciding impact, which I think is fair enough and which you obviously don't.

One thing I will say is its absolute bullshit that you can be suspended in a preseason game for it to only count in the home and away season.

Let's just agree to disagree there haha - I do think the severity of an injury should have an impact on the punishment, but I don't think said resulting injury should be the only reason that some incidents are looked at and not others, just because there is no injury

I can see where you're coming from re: suspension in NAB cup and it counting towards H&A. It makes no sense to be suspended in round 1 in NAB cup only for you to be eligible to play the next 2 pre-season games. If anything copping a suspension - and it counting during the NAB cup - is a different form of punishment in itself, as it means you wouldn't be as match fit for round 1 but that's not likely to change anytime soon

 

[SloppyJoe]

Like Cox? Vickery was rubbed out for 4 weeks, but if he'd made contact slightly differently and Cox didn't get knocked out and kept going, it probably would only have been a free kick. Luck, and the result, play very significant roles in MRP outcomes (they'd probably argue that if you take the action, you bear responsibility for whatever happens, however it goes).

Mind you, if you took the outcome out of it, then you're making it an even bigger case of MRP judgement calls (AKA worse chook lotto). Results based on MRP judgment of a players intent and how hard the blow was (while ignoring the only empirical evidence...the result) would be all over the place and far, far more subjective than the situation now.

Yep. I've seen plenty of instances where blokes have taken hits harder than Cox + Griffiths combined and they've popped up, dusted themselves off and jogged on. Not much one can do about it.

 

[telsor]

I just wished they challenged it, more so for the good of the game rather than having a chance to get off. Ruckmen should be able to try and win the ball against anybody contesting it, including the 3rd man up.

Medium impact is also laughable. How do you get to medium off 2 steps? If Sandi takes zero steps is he still considered low impact due to his body mass?

Griffiths got concussed...A grading of medium impact is low if anything. Indeed that and the 'careless' intent suggest that he got a treated gently from the MRP because it was pre season and he's a star player. Appealing would be a very dumb move, because the tribunal mightn't be as generous.

As for '2 steps' you can get a lot more force into an impact by moving your entire body mass 2 steps than you can in a punch (especially when those 2 steps are getting into the path of a guy with his own momentum.

I also remember a few years back Conca got reported in a pre season game because he saw a guy (Adams from North) running past him ballwatching, and slowed down slightly so that Adams would run into him and then braced for impact...Didn't move towards him at all, just used the other guys momentum intending to give him a bump and 'wake him up', and Adams (the recipient), was completely oblivious of what was happening around him ran into him and got knocked out....Conca was gone for 3 weeks (4, down to 3 with a plea) because it was deemed intentional 'he chose to bump' and high (even though there was no indication he hit the head) with medium impact (there were fewer impact gradings then, that'd be 'high' now). Admittedly this was a fair way off the ball, but the point is that if you initiate contact you're responsible for what happens.

 

[peppy la pew]

Griffiths got concussed...A grading of medium impact is low if anything. Indeed that and the 'careless' intent suggest that he got a treated gently from the MRP because it was pre season and he's a star player. Appealing would be a very dumb move, because the tribunal mightn't be as generous.

As for '2 steps' you can get a lot more force into an impact by moving your entire body mass 2 steps than you can in a punch (especially when those 2 steps are getting into the path of a guy with his own momentum.

I also remember a few years back Conca got reported in a pre season game because he saw a guy (Adams from North) running past him ballwatching, and slowed down slightly so that Adams would run into him and then braced for impact...Didn't move towards him at all, just used the other guys momentum intending to give him a bump and 'wake him up', and Adams (the recipient), was completely oblivious of what was happening around him ran into him and got knocked out....Conca was gone for 3 weeks (4, down to 3 with a plea) because it was deemed intentional 'he chose to bump' and high (even though there was no indication he hit the head) with medium impact (there were fewer impact gradings then, that'd be 'high' now). Admittedly this was a fair way off the ball, but the point is that if you initiate contact you're responsible for what happens.

