Rockliff OUT

[Ringo]

But Ele how many of these instances do we see in a game unreported which is my big beef.  Agree that the punishment was appropriate when citing made but the MRP now needs to be consistent.

As maygs says why was not Mitchel charged with attacking the head after the Gibson incident.  Plain to see in the video.  Just saying this due to the number of incidents that go unreported so just hope the MRP really look at videos now the precedent has been set as we see quite a number of Rockliff type incidents in every game.

[quinny88]

Hahahaha, whether Mitchell dived or not is pretty irrelevant.

The MRP looked at the incident and broke it down.

It was classed as intentional, low impact and body contact.

There is no way you can argue Rocky didn't mean to get stuck into him, the impact was obviously there and it was to his mid-riff.

Cannot believe we are even debating this haha

Yep weather ya think its soft or not is irrelevant. They created the grading system to make it simple. Its still a matter of opinion but I dont think anyone can argue that it was intentional, low impact and body contact. They are facts.

The one that should be causing the uproar is how Wellinghams trip was graded as reckless rather than intentional. Dont understand how sticking a leg out to trip someone over can be anything but intentional

[Grazz]

They would of looked at the Gibson incident a few times, nobody thought to say hang on whats Mitchell doing there to that young mans head. Agree Mitchell is better than that and that stuff is rubbish.

[GCSkiwi]

Ringo can I just say that your conviction is awesome, there's nothing better than a real fan who truly gets passionate about their team as opposed to people who say they support a team but don't really back that up.

I don't really want to comment on the decision as I would hate to be a MRP member, you're basically going to be hated no matter what you do, however when I saw the video I must admit my first thought was "that happens ALL THE TIME". Ok maybe not to the extent of putting the player on the deck but the number of times there are elbows and shoulders thrown off the ball is massive. Understand the activation point calculation but have to agree with Ringo's point that if that incident was worthy of being cited, there's about a million more that should be. What's the threshold for "low impact"? Using this as a precedent, how many other incidents that didn't put someone on the ground could rightly be classified as "intentional conduct (3 points) + body contact (1 point)" without any impact level??

Either you cite them all, or you take the stance of "it didn't take him out of the game, or make him miss the chance of playing the ball, have a nice hot cup of toughen up an play on".

[elephants]

The one that should be causing the uproar is how Wellinghams trip was graded as reckless rather than intentional. Dont understand how sticking a leg out to trip someone over can be anything but intentional

The MRP said it was an instinctive reaction when a player is passing you to stick out your arm and your leg. To be honest, I can see that but I don't really buy it as a defence but as long as they're consistent.

Its probably better for the Eagles if he did miss this week vs Melbourne. We should win comfortably, it'd give Welly a nice breather and would probably give Dom Sheed a good run. All the same its good to have as close to our best 22 on the park at all times.

But Ele how many of these instances do we see in a game unreported which is my big beef.  Agree that the punishment was appropriate when citing made but the MRP now needs to be consistent.

As maygs says why was not Mitchel charged with attacking the head after the Gibson incident.  Plain to see in the video.  Just saying this due to the number of incidents that go unreported so just hope the MRP really look at videos now the precedent has been set as we see quite a number of Rockliff type incidents in every game.

That makes a little more sense. Still, the whole diving rant was pretty irrelevant ;)

[AaronKirk]

Hahahaha, whether Mitchell dived or not is pretty irrelevant.

The MRP looked at the incident and broke it down.

It was classed as intentional, low impact and body contact.

There is no way you can argue Rocky didn't mean to get stuck into him, the impact was obviously there and it was to his mid-riff.

Cannot believe we are even debating this haha

This is pretty clear. It was a soft incident but the rules are the rules. Rocky copped his whack and he will be back in round 3.

[tor01doc]

Captain A Kirk - voice of reason.  ;)

[Rusty00]

Rocky has accepted the 1 match ban

Because of History he knew he would have no hope of getting it overturned. if you watch the video watch Mitchells hands as well and then when Rocky retaliates he takes the big dive so it will be looked at.  Very soft if you ask me and the sooner we adopt penalising for diving the better. Would be very interested to read the so called medical report from Hawthorn but these are never presented.

Obviously the medical report was significant enough to be used and mentioned. Don't think diving can even be considered here mate. He wacked him off the ball while he wasn't looking. I know it happens all the time but its a dirty cheap shot.

They always get a medical report from the club involved and always mention in the official MRP review of incidents.

[strikes91]

What was in the medical report.

[tor01doc]

That would be confidential.

A few suggestions include - on examination it appeared to be water off a duck's back / a cut on the back of his head like Greg Louganis at the Olympics / Stevie Winwood's famous hit from 1981 was gently playing in the background during the hearing / Jacques Cousteau was called as an expert witness....

[billnats]

Hate a sideways trade of a premium but Watson at 10k more does look tasty

[tor01doc]

And Watson as VC into GAJ looks tasty too!

[RaisyDaisy]

Hate a sideways trade of a premium but Watson at 10k more does look tasty

Based on your recent threads your going to run out of trades by rd 10 hehe :P

[Toga]

Hahahaha, whether Mitchell dived or not is pretty irrelevant.

The MRP looked at the incident and broke it down.

It was classed as intentional, low impact and body contact.

There is no way you can argue Rocky didn't mean to get stuck into him, the impact was obviously there and it was to his mid-riff.

Cannot believe we are even debating this haha

Yeah absolutely agree with you here ele there is no argument! They are the classifications, all of which fit, so had to be charged IMO.

Rocky has accepted the 1 match ban

Because of History he knew he would have no hope of getting it overturned.

He wouldn't have contested it because there's not much he can defend himself with tbh... He can't really argue he hit him by accident :P

[frenzy]

No1 has faith in the MRP Ringo, and we all believe they are grossly inconsistent.

Brisbane aren't the only ones who can site examples of 'unfair' treatment.

Over to you NigeyS...

Yep, that'd be 'cite'.



I can't see what all the fuss is about

Cite - Refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.