Are you talking about the bump in the first quarter where he hit wines in the armpit? Looked like a good hit to me.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation
- Thread starter RussellEbertHandball
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Aug 15, 2015
- 38,675
- 92,385
Bizarre. Probably because they didn't decide replay it 800 times and condemn him on the broadcast. AMT is one of the good black fellows not one of the big scary ones like SPP, see?
Also how the **** does Jonas and Bonner get the same sanction as fat package when he was the one that instigated it and was actually doing the wrestling.
Here, have a look.
- Aug 15, 2015
- 38,675
- 92,385
Here, have a look.
Yeah bizarre they didn't even look at it. Where were the 800 slomo replays they have for port players?
I don't think Ollie reacts like he did to a hit on the shoulder. If AMT hit someone without a big box head they'd probably be ko'ed.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,005
Am moving some of the Dangerfield discussion in the GF Gameday thread to here.
Firstly changes in 2015 to tribunal system when the AFL got rid of the demerit points system and introduced a standard number of weeks for each individual classification they scrapped the double points/sanction for a GF for non financial sanctions. Financial sanctions still are doubled. From the 2015 Tribunal book page re changes to the system for 2015;
Dangerfield get's off thanks to PropertySteward posting the MRO's ruling / statement
www.afl.com.au
AFL Match Review - 2020 Toyota Grand Final
The AFL wishes to advise the Match Review of the 2020 Toyota AFL Grand Final has been completed. No charges were laid with one incident requiring an explanation.
Incident assessed:
The incident between Geelong Cats' Patrick Dangerfield and Richmond's Nick Vlastuin from the first quarter of Saturday's game between Richmond and the Geelong Cats was assessed. The ball is loose. Vlastuin and Dangerfield approach the ball from opposing directions. Dangerfield punches the ball and in the process makes high contact to Vlastuin. It was the view of the MRO that Dangerfield's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Duck Farmer said
I responded with - Yeah the MRO had better make a bloody clear distinction why he was allowed to protect himself, because in the past if players brace for a bump to protect themselves, they can't plead that because they have a duty of care to the other player before one to themselves.
and raptalia responded with
Any time next year any player protects himself and hits a guy in the head and the MRO gives him matches, then the player has to go to the tribunal - the footage of this incident has to be shown and says well if this is not unreasonable, then so should the current incident be graded the same way.
Firstly changes in 2015 to tribunal system when the AFL got rid of the demerit points system and introduced a standard number of weeks for each individual classification they scrapped the double points/sanction for a GF for non financial sanctions. Financial sanctions still are doubled. From the 2015 Tribunal book page re changes to the system for 2015;
Dangerfield get's off thanks to PropertySteward posting the MRO's ruling / statement
Match Review: Superstar Cat cleared over Vlastuin hit
Patrick Dangerfield won't be suspended for the collision that ended Nick Vlastuin's night early
www.afl.com.au
The AFL wishes to advise the Match Review of the 2020 Toyota AFL Grand Final has been completed. No charges were laid with one incident requiring an explanation.
Incident assessed:
The incident between Geelong Cats' Patrick Dangerfield and Richmond's Nick Vlastuin from the first quarter of Saturday's game between Richmond and the Geelong Cats was assessed. The ball is loose. Vlastuin and Dangerfield approach the ball from opposing directions. Dangerfield punches the ball and in the process makes high contact to Vlastuin. It was the view of the MRO that Dangerfield's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.
Duck Farmer said
I responded with - Yeah the MRO had better make a bloody clear distinction why he was allowed to protect himself, because in the past if players brace for a bump to protect themselves, they can't plead that because they have a duty of care to the other player before one to themselves.
and raptalia responded with
Any time next year any player protects himself and hits a guy in the head and the MRO gives him matches, then the player has to go to the tribunal - the footage of this incident has to be shown and says well if this is not unreasonable, then so should the current incident be graded the same way.
- Mar 1, 2014
- 14,506
- 18,445
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Cronulla Sutherland Sharks
It will not happen but I would like Kochie to have a dead set go at this non investigation on Sunrise tomorrow morning.
