Brisbane Discussion

BB67th · May 20, 2013, 07:49:07 PM

Quote from: Ringo on May 20, 2013, 07:45:14 PM
So why are not all head slams that have gone to the tribunal since include a high contact if the precedent has been set. Again inconsistency from the MRP as there have been a few since the Dangerfield incident. They bring up things when it suits.

Agree with Merrets suspension but just can not accept the High contact component even though they draw out the Dangerfield incident with a number of head slams not invoking tyhe high contact.

Yeah thats a good point there. They seen to relax on some of these rules and then every now and then an incident pops up and they suspend them to remind everyone of the rule. There is no consistency in the MRP anymore.

LF · May 20, 2013, 07:52:59 PM

Quote from: BB67th on May 20, 2013, 07:49:07 PM
Quote from: Ringo on May 20, 2013, 07:45:14 PM
So why are not all head slams that have gone to the tribunal since include a high contact if the precedent has been set. Again inconsistency from the MRP as there have been a few since the Dangerfield incident. They bring up things when it suits.

Agree with Merrets suspension but just can not accept the High contact component even though they draw out the Dangerfield incident with a number of head slams not invoking tyhe high contact.
Yeah thats a good point there. They seen to relax on some of these rules and then every now and then an incident pops up and they suspend them to remind everyone of the rule. There is no consistency in the MRP anymore.

Totally agree they have no consistency anymore at all tho I question if they had any in the first place.

Ringo · May 20, 2013, 07:56:33 PM

Quote from: luvfooty on May 20, 2013, 07:52:59 PM
Quote from: BB67th on May 20, 2013, 07:49:07 PM
Quote from: Ringo on May 20, 2013, 07:45:14 PM
So why are not all head slams that have gone to the tribunal since include a high contact if the precedent has been set. Again inconsistency from the MRP as there have been a few since the Dangerfield incident. They bring up things when it suits.

Agree with Merrets suspension but just can not accept the High contact component even though they draw out the Dangerfield incident with a number of head slams not invoking tyhe high contact.
Yeah thats a good point there. They seen to relax on some of these rules and then every now and then an incident pops up and they suspend them to remind everyone of the rule. There is no consistency in the MRP anymore.

Totally agree they have no consistency anymore at all tho I question if they had any in the first place.

Wasn't going to that blunt Luv but agree. Suffice to say my blood pressure rose considerably when they dragged out the Trengrove/Dangerfield incident. But again do not want to say it the lesser teams are always on the wrong end of the MRP. Look at this week Jolly gets an all clear, Kommer does not even get cited to name just 2.

LF · May 20, 2013, 08:02:18 PM

Jolly,Kommer and O'Brien should have all gone.

BB67th · May 20, 2013, 08:10:26 PM

Yeah it's a complete joke that Kelly gets weeks for his hit on Goddard and then Jolly gets off on this hit on Stokes just because he's tall or something and they think the contact high was unavoidable? Just a joke.

Ziplock · May 20, 2013, 08:15:58 PM

mmmm, I'm really unsure about the jolly thing. I mean, he definitely tried to go low as to not hit him in the head, and even then it was almost as if stokes ran into him.

w.e

shower happens.

I can see the argument both ways :P

LF · May 20, 2013, 08:18:31 PM

Quote from: BB67th on May 20, 2013, 08:10:26 PM
Yeah it's a complete joke that Kelly gets weeks for his hit on Goddard and then Jolly gets off on this hit on Stokes just because he's tall or something and they think the contact high was unavoidable? Just a joke.

That's who I was trying to think of Kelly.
He gets done and Kommer did the same thing but not even a mention of it at all.
Was that because it was Clarke he took out?

BB67th · May 20, 2013, 08:20:24 PM

You can't really say that not trying to go high is an excuse for getting off. Most of the time they aren't trying to really hurt the other player or do damage to their face.

Ringo · May 21, 2013, 08:01:56 AM

Found the Trengrove tackle for comparison and there is no high contact there as well. MRP adding a charge to both. Would love to see a legal challenge on the High Contact.

Trengrove Tackle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv7ZH-NKuIs

Merrett Tackle
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-05-18/merrett-slams-hurley

Both nearly identical.

BB67th · May 21, 2013, 08:13:20 AM

Hmmmm well I wonder if the DVD the players get shown at the start of the year shows that as high contact. It probably does. If it doesn't they would probably challenge it?

Ringo · May 21, 2013, 12:49:06 PM

Both Merrett and Clarke have accepted their penalties -
Maguire for Merrett
Docherty/Harwood for Clarke
would be my changes.

kilbluff1985 · May 21, 2013, 04:13:49 PM

Ringo what do you think of the odds sportsbet has you guys at Brisbane win by 1-39 @3.50 looks good

Ringo · May 21, 2013, 04:19:36 PM

Sounds reasonable but will depend on Carlton Team - If Gibbs and Yarran play odds should lengthen.

strikes91 · May 21, 2013, 06:36:45 PM

Quote from: Ringo on May 21, 2013, 12:49:06 PM
Both Merrett and Clarke have accepted their penalties -
Maguire for Merrett
Docherty/Harwood for Clarke
would be my changes.

perhaps even lester with karny running through the guts

Ringo · May 23, 2013, 04:56:25 PM

With Sam Michael being elevated to seniors list to cover for Clay Beams does this mean he will be a selection this week maybe as a replacement for Clarke. At 199cm gives us another tall defender and he can back up Berger in the Ruck. Do not mind this pronmotion but feel sorry for Docherty and Harwood if Michael makes the final cut.