I think everyone regardless of team support is fed up with the inconsistencies and interpretation of rules, year in and year out.

The fact that intent carries less weight than actual harm caused is another factor. The Hodge incident last year with the goalpost for example.

We, as humble fans have more commonsense than the cowboys on the MRP.

People are sick of the old boys club mentality that has enveloped the sport at every level.

 

[telsor]

I think everyone regardless of team support is fed up with the inconsistencies and interpretation of rules, year in and year out.

The fact that intent carries less weight than actual harm caused is another factor. The Hodge incident last year with the goalpost for example.

We, as humble fans have more commonsense than the cowboys on the MRP.

People are sick of the old boys club mentality that has enveloped the sport at every level.

How do you really expect the MRP to judge a players intent though?

Also, getting people for harm is pretty standard across the board (in no small part because intent is so hard to judge).
If a boss has an unsafe work environment, he's responsible for what happens, regardless of his intent.
If a player takes a potentially unsafe action, hes' responsible for what happens, regardless of his intent.

 

[stax on the mull]

Griffiths got concussed...A grading of medium impact is low if anything.

The medium impact assessment would come from the information provided by the medical report, and the medical pass on the concussion test is very high now. A medical report is more likely to cautiously regard the impact as higher than lower just to be on the safe side, bearing in mind, as stated by Brendon Lade after the game, your boy Griffiths has had some previous issues with concussion.

Chris Mayne for example missed on the weekend because he suffered a knee to the head during training in the previous week, trained again, but didn't score high enough in the cog test to play in the game.

Fremantle have taken a pragmatic decision not to contest based on the high record of failure by teams that contest MRP decisions.

 

[peppy la pew]

How do you really expect the MRP to judge a players intent though?

Also, getting people for harm is pretty standard across the board (in no small part because intent is so hard to judge).
If a boss has an unsafe work environment, he's responsible for what happens, regardless of his intent.
If a player takes a potentially unsafe action, hes' responsible for what happens, regardless of his intent.

Its called common sense, and the fact you are in agreeance with the MRP speaks volumes

I gave you the Hodge example and you ignored it,

Have a good day

 

[ziad]

if that was a week have we seen the last of contact?

 

[Purple Suit]

Griffiths got concussed...A grading of medium impact is low if anything. Indeed that and the 'careless' intent suggest that he got a treated gently from the MRP because it was pre season and he's a star player. Appealing would be a very dumb move, because the tribunal mightn't be as generous.

As for '2 steps' you can get a lot more force into an impact by moving your entire body mass 2 steps than you can in a punch (especially when those 2 steps are getting into the path of a guy with his own momentum.

I also remember a few years back Conca got reported in a pre season game because he saw a guy (Adams from North) running past him ballwatching, and slowed down slightly so that Adams would run into him and then braced for impact...Didn't move towards him at all, just used the other guys momentum intending to give him a bump and 'wake him up', and Adams (the recipient), was completely oblivious of what was happening around him ran into him and got knocked out....Conca was gone for 3 weeks (4, down to 3 with a plea) because it was deemed intentional 'he chose to bump' and high (even though there was no indication he hit the head) with medium impact (there were fewer impact gradings then, that'd be 'high' now). Admittedly this was a fair way off the ball, but the point is that if you initiate contact you're responsible for what happens.

Careless is the correct decision since he is entitled to be a ruckman and protect the drop of the ball. Just because someone gets hurt, doesn't mean there has to be a suspension, plenty occur every year by accident.

With the MRP, injury = force which I believe is wrong. Griffiths has a history of concussions so that should be taken into consideration.

Conca took someone out who wasn't expecting contact, a long way off the ball, completely different. Sandi was in the ruck contest and Griffiths was completely oblivious to the contact that would most likely be coming from Sandi if he ran into the drop zone to get the ball. This shouldn't be Sandi's fault, what else are his options besides letting Griffiths have a clean run to be 3rd man up?

