MRP / Trib. Will Sloane Be Suspended?

[footy4ever]

I ******* hate the AFL. They have to be one of the most inconsistent and incompetent leagues in the world.

What other league:

Changes rules year up on year
Has a fixture that isn't equitable
Makes up drafting and trading rules on the run
Allows players to punch each other without penalty
Penalises a player for an attempted legitimate spoil. Remember spoiling is part of the game, punching isnt.
Precided over the Crows, Melbourne and Essendon fiascos with inconsinstent

Your first sentence. I say that every single day.

 

[Interloperer]

I find it weird that willingly giving up a player that could make the difference between 2nd and 5th is considered a 'pragmatic' move.

 

[Mismatched]

It is a professional league, run by amateurs who think they are professional.

This bullshit is what makes me angry "Contact between Hawthorn’s Jordan Lewis and West Coast’s Scott Lycett from the fourth quarter of Friday’s match was assessed. Contact was initially made to the shoulder of the West Coast player, before high contact was made. Lycett had already been awarded a free kick and it was the view of the panel the force used was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken. "

So it is ok to punch someone in the face as long as it brushes across their shoulder and doesn't actually do any damage.

Does anyone remember when there was a rule for 'Attempted Striking' ?

They just make it up as they go along. Rory's intent wasn't to catch Ebert high, yet he did. His intent was to spoil the ball. Lewis intent was just to smack some bloke and he did, he got him high too!

One incident was involved in general play, if Sloane was a split second earlier or later, he would have either missed Ebert or hit his arms. A free kick/50 may be warranted, no doubt, it's just an unfortunate side effect of a physical game.

Lewis' incident was completely unnecessary and not involved in general play. It also promotes violence at lower grades and in the general community. It is the bad look for the game. Pathetic by the AFL.

 

[footy4ever]

Difference being that Sloane was a legitimate chance to win it this year whereas Mitchell will be nowhere near it, bloody joke of a decision all the same.

We can however ascertain that the AFL already knows which players are a chance for the Brownlow. If Rory was already in the running coming up to the last round...or had an unassailable lead, no way would they give him a week for that. Rory must have been out of contention before the ban, and there won't be any embarrassment of an ineligible winner.

 

[srv23]

I still cant come to terms with the fact that we accept punching someone as a legitimate part of the sport. In what sport can you punch someone in the face or guts and there be no consequence if it is not deemed to be enough force. Its not tough to punch someone off the ball. Its completely gutless but MRP ruling says if you punch but don't hit too hard it's ok. This isn't boxing or MMA. This is a contact ball sport. We punish legitimate aspects of the game if they go wrong and someone gets hurt - spoils, bumps, tackles etc but something that should be absolutely no part of our game - deliberately punching someone - is ok. It is absolutely piss weak. I have to explain to my 9 year old who plays junior footy that Sloane's actions were negligent but Lewis' were perfectly acceptable on a footy oval.

 

[Mancey]

There's no points any more, but if you could get the careless down to negligent it becomes 1week/fine.

Negligent no longer exists as a ruling.

Everything is either graded careless or intentional in an attempt to reduce grey areas

 

[threefa9]

Now that I've slept on it, Sloaney made a silly error which is very out of character and he got pinged for it, end of story. No point comparing it to the behind the play punches UNLESS one of our players does a similar act, then we can really throw the toys out of the pram. If we are dinkum we will beat the eagles without him. They are missing Nic Nat who turns their midfield from a B-grade to an A-grade one. Looking for Sauce to have a big one and gain the ascedency in the middle, do that and we win.

 

[spenze]

Now that I've slept on it, Sloaney made a silly error which is very out of character and he got pinged for it, end of story. No point comparing it to the behind the play punches UNLESS one of our players does a similar act, then we can really throw the toys out of the pram. If we are dinkum we will beat the eagles without him. They are missing Nic Nat who turns their midfield from a B-grade to an A-grade one. Looking for Sauce to have a big one and gain the ascedency in the middle, do that and we win.

