Will rioli get done?

[ajjewell]

especially after seeing waite try and re arrange someones groin the week before with his leg, an elbow to the stomach seems a little more acceptable

[Nuffman]

No, don't think he will get anything for it.









/troll

[Fletch74]

Well the Hawks are not challenging the ban

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110880/default.aspx

[Slashers]

OMG! I've just seen the 'elbow' footage!! Is the AFL serious? It was nothing more than a love tap!! Just a push-away with his forearm.

WHAT A JOKE ! ? !

And how's the acting from Nathan Jones? He could earn a spot on the Italian Soccer team with that performance! LOL!

[j959]

OMG! I've just seen the 'elbow' footage!! Is the AFL serious? It was nothing more than a love tap!! Just a push-away with his forearm.

WHAT A JOKE ! ? !

And how's the acting from Nathan Jones? He could earn a spot on the Italian Soccer team with that performance! LOL!

don't bring that up slash ... i'm still hurting from that one - set the game back 20yrs in terms of Australian Football development.

i haven't seen the footage but from what you're saying if Waite gets nothing how can Rioli get slotted?!?!  :o   ::) 
MRP/Tribunal = you are a joke!

[ajjewell]

I also don't understand how come the hawks are just going to accept the ban surely worth challenging

[meow meow]

They are playing Richmond and probably don't care all that much. The game is already over.

The reason Cyril isn't a permanent mid is because his body feels the effects too much. The Hawks are probably thinking this is a way to manage his workload.

However, he may miss out on the Brownlow because of this. He is a gun and plays an extremely noticeable style of game, even the semi blind umpires could see him ripping it up.

[hawk_88]

I posted this on the Hawthorn Section but I think it will add to the conversation here as well:


I don't think there is any argument the Hawks could have made since precedence isn't a valid argument at the tribunal. He clearly did it, I don't think there was much in it and that sort of thing happens quite often with little notice taken by the AFL however if that is the rule then as long as everyone else who does it gets picked up, I have little issue with it.

I think all the fans want is consistency yet the system is set up such that a player/team can't explicitly argue for it. It essentially allows the tribunal/match review committee to rule on an indidivdual issue however they want.

I can understand in the past where if an umpire missed an incident or there wasn't enough footage of an incident then decisions made might compromise future decisions. However with the amount of camera coverage of games and the degree of detail games are reviewed by the match review panel it would be good to hold those in power accountable by re-introducing precedence.

For example last week Jarrad Waite recieved no punishment for what all men know is a very low act. He recieved no punishment because the force he made was deemed to low to cause injury.

To mirror that, Cyril Rioli was given two weeks last year for "attempted striking".

So according to the AFL ruling both players intended to strike, the difference being that one player didn't make contact and one player did but it wasn't hard enough to cause injury; and it was the player who didn't make contact that was punished....

[Samm79]

Fair argument Hawk88