Bumping is part of the game and needs to be protected when players stay on the ground, tuck their elbow in, don't have the option to tackle and the player should be expecting contact. Players get concussed in marking contests but you don't get the same cry's of foul or calls for it to be outlawed.

I would be arguing this for any player and if it is a Freo player who is hurt. Bumping needs to stay in the game.

 

[telsor]

Its called common sense, and the fact you are in agreeance with the MRP speaks volumes

I gave you the Hodge example and you ignored it,

Have a good day

So you think the MRP, while unable to correctly (according to you) determine degrees of contact can get intent right???

 

[telsor]

Careless is the correct decision since he is entitled to be a ruckman and protect the drop of the ball. Just because someone gets hurt, doesn't mean there has to be a suspension, plenty occur every year by accident.

He's entitles to be a Ruckman and protect the drop of the ball *fairly*, but he didn't do that, after all, if that had been his intent he would have actually make it to the ball, which he didn't because he chose to play the man instead.

No, getting hurt doesn't mean instant suspension, but it usually means it gets looked at and when it's caused by contact to the head, well, I can't think of many cases a player would get away with that.

With the MRP, injury = force which I believe is wrong. Griffiths has a history of concussions so that should be taken into consideration.

How so?

a long way off the ball, completely different. Sandi was in the ruck contest and Griffiths was completely oblivious to the contact that would most likely be coming from Sandi if he ran into the drop zone to get the ball. This shouldn't be Sandi's fault, what else are his options besides letting Griffiths have a clean run to be 3rd man up?

So you would have been fine if Soldo had acted like Sandi and decided not to contest the ball and instead stepped into the way of Dawson (your 3rd man up) and put his shoulder into his head?
By extension, is it also a valid tactic to take out the opposition players at marking contests, where they have as much right to protect the drop of the ball as ruckmen do (which is not much)?

Bumping is part of the game and needs to be protected when players stay on the ground, tuck their elbow in, don't have the option to tackle and the player should be expecting contact.

The AFL has been clear for several years that when the bump hits the head, you're in trouble.

I know you guys are used to being kissed on the dick by the MRP after Fyfe's treatment last year, but there isn't actually a clause in the rules that says they don't apply to Freo players.

Players get concussed in marking contests but you don't get the same cry's of foul or calls for it to be outlawed.

Not often, and if it comes about from a guy choosing not to contest the ball and instead lining another player up and putting a shoulder to their head, they'd probably get reported and suspended.

I would be arguing this for any player and if it is a Freo player who is hurt. Bumping needs to stay in the game.

Sure you would...There are examples from last year on this board of me arguing against Richmond players in favor of consistent and enforceable rules (exactly like what I'm doing here)....Can you say the same?

For example my use of Conca before...I was using that to point out that the argument that 'he only took a couple of steps towards him' was crap and never going to hold up, and that intent really didn't matter that much compared to result, as has been consistently happening for years. I wasn't suggesting Conca should have got off. You seem to want to overturn years of precedent and 'just happened' to suddenly come to this conclusion when it was your player at fault.

 

[peppy la pew]

I know you guys are used to being kissed on the dick by the MRP after Fyfe's treatment last year, but there isn't actually a clause in the rules that says they don't apply to Freo players.

And there it is,

 

[Suma Magic]

If you choose to bump and get their head, and they get concussed it will be a suspension unless there is an error.

If Sandi had merely stood his ground he wouldn't have been suspended.

 

[tek87]

guilty of being a big man hitting a smaller man. hope they are consistent. leigh matthews thinks he should have challenged it on the grounds that it does not constitute a bump

 

[eastfreo75]

One week seems fair, we need to protect the head.

Also, a lot of teams in the ruck contest take their eye's off the ball and knee Sandilands in the ribs. Too many times I've the third man up just aim to take out Sandilands.