Then again I suppose if he did he would get investigated by the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute and the PAFC would be pilloried as shit stirring whingers by the Melbourne media. Sometimes we cannot win and as Kenny Rogers once sang we just 'have to know when to walk away'.
This incident does not involve us directly but I am ****ing disgusted with the AFL's Victorian bias. The AFL should be on shaky ground but it won't be as no one will have the balls to offically question this travesty. **** the AFL arseholes I am off to watch the NRL Grand Final and cool down. I will going like hell for Penrith against Melbourne and Cameron Smith who is the NRL's answer to Dangerfield.
PS Anyone interested in watching the NRL Final it is on NINE not Foxtel.
Then again I suppose if he did he would get investigated by the AFL for bringing the game into disrepute and the PAFC would be pilloried as shit stirring whingers by the Melbourne media. Sometimes we cannot win and as Kenny Rogers once sang we just 'have to know when to walk away'.
This incident does not involve us directly but I am ****ing disgusted with the AFL's Victorian bias. The AFL should be on shaky ground but it won't be as no one will have the balls to offically question this travesty. **** the AFL arseholes I am off to watch the NRL Grand Final and cool down. I will going like hell for Penrith against Melbourne and Cameron Smith who is the NRL's answer to Dangerfield.
PS Anyone interested in watching the NRL Final it is on NINE not Foxtel.
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,007
As this is a bit of a reference thread thought I would put some stuff from the Dangerfield case. 2 consecutive games over 5 months he's knocked two players out.
MRO statement https://www.afl.com.au/news/566973/match-review-dangerfield-verdict-is-in-daniher-charged
Charges Laid:
Patrick Dangerfield, Geelong Cats, has been charged with Engaging in Rough Conduct against Jake Kelly, Adelaide Crows, during the second quarter of the Round One match between the Adelaide Crows and Geelong Cats, played at Adelaide Oval on Saturday March 20.
In summary, he has been referred directly to the Tribunal and cannot accept an early plea.
From the Tribunal live feed.
www.afl.com.au
MEDICAL REPORT
The Adelaide Crows' medical report states Kelly required treatment for a significant concussion and a broken nose. He will require further assessment for concussion and will miss a minimum three days' training and at least one match.
QUESTION OF FORCE
AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson is now explaining the Tribunal guidelines relating to impact. He notes that match review officer Michael Christian graded the charge as severe and there are six aspects to consider with this grading:
1. Dangerfield's speed when he approaches and makes contact to Kelly
2. The Brownlow medallist's decision to push off and leave the ground before bumping
3. Contact is made from Dangerfield's head to Kelly's face
4. Kelly had no expectation he would receive this contact from Dangerfield as he disposed of the ball
5. Kelly's injuries were described as a "significant loss of consciousness" and a broken nose
6. There was the potential for an even more serious injury, such as a jaw, cheekbone or neck injury
DANGERFIELD'S DEFENCE
That's it from Jeff Gleeson. We will now hear Dangerfield's defence. He has pleaded guilty and accepted his conduct was careless and he is liable to any damage done by choosing to bump. He will argue, however, that the impact was high and not severe.
HEAD CLASH
Dangerfield's defence centres around the impact between Dangerfield's head and Kelly's face.
He is arguing that Dangerfield's actions in accelerating and bumping were legal and shouldn't be considered when looking at the impact.
He has asked the panel to focus on the head clash in isolation and decide how forceful that was. Was it high impact for a head clash or severe?
PRECEDENTS [Many other severe charges have been laid see page 1 of thread for strikes to head]
Dangerfield's lawyer is highlighting that there are only three previous cases where players have been charged with making severe impact to an opponent.
1. Jeremy Cameron on Harris Andrews. Cameron made contact to Andrews' head with his elbow.
2. Alex Neale-Bullen on Will Hamill. A dangerous tackle that left Hamill with concussion.
3. Ben Long on Sean Darcy. A head-high bump in which Long collects Darcy high while the Docker has his head over the ball. .
He is questioning whether Dangerfield's incident fits in the same category, given impact was "secondary", rather than a direct hit from body to head.
