Sandilands can accept 1 match ban -- NAB Challenge

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Look at the footage of grigg on Fyfe where he makes contact with fyfes head with his own shoulder and tell me why that wasn't looked at?

Actually I think it was his elbow that copped Fyfe on the chin

Different circumstances I know, but wasn't the afl going to look at any head high contact? Or is it still bulshit outcome based wherein an incident only gets looked if a player gets injured or appears injured. Grigg had far more intent in that incident than Sandilands did in his. He was an angry man and went in recklessly. I'm not sure whether he meant to elbow Fyfe in the head or not, but he still copped him high

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-02-19/fyfe-targeted-by-an-angry-tiger

 

[telsor]

Look at the footage of grigg on Fyfe where he makes contact with fyfes head with his own shoulder and tell me why that wasn't looked at?

Actually I think it was his elbow that copped Fyfe on the chin

Different circumstances I know, but wasn't the afl going to look at any head high contact? Or is it still bulshit outcome based wherein an incident only gets looked if a player gets injured or appears injured. Grigg had far more intent in that incident than Sandilands did in his. He was an angry man and went in recklessly. I'm not sure whether he meant to elbow Fyfe in the head or not, but he still copped him high

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-02-19/fyfe-targeted-by-an-angry-tiger

They probably should have looked at it, although I wouldn't be surprised if it got deemed insufficient force.

They might also look at why the normally placid Grigg was so upset with Fyfe (hint, Grigg on the ground, and Fyfe's foot is very close to his head...might have missed, but if it did you wouldn't think Grigg would get so upset would you).

 

[HowieD]

That doesnt make any sense. 99.9% of third man up situations dont have any head contact...

Neither do 99% of contested possessions. But people still get hit in the head with force and the AFL wants to eradicate that from our game. It's happened twice in two seasons now.

The umpires designate two people to go for a ruck contest. They are allowed to stand as far apart as they want for a leaping head start, but no closer than 1 or 2 (???) metres. Why do we even need a third man up?

 

[Scotland]

MRP lasted one week of NAB Challenge before losing it this year. Doesn't augur well.

Sandilands just copped 2 down to 1 for being really tall. To be fair he's had that coming for a while.

 

[TheProwler]

While you tuggers are so astute, nothing gets past you blokes

Your welcome

 

[TheProwler]

Look at the footage of grigg on Fyfe where he makes contact with fyfes head with his own shoulder and tell me why that wasn't looked at?

Actually I think it was his elbow that copped Fyfe on the chin

Different circumstances I know, but wasn't the afl going to look at any head high contact? Or is it still bulshit outcome based wherein an incident only gets looked if a player gets injured or appears injured. Grigg had far more intent in that incident than Sandilands did in his. He was an angry man and went in recklessly. I'm not sure whether he meant to elbow Fyfe in the head or not, but he still copped him high

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-02-19/fyfe-targeted-by-an-angry-tiger

They probably wouldn't have looked at the Sandilands one either excrpt the player was flattened and helped from the ground. Thats where they assess the level of force i guess.

Its pretty simple, you bump a bloke & make any contact to the head it will be looked at. If the player is injured in any way then you are gone. The fact Griffiths came back on may have helped Sandilands with just one week

 

[Suma Magic]

Only Richmond fans and a handful of other opposition fans seem to think that it deserved a week. Hope we appeal

To be fair, there are a fair few Dockers supporters who think he deserves a week.

 

[masai]

They might also look at why the normally placid Grigg was so upset with Fyfe (hint, Grigg on the ground, and Fyfe's foot is very close to his head...might have missed, but if it did you wouldn't think Grigg would get so upset would you).

I think Grigg was on the "angry pills", he'd already given Pav a "clip" in the first half. I agree that Grigg is normally pretty passive, but he was having a day where his eye's weren't always on the ball.

In summary with the MRP, they are prosecuting the result, not the intent.

 

[SloppyJoe]

I don't like to see someone get suspended for this, but to the letter of the law I don't think he will get up on a challenge. It sucks how some blokes can take a hit and others can't - however you have to take your victim as you find them.

Also, if he wasn't eyeing Griffiths coming in, he would've got off I reckon.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

What a joke

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I think Grigg was on the "angry pills", he'd already given Pav a "clip" in the first half. I agree that Grigg is normally pretty passive, but he was having a day where his eye's weren't always on the ball.

