Round 6 MRP

Started by kilbluff1985, May 04, 2015, 04:07:11 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

GoLions

Quote from: Ringo on May 06, 2015, 08:43:31 AM
Quote from: tor01doc on May 06, 2015, 02:06:13 AM
Quote from: GCSkiwi on May 05, 2015, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: GoLions on May 05, 2015, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: Jayman on May 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
There was a 0% chance that May actually had intent to hurt Rocky with his bump. Was just a play for the ball.

Meanwhile, Hodge undoubtedly wanted to really hurt Swallow. Why else would you elbow someone in the head?

On intent alone, it's a joke that they received the same punishment.
Technically they didn't though I thought? May pleaded not guilty which made his 3. Hodge pleaded guilty which kept his down to 3. If Hodge pleaded not guilty I assume he would've gotten 4 weeks, and if May pleaded guilty then as we know he would've received 2 weeks.

I agree with Jayman, you're right about the guilty/not guilty thing but I think it's being looked at totally the wrong way...

Hodge: deliberate act, intent was to hurt the player, not in game play situation = slam him
May: deliberate act, intent was to improve his chances playing the ball, genuine option in game situation = unfortunate accident.  Maybe, MAYBE 1 week because of the effect it had in ko-ing Rockliff, but it's a completely legal and legitimate option. Yet both garner the same penalty at the end of the day, that makes no sense.

I totally understand the stance the AFL are taking in terms of protecting player welfare etc but at some point you have to say that something is just part of the game. They're trying to stamp out the head contact because it makes it safer for the players... Well it would also be safer for the players if they were playing cards instead of AFL, but they're not. So either the bump becomes a completely illegal option in any respect at any time, or incidents like this are regarded as undesirable and unfortunate, but a genuine act of the game and should have something like a 1 week max regardless of the damage to the other player. It's a different story if there's no intent to play the ball and you're just taking someone out, but this I think was totally legit, I can totally understand why May challeneged it and I think he should be very upset with the result.

This, I believe, is as close to the truth as I have seen.

AFL have got it wrong.

It is a physical game with risks. It cannot be sanitised to this degree of it will suffer.

The gladiatorial aspect (not the sniping, cowardly king hit aspect) needs to be respected.

A fine line has been transgressed.
Well put GCS great summation.
Rocky  had already mentioned he did not see May until too late and May had the intent of bumping Rocky off the ball to gain possession quite a legitimate tactic and if we are to give players 3 weeks for this something is wrong with the system. 

As has been said the flaw in the system is pleading guilty.  They did away with carry over points this year maybe it is time they did away with concessions for guilty plea if they are really serious about protecting players welfare. Have a set penalties for all offences which is totally transparent and the only appeal for players is the grading deliberate or reckless.
If you don't have the pleading guilty/not guilty though, what's to stop players from appealing everything? It'd be a mess.

Thewizz71

With May - I hate the rule, but, he knew that if found guilty he would cop 3 weeks. No it's nowhere near worth the same as Hodge and more than Lewis, but they knew if they rolled the dice what would happen if it went against them.
Should never have got there in the first place, but that's where we are heading.

honza

Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: Capper on May 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
ON AFL 360 they were comparing the Ballatyne hit to May's

Ballatyne got off as he had eyes for the ball. May didnt until he hit Rocky

Yeah so having eyes on the ball = 0 weeks instead of 3 weeks. Top stuff AFL

Having eyes for the ball depends on context and shouldn't be applied as broadly as it is. People expect that eyes on the ball is innocence. Rubbish. Some players built careers out of seriously injuring people while his eyes were on the ball. E.g. Kevin Muscat.

Capper

Quote from: Mailman the 2nd on May 05, 2015, 09:36:58 PM
Quote from: Capper on May 05, 2015, 09:33:01 PM
ON AFL 360 they were comparing the Ballatyne hit to May's

Ballatyne got off as he had eyes for the ball. May didnt until he hit Rocky

Yeah so having eyes on the ball = 0 weeks instead of 3 weeks. Top stuff AFL
Yeah but May was looking at Rocky until after he hit him then looked at the ball. ballatyne was only looking at the ball