If we can't beat the Weagles at home without Sloane then we don't deserve a top 2 spot. Besides, Brad Crouch should be fresh after the week off

 

[Paladin]

Now that I've slept on it, Sloaney made a silly error which is very out of character and he got pinged for it, end of story. No point comparing it to the behind the play punches UNLESS one of our players does a similar act, then we can really throw the toys out of the pram. If we are dinkum we will beat the eagles without him. They are missing Nic Nat who turns their midfield from a B-grade to an A-grade one. Looking for Sauce to have a big one and gain the ascedency in the middle, do that and we win.

Wtf he was trying to spoil. His only error was a split second misjudgment when deciding if he could reach the ball in time.

He did not decide to punch another player but he will be missing this weekend while others who's intent was much worse will play. Disgusting.

 

[Anzacpaul]

If we can't beat the Weagles at home without Sloane then we don't deserve a top 2 spot. Besides, Brad Crouch should be fresh after the week off

Brad played last week?

 

[ac83]

Having watched AFL360/On The Couch last night, as well as listening to Bickley on 5AA, the thing which really annoys me is the failure of them to provide the full context (Bickley did briefly at one point, but then ignored that context for the rest of the show).

Apparently Ebert was dazed and had blurred vision - why didn't any of the Footy shows mention the incident from earlier in that quarter? Ebert received a head knock near the boundary line, fell to the ground and placed the ball over the boundary line in somewhat of a daze, and then needed 15 seconds and assistance from a trainer to be able to get to his feet. Surely this incident could've been responsible for his symptoms? The "hit" from Sloane was only 18 minutes later.

EDIT: for some reason those links below didn't work as intended.
The incident happens at 1:27:52.
Slo-mo is at 1:28:45

Here is the incident, in case people can't remember it:


And here is the slo-mo replay:


That certainly looks like a man who is dazed to me.

 

[Huntercrow]

Will be interesting to see the ramifications in the unlikely event that Sloane polls the most Brownlows. It's not beyond a chance. His form has been good probably over more games than Dangerfield. Maybe just not as talked about as the "home boy".

Considering Sloaney's past record and his overall popularity and the fact he would have been the ideal Brownlow medalist it would then reflect badly on the AFL to have the medal taken off of him over such an innocuous incident. In this case the MRP should have been quietly advised by the AFL of the proper course of action. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Tyls83]

Pfft. The Afl urgently need Dangerfield to win the Brownlow to prove how good their much vaunted equalisation measures like free agency are. And what a feel good story it will be FFS.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Having watched AFL360/On The Couch last night, as well as listening to Bickley on 5AA, the thing which really annoys me is the failure of them to provide the full context (Bickley did briefly at one point, but then ignored that context for the rest of the show).

Apparently Ebert was dazed and had blurred vision - why didn't any of the Footy shows mention the incident from earlier in that quarter? Ebert received a head knock near the boundary line, fell to the ground and placed the ball over the boundary line in somewhat of a daze, and then needed 15 seconds and assistance from a trainer to be able to get to his feet. Surely this incident could've been responsible for his symptoms? The "hit" from Sloane was only 18 minutes later.

EDIT: for some reason those links below didn't work as intended.
The incident happens at 1:27:52.
Slo-mo is at 1:28:45

Here is the incident, in case people can't remember it:


And here is the slo-mo replay:


That certainly looks like a man who is dazed to me.

The MRP have got this very wrong. They have jumped at circumstantial evidence without taking any contributing factors into account. Rory was already in the air and less then a metre away when the ball arrives. So by suspending Rory for being careless what they are virtually saying is don't attempt to spoil marks. You hit the head your gone. Its just a very poor decision by the MRP and one that just smells of trying to please a supporter group rather then doing whats right for the game.

 

[AFC3000]

Ebert should have still been off the ground for a concussion test from his first knock anyway, then Port finally gave him the 20 minute break after the Sloane one, only to try and bring him back on the ground early (similar to a few weeks ago?), but the AFL had to stop them.

