The Jack trips

[Mat0369]

So do you guys think he will get a week for his ankle tap on Coniglio and the legging of Shiel I think it was?

I don't think there was much in both but who knows with the MRP

[Ziplock]

So do you guys think he will get a week for his ankle tap on Coniglio and the legging of Shiel I think it was?

I don't think there was much in both but who knows with the MRP

I'd have given him a week purely for the ankle tap, although I doubt the MRP would.

but with the two incidents... I think he'll get a week.

[CrowsFan]

Didn't see the incidents, but zip aren't they supposed to judge the two incidents separately? As in they can't say each trip was worth half a week suspension each, which adds up to 1 week, one of them has to be worth 1 week to get suspended. Right?

[Mat0369]

I'd have given him a week purely for the ankle tap, although I doubt the MRP would.

but with the two incidents... I think he'll get a week.

The first one looked bad when I saw it initially, but it was just a legging in a tackle. You can't suspend a guy every time a tackle slips low in the tackling motion. Ankle tap I was not sure how it will be judged, but I am thinking the bring out the insufficient force.

Didn't see the incidents, but zip aren't they supposed to judge the two incidents separately? As in they can't say each trip was worth half a week suspension each, which adds up to 1 week, one of them has to be worth 1 week to get suspended. Right?

and this. I am pretty sure they judge each one on its merits to see if it brings up enough points for a suspension. If incident one is a reprimand and he has x amount of carry over points then I think incident 2 might get him a week. Still not sure there was much in both. I will look on youtube for a video

[Mat0369]

I couldn't find anything online so far in terms of videos.

[Ziplock]

Didn't see the incidents, but zip aren't they supposed to judge the two incidents separately? As in they can't say each trip was worth half a week suspension each, which adds up to 1 week, one of them has to be worth 1 week to get suspended. Right?

each one might be worth like 65 points each though, which would add up to more than 100 points and therefore a 1 week suspension, that's how it works right?

he could make a possible case for the second one that it was an unintentional trip (I dont think it was though).

The first one though was a blatant and intentional ankle tap in front of goals- it's a pretty dangerous type of tackle, especially when someone is about to kick a goal, hence being illegal, and is extremely unsportsmanlike.

Mat- I'm trying to find footage, but from memory it was pretty obviously intentional, he swung his hand sideways to hit the side of coniglios foot when he realised he couldn't tackle.

*note* couldn't find footage- I'm sure we'll see it when the MRP takes a look :P

[Mat0369]

each one might be worth like 65 points each though, which would add up to more than 100 points and therefore a 1 week suspension, that's how it works right?

he could make a possible case for the second one that it was an unintentional trip (I dont think it was though).

The first one though was a blatant and intentional ankle tap in front of goals- it's a pretty dangerous type of tackle, especially when someone is about to kick a goal, hence being illegal, and is extremely unsportsmanlike.

Mat- I'm trying to find footage, but from memory it was pretty obviously intentional, he swung his hand sideways to hit the side of coniglios foot when he realised he couldn't tackle.

*note* couldn't find footage- I'm sure we'll see it when the MRP takes a look :P

I thought that if it was 65 points it was just thrown out since it was not enough to warrant a suspension then they look at the next incident and if that is 65 that would also be thrown out. I don't think they stack unless they are carry over points from a reprimand or prior suspension. I could be wrong though. It is not the most consistent system either so who the hell knows.

I looked back at my post and when I said first one, I meant the second one. He was reaching for the ball as I think the player was Shiel was breaking in the middle. When he knew he had missed the ball it looks like he goes to grab the shorts and his hand slides down to the foot. That would be incidental contact and should be thrown out.

The actual ankle tap I think will come under the not insufficient force category. Coniglio was running away and as it was happening I thought Jacks right hand might have clipped the ball on the way down or Coniglio just mistimed it. When you saw the slow motion replay, his left hand brushes his foot in the swing back. He did not take a complete swing at it but there was enough movement there to make you think he was going for the foot. Like I said it will be interesting since you never really see the ankle tap with the hands like that. I am not even sure how the hell they will look at the thing.

[Ziplock]

I'm not exactly sure how it works. I'd think he'd cop a reprimand for the ankle tap though- it definitely looked like he was intentionally going for the foot.

[CrowsFan]

As matt said I don't think they stack up the points. Otherwise it would be like someone giving away 10 frees in a game, and each free was worth 10 points. Add them up and he has received 100 points and gets a suspension. Just doesn't work like that (as far as I'm aware).

[Doggoneit]

I agree that the Ankle tap looked deliberate and saved a certain goal - not sure how MRP will see that - and not sure how the umpire missed it as he was on the spot - should have been a free kick.

Scully was reported for tripping in the game - did anyone see that - was it worse than Jack's

[CrowsFan]

There wasn't much in the Scully one either. Basically was on the ground with another player on top of him (can't remember who). The other guy won a free kick and got up to take it and as he took as step Scully had his hand out and he tripped over it. Should get thrown out in my opinion, the Jack ankle tap was worse since the player was running at speed so could have been an injury if he did actually trip.

[Ziplock]

I agree that the Ankle tap looked deliberate and saved a certain goal - not sure how MRP will see that - and not sure how the umpire missed it as he was on the spot - should have been a free kick.

Scully was reported for tripping in the game - did anyone see that - was it worse than Jack's

haha, the scully one was ridiculous lol. Scully tackled the player, who was on top of him, then scully tried to get up, and the player kept pushing him down. So scully stayed on the ground, and didnt move, waiting for the otherguy to get up, and it looked like he tripped over scullys hand, which was just on t he ground. Even then, the video was pretty inconclusive... like, he could have tripped over the actual ground (they'd been playing soccer/rugby on it, so the ground was destroyed).

[Mat0369]

Scully one will get thrown out. It looked like Shaw just fell over and the umpire thought it was a trip

[SydneyRox]

Scully one will get thrown out. It looked like Shaw just fell over and the umpire thought it was a trip

yeah, shaw tripped over what looked like scullys arm/hand, but only because he was in a rush. the initial look to me was scully would go, but replays sjowed there was nothing in it.
Conversely i looked at Jacks trip and thought it was fine until they kept slow replaying it!
Fair would be they both play next week

[Mat0369]

The reports have been released, Hanley (complete BS) and Sylvia (did not see the incident) both given reprimands. Those were the only sanctions to come from this weekends games. No mention of Jack