Murphy Pleads GUILTY!!!!

St.Walker · Post: # 579943Post **St.Walker** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 12:48pm

THE Bulldogs will be without key forward Robert Murphy after he accepted a one-match ban for making head-high contact.

Murphy was charged with engaging in rough conduct against Hawk Xavier Ellis during the Dogs win in Launceston on Saturday. His decision means he will miss the Bullies' clash with the Saints this weekend.

bergsone · Post: # 579946Post **bergsone** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:02pm

good for us this week ,but i dont reckon he should be rubbed out for that

degruch · Post: # 579947Post **degruch** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:04pm

Finally...a team the tribunal hates more than St Kilda! Bit rough on Murph, but we'll need a few breaks in the next few weeks.

Hurricane · Post: # 579948Post **Hurricane** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:06pm

Bit of a bonus for us, Murphy is a top player who usually plays well against us.

BANG BANG

Saints Premiers 2008 · Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:14pm

more than a bit rough...thats a terrible decision however i guess its what happens when the afl is run by a nancy-boy lawyer (no offence to lawyers out there...i just dont see the corrleation...lawyer...afl...rules???huh???)

another thing that made the blood boil was demitriou criticizes matthew llyod's comments yesterday...

who gave him the right to criticize someone's opinion and flatly denying it as wrong and demand a please explain??

if he had substance behind his criticism of llyod's comments then it could be justified except he didn't...it was almost child like in the way he shot his opinion down when infact llyod would actually do a better job of running the show than him...and i detest llyod so that is saying something

dimwit's kids must cop heaps of s*** at school...suffer...

degruch · Post: # 579955Post **degruch** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:18pm

Oh yeah...don't get me started on Dimwit...he's gonna hurt AFL footy big time, his daft money making plans will set the game back 50 years.

Compare Murphy's hit with the one on X a month ago!

saintspremiers · Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:44pm

degruch wrote:Oh yeah...don't get me started on Dimwit...he's gonna hurt AFL footy big time, his daft money making plans will set the game back 50 years.

Compare Murphy's hit with the one on X a month ago!

Dimwit is a clown, that's stating the obvious.

The AFL got it right on this one.

It's about time fortune favoured us, we now need to make the most of the opportunity is gives us!

TassieJones · Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:53pm

Absolute joke he went for that, it was a good bump and I enjoyed seeing it. Almost as big a joke that Lloyd was fined for summing up the sentiments of the greater football community and questioning whether players should even bother with the hip and shoulder.

But it certainly helps our chances at least

fonz_#15 · Post: # 579983Post **fonz_#15** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:56pm

that is past embarrassing, it is just sad that he got suspended for that.

Sobraz · Post: # 579985Post **Sobraz** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:58pm

I recon he deserved to go for it... it was a pointless, wreckless hit..

Watch the replay again... The balled spilled free half a meter away and Murphy went the player... Why not go for the loose ball...

When you want to know the correct (and fair) way to go about it, look at it like this.. In the exact same situation, what would Harvey have done?!!

He would have turned his body, collected the ball and either taken the hit with possession or dished it out.. simple..

dcstkfc · Post: # 579987Post **dcstkfc** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 1:58pm

Yes!
He hurt us a lot last time.

MCG-Unit · Post: # 579988Post **MCG-Unit** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 2:01pm

Sobraz wrote:I recon he deserved to go for it... it was a pointless, wreckless hit..

Watch the replay again... The balled spilled free half a meter away and Murphy went the player... Why not go for the loose ball...

When you want to know the correct (and fair) way to go about it, look at it like this.. In the exact same situation, what would Harvey have done?!!

He would have turned his body, collected the ball and either taken the hit with possession or dished it out.. simple..

I agree he deserved it - on the replay, he didn't even look at the ball, just went straight for the player, and collected his head

degruch · Post: # 579994Post **degruch** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 2:05pm

Meh...wouldn't even get referred if it was one of our blokes that got flattened. Fair enough and good for us, for once.

matrix · Post: # 580005Post **matrix** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 2:18pm

he made contact with the players head.......
as soft as we might think it actually was...thats the rule

a very very good player, very damaging, and we are lucky to not have to worry about him this week

a + for us

perfectionist · Tue 03 Jun 2008 2:23pm

Deserved at least two, which he got. They play the Lions the following week, so they figure a week against us won't matter which, on form, is probably right. But our chances have improved.

Eastern · Post: # 580097Post **Eastern** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 4:58pm

perfectionist wrote:Deserved at least two, which he got. They play the Lions the following week, so they figure a week against us won't matter which, on form, is probably right. But our chances have improved.

I thought;

Would the Bulldogs have made the same decision if they were playing Brisbane this week and us next week? Should we ring their "Forwards Coach" on SEN and ask?

plugger66 · Post: # 580106Post **plugger66** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 5:11pm

TassieJones wrote:Absolute joke he went for that, it was a good bump and I enjoyed seeing it. Almost as big a joke that Lloyd was fined for summing up the sentiments of the greater football community and questioning whether players should even bother with the hip and shoulder.