In summary with the MRP, they are prosecuting the result, not the intent.

And that is my main issue with the MRP - it's all outcome based, rather than intent based

It's because of this we see guys rubbed out for being too tall or going in to hard, yet players get off punches to the face (not talking about Grigg here btw) just because the victim doesn't appear hurt or there is no blood or concussion

 

[telsor]

In summary with the MRP, they are prosecuting the result, not the intent.

So at least it's consistent with previous years...

 

[telsor]

And that is my main issue with the MRP - it's all outcome based, rather than intent based

It's because of this we see guys rubbed out for being too tall or going in to hard, yet players get off punches to the face (not talking about Grigg here btw) just because the victim doesn't appear hurt or there is no blood or concussion

Tell me you don't believe that (or worse, that you think that it's fair to allow taller players to contact the head with impunity).

 

[telsor]

I don't like to see someone get suspended for this, but to the letter of the law I don't think he will get up on a challenge. It sucks how some blokes can take a hit and others can't - however you have to take your victim as you find them.

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.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Tell me you don't believe that (or worse, that you think that it's fair to allow taller players to contact the head with impunity).

Not at all. I just think common sense should prevail when there is a taller guy v a shorter guy. Sandilands couldn't have gone any lower in the ruck contest where he clipped Griffiths. Knees bent, elbow tucked in etc. - perfect hip and shoulder. Just the guy was shorter. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be looked at by the MRP, just it should be looked at taking in to account height differences etc.

To think that some would think that tall guys are allowed to contact the head of shorter opposition players with impunity is ludicrous

 

[MYOB]

Sandiland accepts 1 match ban

 

[pablo668]

I didn't think there was a lot in it myself.
I thought if anything Sandi was moving to block, the Richmond player looked to have run in to the rear of Sandi's shoulder.
You win some of these you lose some of them.

I only hope the MRP and the umps can be consistent however they move to judge these things.

 

[Purple Suit]

No, the point of the bumping rule (and many other rules) is if you go for the man when you could have gone for the ball. Sandilands chose to focus on the man.

I disagree, Sandi's main intent was to get the ball. To do that, he needed to protect the drop with a bump as he was not allowed to tackle. I thought bumping was outlawed when you had other options, not from the game all together.

Ballas successfully challenged a suspension a few years ago when the same thing occurred in a one on one contest approaching a ball. If you have everything tucked in, are not jumping, intent for the ball / contest and the player should be expecting contact it should be fine. Accidental contact can occur and you don't want to take away the physical side of the game.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-10/franklin-free-docker-to-tribunal

 

[Forward Press]

I disagree, Sandi's main intent was to get the ball. To do that, he needed to protect the drop with a bump as he was not allowed to tackle. I thought bumping was outlawed when you had other options, not from the game all together.

Ballas successfully challenged a suspension a few years ago when the same thing occurred in a one on one contest approaching a ball. If you have everything tucked in, are not jumping, intent for the ball / contest and the player should be expecting contact it should be fine. Accidental contact can occur and you don't want to take away the physical side of the game.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-10/franklin-free-docker-to-tribunal

Your post is entirely correct and the general sentiment is the MRP will not prosecute players going for the ball.

However, Sandilands is clearly shown to have had his eye on Griffiths. Not sure it can be successfully argued that protecting the drop is also going for the ball. His arm is tucked in and he isn't jumping into a player, however the idea of intent for the ball/contest is now questioned.

I suspect if Griffiths didn't get a concussion there wouldn't even be a case to answer anyway.

 

[Purple Suit]

Your post is entirely correct and the general sentiment is the MRP will not prosecute players going for the ball.

However, Sandilands is clearly shown to have had his eye on Griffiths. Not sure it can be successfully argued that protecting the drop is also going for the ball. His arm is tucked in and he isn't jumping into a player, however the idea of intent for the ball/contest is now questioned.

I suspect if Griffiths didn't get a concussion there wouldn't even be a case to answer anyway.

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?

 

[Forward Press]

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?

