Round 6 MRP

[Cambo]

For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.

Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh

What a load of BS.
May was bumping a shorter guy out of the contest which is part of the game (he is very unlucky)...
Lewis had a deliberate cheap shot at a blokes head (very lucky he didnt break Goldys jaw)...

They need to start putting more emphases on intent and not just results of impact...

[Grazz]

For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.

Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh

This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.

Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there

That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.

[Ringo]

For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.

Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh

This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.

Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there

That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.

Do not want to say bias is involved but look at the members of the MRP which includes Brad Sewell.

[Grazz]

For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.

Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh

This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.

Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there

That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.

Do not want to say bias is involved but look at the members of the MRP which includes Brad Sewell.

Yeh we probably shouldn't go there.

[batt]

That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.

Saving grace is it was a marking contest and he was fisting at the ball.  Clearly an unrealistic attempt, but that is the definition of 'careless'

" Further, a Player will be careless if they breach of their duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts which can be reasonably foreseen to result in a Reportable Offence"

[j959]

For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.

Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh

This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.

Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there

That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.

Do not want to say bias is involved but look at the members of the MRP which includes Brad Sewell.

Yeh we probably shouldn't go there.

surely he would have ruled himself out from hearing/deliberating on Lewis' case for 'conflict of interest' reasons having been a recent team-mate of his??   ::)   :-\   :-X   :P   ;)

I didn't get a good look at the May/Rockliff incident so I won't comment on that one specifically ... but generally regardless I understand that they have to protect the head of all players so regardless of whether there is a size differential there is always likely going to be time for a hit/clash of heads ... only one I really disagree with was Fyfe on Ristchitelli last year ... also compare Viney acquittal ...

having said that I agree with Cambo's comment that the emphasis should be on the intent not just the result of the impact ...

Lewis' should be intentional, he was late and still gave the whack full force - not very different to Vickery on Cox ...  :P   :-X

imo ...
Lewis 3wks
Hodge 4wks

[Nige]

All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball

Hahahaha, love your work ele!

May was unlucky imo. Yeah, he intended to bump and did so, definitely wasn't going for the head though. However, the moment he did he was a goner.

[j959]

All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball

May was unlucky imo. Yeah, he intended to bump and did so, definitely wasn't going for the head though. However, the moment he did he was a goner.

+1

[H1bb3i2d]

All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball

May was unlucky imo. Yeah, he intended to bump and did so, definitely wasn't going for the head though. However, the moment he did he was a goner.

+1

If you elect to bump, you have the responsibility not to hit your opponent's head, unless you have no other choice (eg bracing yourself). Whether or not people agree with it (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, here I don't), that's the way it is, and players know that.

[Nige]

All intents and purposes or all intensive purposes :p #curveball

May was unlucky imo. Yeah, he intended to bump and did so, definitely wasn't going for the head though. However, the moment he did he was a goner.

+1

If you elect to bump, you have the responsibility not to hit your opponent's head, unless you have no other choice (eg bracing yourself). Whether or not people agree with it (sometimes I do, sometimes I don't, here I don't), that's the way it is, and players know that.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. May's intention was clear (as in bumping Rocky), but ultimately the execution was poor and unfortunately he unintentionally got Rocky high and is now gonna pay the price.

I still can't believe Rocky returned to action so soon though.

[Capper]

For all intensive purposes the intent of May and Lewis was the same, considering May went for the man not the ball.

Don't think May should've got 2 weeks though, should not have a case to answer tbh

This is true but put in context May went for the bump in order to push Rocky off the ball giving him a free run at it, Lewis went to the contest with the express intent to hurt Goldy, thats how i see the two incidents.

Actually, reading into the report it suggests that both the incidents were classed as "careless". In that case Lewis' should've been upgraded, there was plenty of intent there

That's the biggest shock for me that Lewis's was declared careless, thats rubbish.

Do not want to say bias is involved but look at the members of the MRP which includes Brad Sewell.

Yeh we probably shouldn't go there.

IM sorry, but HTF does Sewell get a job on the MRP straight out of the game??

#conflictofinterest

[Mat0369]

IM sorry, but HTF does Sewell get a job on the MRP straight out of the game??

#conflictofinterest

Luke Ball was also appointed and it might have something to do with them both actually having a feel for the modern game and being smart

[Capper]

IM sorry, but HTF does Sewell get a job on the MRP straight out of the game??

#conflictofinterest

Luke Ball was also appointed and it might have something to do with them both actually having a feel for the modern game and being smart

so if they both have a feel for the game then how did Yarran only get 3 weeks for that punch??

As Gerard said, do you need a steal chair to get 4 weeks at the tribunal??

[Mat0369]

so if they both have a feel for the game then how did Yarran only get 3 weeks for that punch??

As Gerard said, do you need a steal chair to get 4 weeks at the tribunal??

Yaz went to the tribunal, Lewis didn't. The new system is supposed to be to the advantage of the players, they have room to move and Hodge was sent to the tribunal instead of only getting 3 under the MRP system for what they deemed to be a serious offense.

And 3 for Yaz was right, I don't get what the issue is? I was honestly surprised that Lewis didn't get 1 and he actually would have if it was graded correctly, they used the wiggle room to bump it up to two.

[FactHunt]

I think they got the Lewis decision wrong.
I agree the May decision is unlucky.
I think the Hodge decision is the one they have right out of the 3.

If they want the rubbish acts out of the game, and I agree that there is no place for it, you need to penalise those who choose to perform the act. Lewis' act was clearly more than 'reckless'... very lucky boy (and will this deter him from doing this again?!? me thinks not). There is a huge push in society about penalties for a 'one punch' scenarios based on the damage that could be attributed from same... the Lewis/Goldy incident could have ended VERY poorly, and from the footage I've seen, the intent was clearly there, not just reckless action.