Umpires, we play free kicks when players take their eyes off the ball and just aim for the body.

 

[Purple Suit]

If you choose to bump and get their head, and they get concussed it will be a suspension unless there is an error.

If Sandi had merely stood his ground he wouldn't have been suspended.

I don't think so. Ballas got off doing that in 2014 and the MRP has a hard on for him so would not let him off in error.

So you would have been fine if Soldo had acted like Sandi and decided not to contest the ball and instead stepped into the way of Dawson (your 3rd man up) and put his shoulder into his head?
By extension, is it also a valid tactic to take out the opposition players at marking contests, where they have as much right to protect the drop of the ball as ruckmen do (which is not much)?

Sure, had Soldo been pushing into Dawson and then tried to bump him correctly to try and win the ball. The only reason Sandi got him in the head is because he is very tall and since Griffiths was not aware of the potential for contact.
Marking is different to rucking, you can't jostle for position as much as rucks but you can get away with hurting or concussing someone if you do it in the contest.

 

[Suma Magic]

I don't think so. Ballas got off doing that in 2014 and the MRP has a hard on for him so would not let him off in error.


Sure, had Soldo been pushing into Dawson and then tried to bump him correctly to try and win the ball. The only reason Sandi got him in the head is because he is very tall and since Griffiths was not aware of the potential for contact.
Marking is different to rucking, you can't jostle for position as much as rucks but you can get away with hurting or concussing someone if you do it in the contest.

Yep fair point. He got off because he was contesting the ball. So I suppose you need to add that condition to my previous statement to make it correct.

 

[peppy la pew]

The fact that most supporters from a range of clubs agree it was a very soft, how you going decision, proves yet again the MRP is a complete lottery.

We all know it wont be a consistent ruling during the season proper, and by finals it wont even be looked at.

That is what pisses me off more than anything.

 

[Purple Suit]

Yep fair point. He got off because he was contesting the ball. So I suppose you need to add that condition to my previous statement to make it correct.

That's my case for Sand, I think he's contesting the ball. I'm all for stoping head injuries but not for outlawing bumps in every situation.

 

[Suma Magic]

That's my case for Sand, I think he's contesting the ball. I'm all for stoping head injuries but not for outlawing bumps in every situation.

Fair enough if you think he was contesting the ball. I would disagree.

I don't think allowing ruckmen to bump any third man up in the head is a good move. But happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Not contesting the ball, eyes on the player, elects to bump, gets him high.

I think it's one of the more obvious decisions.

But rah rah netball rah rah bibs anger anger this game's going down the toilet rah rah!!

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

Not contesting the ball, eyes on the player, elects to bump, gets him high.

I think it's one of the more obvious decisions.

But rah rah netball rah rah bibs anger anger this game's going down the toilet rah rah!!

Nonsense. He's contesting the ball and entitled to protect the area around the ball drop. Take the head contact out of the equation and it is not even a free kick.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

Nonsense. He's contesting the ball and entitled to protect the area around the ball drop. Take the head contact out of the equation and it is not even a free kick.

Take the head contact ou-

But there is head contact. While he's looking at the player he's given the head contact to. And then doesn't go near the ball or even go up for the ball. Just watches it as two other people contest the ball.

There's a difference between contesting the area and contesting the ball. He was contesting the area, hoping to get an advantage at contesting the ball.

 

[Westicle]

Let's just agree to disagree there haha - I do think the severity of an injury should have an impact on the punishment, but I don't think said resulting injury should be the only reason that some incidents are looked at and not others, just because there is no injury

The "Eggshell Skull Principle" is relevant here. This principle states that an aggressor takes the victim according to the victim's individual circumstances. If I king-hit a random bloke but it turns out he isn't great at getting punched and he dies, that's on me. Likewise, maybe a player who is hard as a cat's head like Joel Selwood or Anthony Miles would bounce up from an illegal hit like that, but that DOESN'T mean it's OK to deliver a head-high bump to Jack Martin.