A QUESTION OF RELEVANCE
Chairman Ross Howie has questioned whether the issue of Dangerfield's technique is relevant, given he has pleaded guilty to careless conduct. The only issue up for debate, it seems, is the question of impact, which Dangerfield has challenged and is seeking to downgrade from severe to high.
The chairman is also questioning whether there is any difference between what happens in a head clash and what Dangerfield's actions with the rest of his body. Dangerfield's lawyer has sought to isolate the head clash for scrutiny.
GLEESON'S RESPONSE
AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson is challenging the point made by Dangerfield's defence that there was a lessening of force due to the midfielder's bumping technique and the head clash being "secondary".
"You certainly shouldn't conclude that the hard skull produces a lesser impact that if it was the fleshy shoulder," Gleeson says.
RESULT
The jury has graded the incident as severe impact.
They came to that judgement considering the level of force and injuries sustained with particular reference to the Adelaide medical report.
AFL CASE
The AFL has submitted that a three-match penalty is appropriate.
Any lower and it would bring the penalty in line with high impact, rather than severe.
Dangerfield's lawyer can not add to his case for a lower penalty, only arguing that the incident sits at the lower end of severe, given that is how the jury has graded it.
The jury will now deliberate again on penalty.
THREE-MATCH BAN
The jury has settled on a three-match ban for Dangerfield.
MRO statement https://www.afl.com.au/news/566973/match-review-dangerfield-verdict-is-in-daniher-charged
Charges Laid:
Patrick Dangerfield, Geelong Cats, has been charged with Engaging in Rough Conduct against Jake Kelly, Adelaide Crows, during the second quarter of the Round One match between the Adelaide Crows and Geelong Cats, played at Adelaide Oval on Saturday March 20.
In summary, he has been referred directly to the Tribunal and cannot accept an early plea.
From the Tribunal live feed.
RECAP: Patrick Dangerfield's Tribunal case as it happened
See how the decision unfolded as the Cats tried to argue the impact was not severe
MEDICAL REPORT
The Adelaide Crows' medical report states Kelly required treatment for a significant concussion and a broken nose. He will require further assessment for concussion and will miss a minimum three days' training and at least one match.
QUESTION OF FORCE
AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson is now explaining the Tribunal guidelines relating to impact. He notes that match review officer Michael Christian graded the charge as severe and there are six aspects to consider with this grading:
1. Dangerfield's speed when he approaches and makes contact to Kelly
2. The Brownlow medallist's decision to push off and leave the ground before bumping
3. Contact is made from Dangerfield's head to Kelly's face
4. Kelly had no expectation he would receive this contact from Dangerfield as he disposed of the ball
5. Kelly's injuries were described as a "significant loss of consciousness" and a broken nose
6. There was the potential for an even more serious injury, such as a jaw, cheekbone or neck injury
DANGERFIELD'S DEFENCE
That's it from Jeff Gleeson. We will now hear Dangerfield's defence. He has pleaded guilty and accepted his conduct was careless and he is liable to any damage done by choosing to bump. He will argue, however, that the impact was high and not severe.
HEAD CLASH
Dangerfield's defence centres around the impact between Dangerfield's head and Kelly's face.
He is arguing that Dangerfield's actions in accelerating and bumping were legal and shouldn't be considered when looking at the impact.
He has asked the panel to focus on the head clash in isolation and decide how forceful that was. Was it high impact for a head clash or severe?
PRECEDENTS [Many other severe charges have been laid see page 1 of thread for strikes to head]
Dangerfield's lawyer is highlighting that there are only three previous cases where players have been charged with making severe impact to an opponent.
1. Jeremy Cameron on Harris Andrews. Cameron made contact to Andrews' head with his elbow.
2. Alex Neale-Bullen on Will Hamill. A dangerous tackle that left Hamill with concussion.
3. Ben Long on Sean Darcy. A head-high bump in which Long collects Darcy high while the Docker has his head over the ball. .
He is questioning whether Dangerfield's incident fits in the same category, given impact was "secondary", rather than a direct hit from body to head.
A QUESTION OF RELEVANCE
Chairman Ross Howie has questioned whether the issue of Dangerfield's technique is relevant, given he has pleaded guilty to careless conduct. The only issue up for debate, it seems, is the question of impact, which Dangerfield has challenged and is seeking to downgrade from severe to high.
