Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Eastern wrote:If it's assessed as HIGH IMPACT (as it should be) he will get 4 weeks, down to 3 with an early plea. The Collingwood propaganda machine is already in action, saying it is MEDIUM IMPACT. That would mean 3 down to 2. It all depends on whether the MRP takes any notice of Collingwood !!
Medium impact puts it only one grade above the Schneider stitch-up. Weller was concussed from impact.
This is a clear test case of the consistency of the MRP.
It absolutely needs to be a four week down to three penalty.
Anything less and we should appeal on behalf of the struck player *.
disappointed in the coach's reaction...said that to him ..both players were going for the ball....accidental contact....accidental contact my arse...it was high deliberate contact ......he meant to maim mav.....you can't reach any other conclusion.......he's just lucky he didn't do more serious damage....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
stinger wrote:disappointed in the coach's reaction...said that to him ..both players were going for the ball....accidental contact....accidental contact my arse...it was high deliberate contact ......he meant to maim mav.....you can't reach any other conclusion.......he's just lucky he didn't do more serious damage....
Just spin. I doubt that's what he really thinks.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
Frontbottom to get 4 weeks, reduced to 0 by 3MMM breakfast show...declared an absolute superstar by Darcy.
Weller to get 2 weeks for bringing violence into disrepute.
satchmo wrote:Frontbottom to get 4 weeks, reduced to 0 by 3MMM breakfast show...declared an absolute superstar by Darcy.
Weller to get 2 weeks for bringing violence into disrepute.
plugger66 wrote:Im going with some very disappointed supporters. Either way i couldnt give a rats and again im going with som disappointed supporters.
Why don't you care?
Is it because the suspension will not be in effect when we next play them?
It kinda sucks that the penalty he gets gives no benefit to our club.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
plugger66 wrote:Im going with some very disappointed supporters. Either way i couldnt give a rats and again im going with som disappointed supporters.
Why don't you care?
Is it because the suspension will not be in effect when we next play them?
It kinda sucks that the penalty he gets gives no benefit to our club.
Because it doesnt help us as you said and even if he missed our next game it doesnt help us. If it a GF or a final and we were playing them id care. We lost by 80 and they lost Swan and Grundy before the game.
The first decision of the MRP is to decide the type of charge. It could be striking, charging or rough conduct. Strangely, a striking charge is viewed by the current MRP rules as being only ⅔ as bad as the other two. Once, the Sidebottom action could have been any one of the three, but these days, it is most likely to be Rough Conduct, which therefore draws a higher penalty.
The next decision of the MRP is to categorise the "conduct" of the act, a word that really doesn't describe what they mean. They are really talking about player intentions. It ranges from a bit of an accident which should have been avoided through to an outright deliberate act. There are three categories : Negligent, Reckless, Intentional. Clearly, the middle category is by far the most broad. It is hard to see the Sidebottom action as being Intentional, but the fact that he left the ground also suggests that he just wasn't running past the player and going for the ball (as suggested by our coach). So, it should be Reckless.
The next decision of the MRP relates to the severity of the impact. There are, as mentioned in another post, four levels here: Severe, high, medium and low. The question is whether it will be deemed high or medium. The fact that the victim left the ground with concussion and was unable to partake in the remainder of the game would suggest a High impact verdict.
And finally, there is the area of contact, with two categories: body or high/groin. This is the easy one with High contact.
So, an act which is reckless, of high severity and high contact will draw 7 activation points and a level 4 offence. With a rough conduct charge, these leads to 425 demerit points.
Steele Sidebottom's history will determine his sanction in the matter. If he has a good history (no guilty conviction in the last six years) and pleads guilty, then it would be reduced to 239 points and two matches. Apparently, because he has only played for five years plus this season (i.e. less than six), he does not qualify for a good record despite never having been found guilty. This has never seemed fair to me and may well play on the minds of the MRP in accessing the "conduct" of the charge, although it shouldn't. So the best he could do on my scenario, would be to plead down to 319 points and 3 weeks.
Can anyone recall anyone ever getting done for "intentional" on a rough conduct charge? It seems like they only want to roll it out for the (oddly) lesser charge of striking.
I've looked at this incident several times. He jumps. It MUST be reckless. But why can't it be intentional? They're pretty much the same height (2cm to Mav), so if you want to execute a (fair) bump, why jump?
"Definition of ‘intentional’ – A player intentionally commits a Reportable Offence if the player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence. An intention is a state of mind. Intention may be formed on the spur of the moment.
The issue is whether it existed at the time at which the player engaged in the conduct."
A pretty strong inference can be drawn from the video that he intended to take Weller out, even if only on the "spur of the moment". I'd personally like to see him have to explain to the Tribunal what it was he actually intended to do when he jumped.
It's pretty telling that the ump on the spot reported him for rough conduct. It almost seems rare that that happens these days.
kosifantutti wrote:For those saying high impact, keep in mind that Tommy Lynch's broken jaw was only medium impact.
