Should the AFL appeal the Brodie Holland suspension?

[GOALden Hawk]

Todd Curley got 2 weeks because an umpire got in the way.

Ryan Hargreave got 4 weeks for hitting a bloke in a melee.

Steven Baker got 3 for telling a fat lump of lard to get off his foot.

Brodie Holland got 2 for whacking a bloke 50 metres off the ball, his 3rd striking offence in less than 100 games.

The integrity of the tribunal has been badly compromised by one of the worst decisions in the past decade. Surely the AFL must appeal?

 

[hotpie]

Hows Lance coming along?

 

[jj flash]

Yes its a disgrace, the AFL need to review their penalty system.

 

[Nic]

Move on, people. 2-3 was right.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

Can the AFL appeal? I know clubs can appeal, but I'm not sure if the AFL can.

 

[Clackers69]

Nah, the penalty was fair enough, he only hit a Sydney player and he will miss an important (season defining, perhaps?) H & A game and a final.

Plus, the tribunal is supposed to be an independant body. If the AFL appeal, they are saying they have no confidence in this body to execute their job properly. They would then have to sack the tribunal and either appoint a new one or sit on future cases themselves.

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
Can the AFL appeal? I know clubs can appeal, but I'm not sure if the AFL can.

Yes, they definitely can, as the tribunal is in theory an independent body.

If your team was in the Grand Final you would be absolutely mad if you DIDN'T get your tagger to knock out the opposition's best player behind play.

 

[Portia]

They will never have clearer video evidence than of that incident. If thats a two week charge then I don't see how anything else could ever be more than that.

 

[Lockyer24]

I can think of two incidents last year that were worse.

 

[The Hitman]

The case I'd compare it to would be Rioli striking Adam Simpson. Rioli got three weeks, which most thought was not enough, considering he has a pretty bad record at the tribunal.

Holland has a poor record too, and there is no way two weeks is enough. A roundhouse punch to the face is at least four weeks.

It's all well and good thinking of two incidents that were worse last season. How about naming them.

The Hitman

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Nic
Move on, people. 2-3 was right.

Be interesting to see what the comments would be if the consequence had been the same as in O'dea/Greening.
Both were a whack behind the play resulting in vastly different outcomes.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by Fred

Both were a whack behind the play resulting in vastly different outcomes.

They were different outcomes because O'Deas was a full blooded king hit, whilst Hollands was a right jab in context of a bit of aggro between two players.

Don't dare compare this incident with the filthy act of that scum O'Dea.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Fred
Be interesting to see what the comments would be if the consequence had been the same as in O'dea/Greening.
Both were a whack behind the play resulting in vastly different outcomes.

If someone drives home drunk and gets caught for driving under the influence in a random breath test v hits a parked car v kills another motorist are the penalties different?

The result does influence the penalty. So does the motivation/provocation.

As for the original question, I have no problem in principle with the AFL appealing apparent inconsistencies so long as they are consistent in doing so. I don't have confidence that they would be consistent though. FWIW the AFL always argues the tribunal is independent and decides on the facts of each case. They would have to have pretty stringent guidelines for lodging appeals and they would have to be prepared to cop plenty at finals time.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
If your team was in the Grand Final you would be absolutely mad if you DIDN'T get your tagger to knock out the opposition's best player behind play.

That's just silly. On that basis you would go into the GF with a player specifically selected to take out every opposition player. ridiculous in itself but to draw what you have said from a 2 week penalty for a punch which did no damage in retaliation for a punch taht similarly did no damage and was not even sighted is plain fantasy.

I am in full agreement that Holland, like many before him, received a penalty definitely on the lighter side of the ledger and should consider himself very lucky but to throw the sort of hysterical king hit accusations around that have been thrown around in relation to this incident is just laughable.

 

[BrisGirl]

Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
Can the AFL appeal?

They did with the Greg Williams case......the Umpires did not want anything to come of that incident and the AFL flexed their muscles and took him out for 9 weeks.

 

[Whisky_McKay]

I wonder if all these "Appeal the decision" do gooders would be saying it if it was a player from the club they support.
The silence would be deafening.

BTW Outcomes from appeals can go both ways.
You never know if the AFL did appeal Brodie's penalty may be reduced to one week.
Now that really would be something to squeal about

 

[superstar]

It was a typically Eddie-charged disgraceful decision. Would Peter Everitt have gotten 2 weeks?

 

[Lockyer24]

Originally posted by The Hitman
It's all well and good thinking of two incidents that were worse last season. How about naming them.

The Hitman

Matera elbow to Lockyer - clear video evidence, Lockyer concussed and missed rest of game = 0 weeks

Tarrant fairy bump to Graham - no video evidence, inconclusive player evidence, clean record = 2 weeks

I always thought Holland was deserving of 2-3 weeks, and I especially did with the new video evidence and the guilty plea.

 

[SCRAY72]

I'd be p*ssed off if I were Jason Cloke looking at the Holland penalty.
Cloke's indiscretion was a clumsy and mis-timed attempt at a spoil. The ball was in the vicinity. He got 3 for that, Holland should have got 4.

 

[hotpie]

Originally posted by SCRAY72
I'd be p*ssed off if I were Jason Cloke looking at the Holland penalty.
Cloke's indiscretion was a clumsy and mis-timed attempt at a spoil. The ball was in the vicinity. He got 3 for that, Holland should have got 4.

Cloke got 2.

 

[Lockyer24]

Also Williams played out the game with no ill effects, Edwards spent the rest of the game on the pine.

 

[Nic]

Originally posted by Fred
Be interesting to see what the comments would be if the consequence had been the same as in O'dea/Greening.
Both were a whack behind the play resulting in vastly different outcomes.

The consequences were never going to be the same. Holland's punch was never going to hurt Williams, just as Williams' punch didn't hurt Holland. It looked bad, looked being the operative word. Incomparable to O'dea/Greening, or even Sinclair/Picioane.

 

[funkycol]

Its a Joke...Another case of Running scared of Eddie's Whinging, why not just give him the 5 he deserved. Its a joke, If Williams had broke his jaw, or had concussion, it would of no doubt been a 4-5 week penalty, its cr_p they vary depending on the injury. I couldnt beleive he also got away with the attempted Trip, and the Dropping of Knees, when play was dead...He should have got games for the attempted trip for sure. He has a shocking record, and does 3 bad ones in one game and gets 2...what a Eddie Joke!!! The A.F.L sux, the way it lets Eddie do as he likes, and there inconsistency with everything they do.... We all compete in the C.F.L. Have to put up with Collingwood footy show every thur nite, then Byast Eddie calls on weekends...

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
Todd Curley got 2 weeks because an umpire got in the way.

Ryan Hargreave got 4 weeks for hitting a bloke in a melee.

Steven Baker got 3 for telling a fat lump of lard to get off his foot.

Brodie Holland got 2 for whacking a bloke 50 metres off the ball, his 3rd striking offence in less than 100 games.

The integrity of the tribunal has been badly compromised by one of the worst decisions in the past decade. Surely the AFL must appeal?

Scott Camporeale didn't even get cited for striking Holland 100 metres off the ball.

You're looking at the wrong sport if you want justice.

And anyway a blockbuster, plus what would be your first ever final, is a greater punishment than what any one of those players mentioned got.

Now quit your grandstanding GOALden!

 

[Bakes]

went in with chapped lips, came out with sore cheeks