The chairman is also questioning whether there is any difference between what happens in a head clash and what Dangerfield's actions with the rest of his body. Dangerfield's lawyer has sought to isolate the head clash for scrutiny.
GLEESON'S RESPONSE
AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson is challenging the point made by Dangerfield's defence that there was a lessening of force due to the midfielder's bumping technique and the head clash being "secondary".
"You certainly shouldn't conclude that the hard skull produces a lesser impact that if it was the fleshy shoulder," Gleeson says.
RESULT
The jury has graded the incident as severe impact.
They came to that judgement considering the level of force and injuries sustained with particular reference to the Adelaide medical report.
AFL CASE
The AFL has submitted that a three-match penalty is appropriate.
Any lower and it would bring the penalty in line with high impact, rather than severe.
Dangerfield's lawyer can not add to his case for a lower penalty, only arguing that the incident sits at the lower end of severe, given that is how the jury has graded it.
The jury will now deliberate again on penalty.
THREE-MATCH BAN
The jury has settled on a three-match ban for Dangerfield.
Last edited:
- May 28, 2013
- 25,808
- 27,904
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Seattle Seahawks
There was no case to answer for in the Grabd final. The incident on the weekend was completely different. 3 weeks is the correct decision imo.As this is a bit of a resources thread thought I would put some stuff from the Dangerfield case. 2 consecutive games over 5 months he's knocked two players out.
MRO statement https://www.afl.com.au/news/566973/match-review-dangerfield-verdict-is-in-daniher-charged
Charges Laid:
Patrick Dangerfield, Geelong Cats, has been charged with Engaging in Rough Conduct against Jake Kelly, Adelaide Crows, during the second quarter of the Round One match between the Adelaide Crows and Geelong Cats, played at Adelaide Oval on Saturday March 20.
In summary, he has been referred directly to the Tribunal and cannot accept an early plea.
From the Tribunal live feed.
RECAP: Patrick Dangerfield's Tribunal case as it happened
See how the decision unfolded as the Cats tried to argue the impact was not severe
MEDICAL REPORT
The Adelaide Crows' medical report states Kelly required treatment for a significant concussion and a broken nose. He will require further assessment for concussion and will miss a minimum three days' training and at least one match.
QUESTION OF FORCE
AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson is now explaining the Tribunal guidelines relating to impact. He notes that match review officer Michael Christian graded the charge as severe and there are six aspects to consider with this grading:
1. Dangerfield's speed when he approaches and makes contact to Kelly
2. The Brownlow medallist's decision to push off and leave the ground before bumping
3. Contact is made from Dangerfield's head to Kelly's face
4. Kelly had no expectation he would receive this contact from Dangerfield as he disposed of the ball
5. Kelly's injuries were described as a "significant loss of consciousness" and a broken nose
6. There was the potential for an even more serious injury, such as a jaw, cheekbone or neck injury
DANGERFIELD'S DEFENCE
That's it from Jeff Gleeson. We will now hear Dangerfield's defence. He has pleaded guilty and accepted his conduct was careless and he is liable to any damage done by choosing to bump. He will argue, however, that the impact was high and not severe.
HEAD CLASH
Dangerfield's defence centres around the impact between Dangerfield's head and Kelly's face.
He is arguing that Dangerfield's actions in accelerating and bumping were legal and shouldn't be considered when looking at the impact.
He has asked the panel to focus on the head clash in isolation and decide how forceful that was. Was it high impact for a head clash or severe?
PRECEDENTS [Many other severe charges have been laid see page 1 of thread for strikes to head]
Dangerfield's lawyer is highlighting that there are only three previous cases where players have been charged with making severe impact to an opponent.
1. Jeremy Cameron on Harris Andrews. Cameron made contact to Andrews' head with his elbow.
2. Alex Neale-Bullen on Will Hamill. A dangerous tackle that left Hamill with concussion.
3. Ben Long on Sean Darcy. A head-high bump in which Long collects Darcy high while the Docker has his head over the ball. .