Yes, but I think the Appeals Tribunal basically said that the original Tribunal panel didn't know what they were talking about. That whole case smacked of a succession of people not wanting to take responsibility, from the MRP who sent it to the Tribunal, to the Tribunal which came up with a bizarre set of factors almost guaranteeing an appeal, to the AFL which should remain silent whilst cases are proceeding. For what it's worth, I would have given Todd Viney Negligent, High and High with 325 demerit points - reducing to two weeks with an early plea. And whenever past players resort to excuses like, "it's just part of the game" then I know I am right.
kosifantutti wrote:For those saying high impact, keep in mind that Tommy Lynch's broken jaw was only medium impact.
Yes, but I think the Appeals Tribunal basically said that the original Tribunal panel didn't know what they were talking about. That whole case smacked of a succession of people not wanting to take responsibility, from the MRP who sent it to the Tribunal, to the Tribunal which came up with a bizarre set of factors almost guaranteeing an appeal, to the AFL which should remain silent whilst cases are proceeding. For what it's worth, I would have given Todd Viney Negligent, High and High with 325 demerit points - reducing to two weeks with an early plea. And whenever past players resort to excuses like, "it's just part of the game" then I know I am right.
I dont think many would agree with that assessment of that incident. Not sure bracing is the same as blocking.
perfectionist wrote:The first decision of the MRP is to decide the type of charge. It could be striking, charging or rough conduct. Strangely, a striking charge is viewed by the current MRP rules as being only ⅔ as bad as the other two. Once, the Sidebottom action could have been any one of the three, but these days, it is most likely to be Rough Conduct, which therefore draws a higher penalty.
The next decision of the MRP is to categorise the "conduct" of the act, a word that really doesn't describe what they mean. They are really talking about player intentions. It ranges from a bit of an accident which should have been avoided through to an outright deliberate act. There are three categories : Negligent, Reckless, Intentional. Clearly, the middle category is by far the most broad. It is hard to see the Sidebottom action as being Intentional, but the fact that he left the ground also suggests that he just wasn't running past the player and going for the ball (as suggested by our coach). So, it should be Reckless.
The next decision of the MRP relates to the severity of the impact. There are, as mentioned in another post, four levels here: Severe, high, medium and low. The question is whether it will be deemed high or medium. The fact that the victim left the ground with concussion and was unable to partake in the remainder of the game would suggest a High impact verdict.
And finally, there is the area of contact, with two categories: body or high/groin. This is the easy one with High contact.
So, an act which is reckless, of high severity and high contact will draw 7 activation points and a level 4 offence. With a rough conduct charge, these leads to 425 demerit points.
Steele Sidebottom's history will determine his sanction in the matter. If he has a good history (no guilty conviction in the last six years) and pleads guilty, then it would be reduced to 239 points and two matches. Apparently, because he has only played for five years plus this season (i.e. less than six), he does not qualify for a good record despite never having been found guilty. This has never seemed fair to me and may well play on the minds of the MRP in accessing the "conduct" of the charge, although it shouldn't. So the best he could do on my scenario, would be to plead down to 319 points and 3 weeks.
Thanks for that Perfectionist. Lays out the process clearly.
kosifantutti wrote:For those saying high impact, keep in mind that Tommy Lynch's broken jaw was only medium impact.
Yes, but I think the Appeals Tribunal basically said that the original Tribunal panel didn't know what they were talking about. That whole case smacked of a succession of people not wanting to take responsibility, from the MRP who sent it to the Tribunal, to the Tribunal which came up with a bizarre set of factors almost guaranteeing an appeal, to the AFL which should remain silent whilst cases are proceeding. For what it's worth, I would have given Todd Viney Negligent, High and High with 325 demerit points - reducing to two weeks with an early plea. And whenever past players resort to excuses like, "it's just part of the game" then I know I am right.
I should learn not to expect consistency from the AFL.
Sidebottom was reported shortly after the opening bounce of Friday night's clash with St Kilda.
He had charged off the wing and collected Saints midfielder Mav Weller, who had the ball, with an elbow to the head.
Weller was concussed in the incident and had to be subbed out of the game.
The panel graded the incident as reckless, high impact and high contact. The initial penalty was a four-match suspension but he can have it reduced to three if he pleads guilty.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
dragit wrote:Goodes cleared, Wow, didn't see that coming.
I hope you're being facetious?
As soon as it happened I said to my son that they would find a way to clear him.
Another disgraceful decision based on who you are and not what you did.
Perhaps Australian of the Year benefits include MRP immunity??
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
dragit wrote:Goodes cleared, Wow, didn't see that coming.
I hope you're being facetious?
As soon as it happened I said to my son that they would find a way to clear him.
Another disgraceful decision based on who you are and not what you did.
Perhaps Australian of the Year benefits include MRP immunity??
That's why I can't stand Goodes. Another lovechild. Shame all the racist stuff is clouding the real issues with him.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
dragit wrote:Goodes cleared, Wow, didn't see that coming.
I hope you're being facetious?
As soon as it happened I said to my son that they would find a way to clear him.
Another disgraceful decision based on who you are and not what you did.
Perhaps Australian of the Year benefits include MRP immunity??
That's why I can't stand Goodes. Another lovechild. Shame all the racist stuff is clouding the real issues with him.
You cant stand Goodes because the MRP dont suspend him. I just cant even slightly understand that. What are the real issues with him by the way?