If Port don't care about head knocks, you would think the medical report from their doctor would be in Rory's favour? somehow I doubt it.

 

[Interloperer]

It's not an innocuous incident when the recipient is required stitches and a significant period off the ground.

The punishment was however inconsistent with similar incidents, and as such is likely a challenge would have been successful. The only circumstances in which they should have considered not challenging were:

A) Sloane is injured and needs the week off anyway.

B) Sloane put his hand up and said he was actually at fault more than popular opinion suggests. (Highly likely IMHO.)

If the club is actually running with the "Well he's actually innocent but it's not worth the challenge," lines. Then, in my opinion, this is one of the worst decisions they've made all year.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

Having watched AFL360/On The Couch last night, as well as listening to Bickley on 5AA, the thing which really annoys me is the failure of them to provide the full context (Bickley did briefly at one point, but then ignored that context for the rest of the show).

While this is a fair grievance, I wouldn't assume that the MRP approached this in the same way as the media. They would've been well aware of the earlier hit. As would have our legal team when considering the options.

 

[AFC3000]

So listening to Noble, it's one level if the player goes off, another level if they spend time off the ground (concussion test) and then another if they are concussed.

Can't concussion happen from the most innocuous knock to the head? so soft bump, hits the wrong spot, and leads to concussion = weeks. Smack someone in the head hard, but they are fine = free to play?

 

[hey shorty]

So listening to Noble, it's one level if the player goes off, another level if they spend time off the ground and then another if they are concussed.

Can't concussion happen from the most innocuous knock to the head? so soft bump, hits the wrong spot, and leads to concussion = weeks. Smack someone in the head hard, but they are fine = free to play?

Jordan Lewis board.

 

[Pdub]

 

[MarcusP2]

It's not an innocuous incident when the recipient is required stitches and a significant period off the ground.

The punishment was however inconsistent with similar incidents, and as such is likely a challenge would have been successful. The only circumstances in which they should have considered not challenging were:

A) Sloane is injured and needs the week off anyway.

B) Sloane put his hand up and said he was actually at fault more than popular opinion suggests. (Highly likely IMHO.)

If the club is actually running with the "Well he's actually innocent but it's not worth the challenge," lines. Then, in my opinion, this is one of the worst decisions they've made all year.

The MRP don't care about this at all. They're not required to.

 

[hey shorty]

And if our recent dealings have anything to go by they will do so. How a bloke gets 2 weeks for a (badly) mistimed spoil is beyond me.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Having watched AFL360/On The Couch last night, as well as listening to Bickley on 5AA, the thing which really annoys me is the failure of them to provide the full context (Bickley did briefly at one point, but then ignored that context for the rest of the show).

Apparently Ebert was dazed and had blurred vision - why didn't any of the Footy shows mention the incident from earlier in that quarter? Ebert received a head knock near the boundary line, fell to the ground and placed the ball over the boundary line in somewhat of a daze, and then needed 15 seconds and assistance from a trainer to be able to get to his feet. Surely this incident could've been responsible for his symptoms? The "hit" from Sloane was only 18 minutes later.

EDIT: for some reason those links below didn't work as intended.
The incident happens at 1:27:52.
Slo-mo is at 1:28:45

Here is the incident, in case people can't remember it:


And here is the slo-mo replay:


That certainly looks like a man who is dazed to me.

Because Port would be in the complete poo because of their previous form in not doing the concussion test properly earlier in the year. Their medical staff really need to be looked at. This is twice in one season regarding lacksidasial concussion test protocols.

 

[cmndstab]

I know this just feels like yet another "we will tell the AFL that we're really cross!!!" lip service thing, but all the same, I'm glad we're doing it. Hopefully we're reminding the AFL that we've played in the correct spirit for the entire year and to slap this ban on us at precisely the time we can't afford to contest it is very poor.

Just have to trust Fagan, I guess!

 

[Interloperer]

The MRP don't care about this at all. They're not required to.

It's a good thing they aren't the tribunal then.