He is questioning whether Dangerfield's incident fits in the same category, given impact was "secondary", rather than a direct hit from body to head.
A QUESTION OF RELEVANCE
Chairman Ross Howie has questioned whether the issue of Dangerfield's technique is relevant, given he has pleaded guilty to careless conduct. The only issue up for debate, it seems, is the question of impact, which Dangerfield has challenged and is seeking to downgrade from severe to high.
The chairman is also questioning whether there is any difference between what happens in a head clash and what Dangerfield's actions with the rest of his body. Dangerfield's lawyer has sought to isolate the head clash for scrutiny.
GLEESON'S RESPONSE
AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson is challenging the point made by Dangerfield's defence that there was a lessening of force due to the midfielder's bumping technique and the head clash being "secondary".
"You certainly shouldn't conclude that the hard skull produces a lesser impact that if it was the fleshy shoulder," Gleeson says.
RESULT
The jury has graded the incident as severe impact.
They came to that judgement considering the level of force and injuries sustained with particular reference to the Adelaide medical report.
AFL CASE
The AFL has submitted that a three-match penalty is appropriate.
Any lower and it would bring the penalty in line with high impact, rather than severe.
Dangerfield's lawyer can not add to his case for a lower penalty, only arguing that the incident sits at the lower end of severe, given that is how the jury has graded it.
The jury will now deliberate again on penalty.
THREE-MATCH BAN
The jury has settled on a three-match ban for Dangerfield.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,009
This article was before the Dangerfield hearing. 11 GF's + 1 GF Replay. We're 10th, again.
www.afl.com.au
MOST MATCHES MISSED THROUGH SUSPENSION SINCE 2010
62 Geelong......... [1 Flag + 1 GF]
57 Richmond....... [3 Flags]
56 Hawthorn........[3 Flags + 1 GF]
53 West Coast......[1 Flag + 1 GF]
52 St Kilda...........[1 GF + 1 GF replay]
51 Essendon
50 Melbourne
46 Fremantle...................[1 GF]
43 North Melbourne
40 Brisbane, Port Adelaide
36 Carlton
35 Gold Coast
29 Greater Western Sydney.......... [1 GF]
28 Collingwood.................... [1 Flag + 2GF's + 1 GF replay]
26 Western Bulldogs............. [1 Flag]
22 Adelaide......................... [1 GF]
18 Sydney........................... [1 Flag + 2 GF's]
The suspension ladder: Whose bad boys keep getting banned?
Guess how many games your club has missed through suspension over the past 10 years
www.afl.com.au
MOST MATCHES MISSED THROUGH SUSPENSION SINCE 2010
62 Geelong......... [1 Flag + 1 GF]
57 Richmond....... [3 Flags]
56 Hawthorn........[3 Flags + 1 GF]
53 West Coast......[1 Flag + 1 GF]
52 St Kilda...........[1 GF + 1 GF replay]
51 Essendon
50 Melbourne
46 Fremantle...................[1 GF]
43 North Melbourne
40 Brisbane, Port Adelaide
36 Carlton
35 Gold Coast
29 Greater Western Sydney.......... [1 GF]
28 Collingwood.................... [1 Flag + 2GF's + 1 GF replay]
26 Western Bulldogs............. [1 Flag]
22 Adelaide......................... [1 GF]
18 Sydney........................... [1 Flag + 2 GF's]
Last edited:
GremioPower
Taking notes of policy re: bikini/lingerie images
- May 26, 2017
- 22,577
- 46,583
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Grêmio, DC United, Pistons
I repeat what I’ve said in the General AFL thread, he was lucky getting only 3 games. He deserved more.As this is a bit of a reference thread thought I would put some stuff from the Dangerfield case. 2 consecutive games over 5 months he's knocked two players out.
MRO statement https://www.afl.com.au/news/566973/match-review-dangerfield-verdict-is-in-daniher-charged
Charges Laid:
Patrick Dangerfield, Geelong Cats, has been charged with Engaging in Rough Conduct against Jake Kelly, Adelaide Crows, during the second quarter of the Round One match between the Adelaide Crows and Geelong Cats, played at Adelaide Oval on Saturday March 20.