The way the grading is done, any time someone gets concussed from a head high impact, you are in deep trouble, because then there is no way you'll get off for 'insufficient force' and you automatically have lots of points added for head impact. I'd rather not have ruckmen getting done for blocking a third man up but once Sandi connected with the head and the player suffered adverse medical effects, he was never going to get away with it.

I also prefer actions get judged by intent rather than result but it wouldn't surprise me if the AFL has taken a consistent hard line on head injuries because of the threat of lawsuits like what's happening in the NFL in the US.

 

[Blinky Billl]

Look at the footage of grigg on Fyfe where he makes contact with fyfes head with his own shoulder and tell me why that wasn't looked at?

Actually I think it was his elbow that copped Fyfe on the chin

Different circumstances I know, but wasn't the afl going to look at any head high contact? Or is it still bulshit outcome based wherein an incident only gets looked if a player gets injured or appears injured. Grigg had far more intent in that incident than Sandilands did in his. He was an angry man and went in recklessly. I'm not sure whether he meant to elbow Fyfe in the head or not, but he still copped him high

http://m.afl.com.au/video/2016-02-19/fyfe-targeted-by-an-angry-tiger

Jeez, I was unaware that Fyfe went off the ground with a concussion and will be missing this week. That's bad luck for him.

It's amazing in the current age how unconcerned Freo supporters apparently are over concussions, especially when it leads to a week in an open and shut case like this. Eyes off the ball > elected to bump > player doesn't come back on after concussion protocol. I know we are all biased for our team but c'mon it's getting embarrassing.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Jeez, I was unaware that Fyfe went off the ground with a concussion and will be missing this week. That's bad luck for him.

It's amazing in the current age how unconcerned Freo supporters apparently are over concussions, especially when it leads to a week in an open and shut case like this. Eyes off the ball > elected to bump > player doesn't come back on after concussion protocol. I know we are all biased for our team but c'mon it's getting embarrassing.

Does it matter that Fyfe stayed on the ground and Griffiths didn't? If it was the other way around (Fyfe got concussed and Griffiths was okay to continue) then the Grigg/Fyfe incident would be the one looked at by the MRP and not the Sandilands/Griffiths incident - and that is exactly my point. The MRP deciding to look at events only if a player is injured/appears injured is all well and good (as they should do), but when incidents get ignored because there is no injury/concussion to a player then it sends mixed messages to players and fans. Like "go as hard as you like and as long you don't hurt anybody, the MRP will leave you alone"

I'm all for concussions to be looked at and monitored properly and events leading to them, but for incidents that have as much (if not more) potential to cause concussions, to be ignored is stupid. I know Grigg didn't concuss Fyfe, but there have been incidents in the past that have been similar where players have been injured or concussed.

 

[Blinky Billl]

Does it matter that Fyfe stayed on the ground and Griffiths didn't? If it was the other way around (Fyfe got concussed and Griffiths was okay to continue) then the Grigg/Fyfe incident would be the one looked at by the MRP and not the Sandilands/Griffiths incident - and that is exactly my point. The MRP deciding to look at events only if a player is injured/appears injured is all well and good (as they should do), but when incidents get ignored because there is no injury/concussion to a player then it sends mixed messages to players and fans. Like "go as hard as you like and as long you don't hurt anybody, the MRP will leave you alone"

I'm all for concussions to be looked at and monitored properly and events leading to them, but for incidents that have as much (if not more) potential to cause concussions, to be ignored is stupid. I know Grigg didn't concuss Fyfe, but there have been incidents in the past that have been similar where players have been injured or concussed.

Of course getting a concussion out of an incident is relelvant. The tribunal has to grade the impact made to the opposition player. I don't know how you want the tribunal to come with an all clear when the impact was hard enough to put a player out for at least a week especially after taking his eyes off of the ball it was no accident. He was actually lucky he only got a week considering the tribunal came back with 'careless' which is hard to argue since his eyes came off the ball and 'medium impact' when the impact was severe enough to end Griffith's game. It is no surprise Freo didn't challenge.

Fyfe's incident was clearly not enough contact and whinging that the incidents are similar when in fact they are poles apart shows you are struggling to see through your Freo bias.

It sounds like you want fundamental changes to how the tribunal grades it incidents. No matter what changes are made to the tribunal a bump to the head resulting in concussion will result in a suspension 100% of the time.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

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.