But it certainly helps our chances at least

Deserved what he got under the rules of today. Whether those rules are right is another issue. Also Lloyd didnt get fined but does make your story better.

ytw · Post: # 580126Post **ytw** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 6:02pm

i doubt that whether murphy plays or not will change the outcome of the game to the extent of winning and loosing.
the result will not be based on the way they play, they are consistent from week to week. its all about how we play and whether we perform on the day.

supersaints · Tue 03 Jun 2008 6:52pm

Its Karma from when Kozi got cleaned up !!!!!!!!!

starsign · Post: # 580188Post **starsign** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 7:29pm

good decision all round!
And don't be surprized if the Doggies have an off day
They are due for it and I'm basing this on current history which indicates the difficulty of playing at the top of you game week in and out for any great length of time in this modern game
Geelong and the Hawks have had theirs and the Dogs are due
One or 2 good players out and or off the boil, and taking the opposition a little lightly as well can set the scene for a turn-up , particularly if we can up the tempo even more on our intense tackling and pressure sustained over the 4 quarters
I've got a gut feeling! ...

No worries the Saints are ordinary, they only beat Melbourne last week , and we ran over them easily earlier on.
We'll miss Murphy but we should win

easily

BUT We get in right from the start with the close checking ,hard tackling stuff, and if our tall marking forwards can keep taking grabs for 4 quarters (And start converting better)we could be just the team to give them the surprize they aren't suspecting, especially if they are a bit off their game , and as I said they're due!
lots of IFS in this scenario but it could well be on!
Think how hard it is to pick 8 winners ....well its our turn to provide the upset this week!
Hows that for optimism!

Post: # 580227Post **n1ck** » Tue 03 Jun 2008 8:51pm

Has been very influential for the dogs since his knee reco.

Massive plus for us. Has been underrated by many since returning.

Has played brilliant footy this season so far.

bergsone · Post: # 580433Post **bergsone** » Wed 04 Jun 2008 1:40pm

Wonder if it was a saint who laid that bump what some on here would be saying now SOFT decision ,made by SOFT people who are trying to make it a SOFT game.fair dinkum dont watch slow motion replays if you do ,your kidding yourself

Mr Magic · Post: # 580452Post **Mr Magic** » Wed 04 Jun 2008 2:12pm

bergsone wrote:Wonder if it was a saint who laid that bump what some on here would be saying now SOFT decision ,made by SOFT people who are trying to make it a SOFT game.fair dinkum dont watch slow motion replays if you do ,your kidding yourself

Soft as in West's block/shepherd/hit on X?

Soft as in Burgoyne's block/shepherd/hit on Hayes last year?

I'll tell you what is 'soft' -
When you run past the ball and 'bump' an unsuspecting player who only has eyes for the ball in an attempt to 'hurt' him.

It takes a real 'tough guy' to 'take out' an unsuspecting opponent. How come the real hard at it 'in and under type players' very rarely lay a bump? They mainly tackle their opponents because they know that's how you get the ball.

Now, in relation to Murphy, it would appear from the replays I've seen that he didn't deliberately try to take out his opponent.
BUT the rules state quite clearly that if you choose to lay a bump/shepherd you have a 'duty of care' not to 'hit' your opponent's head, whether intentionally or accidentally.
Therefore when Murphy's shoulder struck his opponent's head he was always going to be in trouble. The only question, under the current rules, is the degree of severity.

bergsone · Post: # 580457Post **bergsone** » Wed 04 Jun 2008 2:24pm

So we take the bump out completely,fail to see how Murphy deliberatelytried to hurt the other player,IMO free kick and get on with it,was their a free kick paid?Was he reported at the time?IMO Soft

Mr Magic · Post: # 580465Post **Mr Magic** » Wed 04 Jun 2008 2:39pm

bergsone wrote:So we take the bump out completely,fail to see how Murphy deliberatelytried to hurt the other player,IMO free kick and get on with it,was their a free kick paid?Was he reported at the time?IMO Soft

Nobody's taking the bump out.
All they're saying is if you choose to bump and hit your opponent in the head then you should expect repurcussions. If it's a 'soft' collision then the MRP finds it 'insufficient force to constitute a strike' and no penalty occurs.
You obvioously think it's ok to 'hit' your opponent in the head with a bump, as long as it's an accident.

I'm sure that Trent West didn't mean to connect with X's head when he 'bumped' him earlier this year. But he did, and with sufficient force to cause X to be 'stretchered off'. Was that also 'soft'?

And when Burgoyne took Lenny out last year? Was that also 'soft' because maybe Burgoyne hit him in the head accidentally?

I have a real problem with the use of the term 'soft'. It has a connotation of 'weakness' and IMHO there is no courage being shown by a player choosing to 'hit' an unsuspecting opponent. In most cases it is just a 'cheap shot'.