In summary, he has been referred directly to the Tribunal and cannot accept an early plea.
From the Tribunal live feed.
RECAP: Patrick Dangerfield's Tribunal case as it happened
See how the decision unfolded as the Cats tried to argue the impact was not severe
MEDICAL REPORT
The Adelaide Crows' medical report states Kelly required treatment for a significant concussion and a broken nose. He will require further assessment for concussion and will miss a minimum three days' training and at least one match.
QUESTION OF FORCE
AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson is now explaining the Tribunal guidelines relating to impact. He notes that match review officer Michael Christian graded the charge as severe and there are six aspects to consider with this grading:
1. Dangerfield's speed when he approaches and makes contact to Kelly
2. The Brownlow medallist's decision to push off and leave the ground before bumping
3. Contact is made from Dangerfield's head to Kelly's face
4. Kelly had no expectation he would receive this contact from Dangerfield as he disposed of the ball
5. Kelly's injuries were described as a "significant loss of consciousness" and a broken nose
6. There was the potential for an even more serious injury, such as a jaw, cheekbone or neck injury
DANGERFIELD'S DEFENCE
That's it from Jeff Gleeson. We will now hear Dangerfield's defence. He has pleaded guilty and accepted his conduct was careless and he is liable to any damage done by choosing to bump. He will argue, however, that the impact was high and not severe.
HEAD CLASH
Dangerfield's defence centres around the impact between Dangerfield's head and Kelly's face.
He is arguing that Dangerfield's actions in accelerating and bumping were legal and shouldn't be considered when looking at the impact.
He has asked the panel to focus on the head clash in isolation and decide how forceful that was. Was it high impact for a head clash or severe?
PRECEDENTS [Many other severe charges have been laid see page 1 of thread for strikes to head]
Dangerfield's lawyer is highlighting that there are only three previous cases where players have been charged with making severe impact to an opponent.
1. Jeremy Cameron on Harris Andrews. Cameron made contact to Andrews' head with his elbow.
2. Alex Neale-Bullen on Will Hamill. A dangerous tackle that left Hamill with concussion.
3. Ben Long on Sean Darcy. A head-high bump in which Long collects Darcy high while the Docker has his head over the ball. .
He is questioning whether Dangerfield's incident fits in the same category, given impact was "secondary", rather than a direct hit from body to head.
A QUESTION OF RELEVANCE
Chairman Ross Howie has questioned whether the issue of Dangerfield's technique is relevant, given he has pleaded guilty to careless conduct. The only issue up for debate, it seems, is the question of impact, which Dangerfield has challenged and is seeking to downgrade from severe to high.
The chairman is also questioning whether there is any difference between what happens in a head clash and what Dangerfield's actions with the rest of his body. Dangerfield's lawyer has sought to isolate the head clash for scrutiny.
GLEESON'S RESPONSE
AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson is challenging the point made by Dangerfield's defence that there was a lessening of force due to the midfielder's bumping technique and the head clash being "secondary".
"You certainly shouldn't conclude that the hard skull produces a lesser impact that if it was the fleshy shoulder," Gleeson says.
RESULT
The jury has graded the incident as severe impact.
They came to that judgement considering the level of force and injuries sustained with particular reference to the Adelaide medical report.
AFL CASE
The AFL has submitted that a three-match penalty is appropriate.
Any lower and it would bring the penalty in line with high impact, rather than severe.
Dangerfield's lawyer can not add to his case for a lower penalty, only arguing that the incident sits at the lower end of severe, given that is how the jury has graded it.
The jury will now deliberate again on penalty.
THREE-MATCH BAN
The jury has settled on a three-match ban for Dangerfield.
I will add that who he is should aggravate the penalty, not the other way around. His responsibility is greater than an Average Joe’s.
If an Average Joe should get a 3- or 4-match suspension for that collision, than Paddy left the Tribunal with practically half of the penalty he actually deserved.
Last edited:
danger had it coming IMO. he was running at full speed towards a player who was kicking the ball, so he was a sitting duck and danger knew it. What good was ever going to come out of that bump? Danger was frustrated and wanted to take him out, pure and simple. He got off on the bump that took Vlaustin out in the GF, this one he got done.
He just has to stop nocking players out full stop. Good time to focus on his game and forget about the GF loss and his comparison to Dusty. Move on Danger you're too good a player.
He just has to stop nocking players out full stop. Good time to focus on his game and forget about the GF loss and his comparison to Dusty. Move on Danger you're too good a player.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,012
2021 changes and attached is 2021 Tribunal Guidelines booklet. Appropriate player's photo used under C.
Last edited:
- Nov 6, 2014
- 64,691
- 82,449
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Jan 5, 2013
- 13,864
- 25,602
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Good, if Ollie wasn’t built like a bull that bump no doubt would had been dangerous
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,016
Surprised it was given a medium impact ruling. Will be interesting to see if saints challenge and if the tribunal makes it clear what is a medium impact or if mckenzie succeeds, what is a low impact bump.
www.afl.com.au
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction. The player can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
Match Review: Saint banned for late bump on Power star
The Match Review Officer has released his findings from Sunday's games in round six
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, Medium Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a one-match sanction. The player can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
Doctor Feel
Shitposter In Chief
I think the classification is right. I can't see them being able to downgrade it unless they argue some technicality like the impact to the head was low force and most of the impact was to the body.
On the surface i don't think the hit warrants a suspension. But there's not much doubt the second half from St Kilda was punctuated by late hits and clips with little to no eye for the ball. They were frustrated and angry and perhaps some sort of message needs to be sent. It was happening all over the ground.
Schulzenfest
TheBrownDog
Callum Wilkie did about 5 separate things he could've justifiably copped a fine for.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,020
#44, the man who was wearing his IQ on his back.
- Nov 6, 2014
- 64,691
- 82,449
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Yeah and any force that is able to deck Big Ollie would have to be substantial
- Jul 26, 2020
- 12,573
- 34,875
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
They needed to ask the question when our players were getting hit off the ball against Richmond. Rozee's corky went unexplained.
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,023
Searched to see if Mckenzie will appeal or accept his MRO ruling, struggled to find anything, but found this in the AFL's website article about who is in the mix for each teams Rd 7 sides. So the hit on Ollie is the benchmark for medium impact.
The Saints have accepted Dan McKenzie's one-match suspension,.........
The Saints have accepted Dan McKenzie's one-match suspension,.........
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,024
I hope GC fight this to the death and if Gleeson QC is the AFL advocate and tries to belittle the player, he is attacked back, asked how many games of footy has he played, and asked who is representing, himself, or has he taken instructions from Stephen Hocking and is representing the AFL?
www.afl.com.au
Nick Holman, Gold Coast SUNS, has been charged with Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) against Mitch Duncan, Geelong, during the second quarter of the Round 10 match between Geelong and the Gold Coast SUNS, played at GMHBA Stadium on Saturday May 22, 2021.
In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, High Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.
Match Review: Hawk cops huge whack, Sun and Blue banned for two
The Match Review has completed its findings for Saturday's matches in round 10
www.afl.com.au
Nick Holman, Gold Coast SUNS, has been charged with Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackle) against Mitch Duncan, Geelong, during the second quarter of the Round 10 match between Geelong and the Gold Coast SUNS, played at GMHBA Stadium on Saturday May 22, 2021.
In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Careless Conduct, High Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.
Last edited:
RussellEbertHandball
Flick pass expert
- Thread starter
- #1,025
Hartigan has been done on a video from the internet. From AFL link in above post
Kyle Hartigan, Hawthorn, has been charged with Striking Sam Walsh, Carlton, during the fourth quarter of the Round 10 match between Carlton and Hawthorn, played at The MCG on Saturday May 22, 2021.
In summary, he can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Intentional Conduct, High Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a three-match sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.
Kyle Hartigan, Hawthorn, has been charged with Striking Sam Walsh, Carlton, during the fourth quarter of the Round 10 match between Carlton and Hawthorn, played at The MCG on Saturday May 22, 2021.
In summary, he can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Intentional Conduct, High Impact, High Contact. The incident was classified as a three-match sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.
Similar threads
- Locked
