MRP - Time for consistency

[degruch]

Anyway till i see it I will not be sure it is exactly the same as some people on here do sometimes see things through one eye.

If they're not, you'll claim they are anyway. Old habits die hard.

[plugger66]

I for one hope he gets off.

It should not be a reportable offence and it was a joke that Dawson was suspended for a similar offence but for the good of the game I hope he remains the only player suspended (incorrectly) for this sort of bump.

If it is the exactly same for the good of the game I hope he goes otherwise players will do it every week and just take out other players who would not expect it or couldnt even defend themselves.

[Mr Magic]

! major difference between the 2 incidents is that the PA player was still stationary when Thomas took him out from behind.

I believe that in Dawson's case, the player had already started to run after Joey?


I also think that the force used by Thomas was far greater than that used by Dawson.

On the replay the commentateos immediately brought up the Dawson case when describing the icident on the replay.

Is that one eye or two. If you think the player was running after Joey then it is one eye. He moved his body but was never running. As for the force well one came back onto the ground and I'm not sure if the other did.

No it was both eyes - the player Dawson shepherded/bumped was in motion adter the umpire called play on and Joey ran off.
The player Thomas cannoned into from behind (Ellis?) was stationary and was left prone on the ground under assistance from a number of trainers for a lengthy period afterwards. He seemed to be in great discomfort, but maybe he was just faking it?????

But plugger, I'm sure with your AFL eyes you'll find a reason to dismiss any discussion of the incidents being similar.

ANd to answer one of your earlier points about what difference it would make.

Barry Hall - Prelim Final 2005 - ask WCE if it made a difference to their outcome?
I would hate to see a player unfairly get off an incident in the Prelim and then cause us to lose the GF the following week.
Would you?

[plugger66]

! major difference between the 2 incidents is that the PA player was still stationary when Thomas took him out from behind.

I believe that in Dawson's case, the player had already started to run after Joey?


I also think that the force used by Thomas was far greater than that used by Dawson.

On the replay the commentateos immediately brought up the Dawson case when describing the icident on the replay.

Is that one eye or two. If you think the player was running after Joey then it is one eye. He moved his body but was never running. As for the force well one came back onto the ground and I'm not sure if the other did.

No it was both eyes - the player Dawson shepherded/bumped was in motion adter the umpire called play on and Joey ran off.
The player Thomas cannoned into from behind (Ellis?) was stationary and was left prone on the ground under assistance from a number of trainers for a lengthy period afterwards. He seemed to be in great discomfort, but maybe he was just faking it?????

But plugger, I'm sure with your AFL eyes you'll find a reason to dismiss any discussion of the incidents being similar.

ANd to answer one of your earlier points about what difference it would make.

Barry Hall - Prelim Final 2005 - ask WCE if it made a difference to their outcome?
I would hate to see a player unfairly get off an incident in the Prelim and then cause us to lose the GF the following week.
Would you?

Wouldnt worry me in the slightest if a player was playing that should not have if my side wasnt in it. It certainly didnt worry me with Hally playing because i wanted the swans to win that day and also it seems unlike most here I actually like hall. If i go with my AFL eyes on you go with they pick on the Saints eyes on. I will till my dieing day fail to see why the MRP or Tribunal would pick on us.

[Mr Magic]

No plugger, you misunderstood my point or deliberately ignored it.

If we played in the GF (like WCE did in 2005) against a team who had a player (like Hall) who should not have been there but was because of incompetence/fraud/cheating by the MRP/Tribunal and that player had a significant role in us losing, how would you feel?

Would it have made a difference if that player had been rightly rubbed out?

I'm addressing the point you made about it 'making no difference' what happened to players from other clubs.

[plugger66]

No plugger, you misunderstood my point or deliberately ignored it.

If we played in the GF (like WCE did in 2005) against a team who had a player (like Hall) who should not have been there but was because of incompetence/fraud/cheating by the MRP/Tribunal and that player had a significant role in us losing, how would you feel?

Would it have made a difference if that player had been rightly rubbed out?

I'm addressing the point you made about it 'making no difference' what happened to players from other clubs.

I said it makes no difference because we arent playing them so I have already addressed it. if we were playing them then I would be interested but we arent.

[degruch]

No plugger, you misunderstood my point or deliberately ignored it.

If we played in the GF (like WCE did in 2005) against a team who had a player (like Hall) who should not have been there but was because of incompetence/fraud/cheating by the MRP/Tribunal and that player had a significant role in us losing, how would you feel?

Would it have made a difference if that player had been rightly rubbed out?

I'm addressing the point you made about it 'making no difference' what happened to players from other clubs.

Sounds like Matt Thomas saw the Zac Dawson incident with his Plugger66 eyes and, having seen it didn't happen to his team, decided to ignore it?

Any footage anyone?

[ThomasR]

It is a lot different to the Zac incident. Pearce had taken the mark and was starting to run around the bloke on the mark and was well off his line with no intention of kicking. Man on the mark was collected in the side. I have no problem with the shepherd there but think there's a good chance he'll still get a week. On the other hand the ball had practically left Joey's boot when Zac laid his bump, there is no reason for the player to be expecting contact and in any case the act was totally unnecessary.

I'm glad Zac got weeks, the incident may not have warranted 2 but his sniping well off the ball was startiing to become a bit cheap imo - and more than a few times when the ball has been in dispute he has gone for the bump rather than the tackle and missed and conceded possession in doing so. There is a time and place for cleaning people up so hopefully Zac will pull his head in. Has improved a lot as player but there is tough and there is "tough".

[stinger]

I for one hope he gets off.

It should not be a reportable offence and it was a joke that Dawson was suspended for a similar offence but for the good of the game I hope he remains the only player suspended (incorrectly) for this sort of bump.

i agree with you 100 %...it's not soccer ffs..it's a man's game....called football......

[TimPekin'sDirtyGuernsey]

2 weeks for Thomas but will be given 1 for early plea.

[backit]

from SEN

In a quiet week for the match review panel only Fremantle youngster Hayden Ballantyne and Port's Matt Thomas were hit with suspensions.

Thomas was booted for engaging in rough conduct against Hawthorn's Xavier Ellis and can accept a one match ban - which would rule him out of Sunday's clash against Fremantle - but will risk a two match ban if he challenges the decision at the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night.

[golden hawk]

! major difference between the 2 incidents is that the PA player was still stationary when Thomas took him out from behind.

I believe that in Dawson's case, the player had already started to run after Joey?


I also think that the force used by Thomas was far greater than that used by Dawson.

On the replay the commentateos immediately brought up the Dawson case when describing the icident on the replay.

Zac was in the side wasn't it ?
this guy did X in the back something shocking no free either he got a week will see if he appeals

[golden hawk]

! major difference between the 2 incidents is that the PA player was still stationary when Thomas took him out from behind.

I believe that in Dawson's case, the player had already started to run after Joey?


I also think that the force used by Thomas was far greater than that used by Dawson.

On the replay the commentateos immediately brought up the Dawson case when describing the icident on the replay.

Is that one eye or two. If you think the player was running after Joey then it is one eye. He moved his body but was never running. As for the force well one came back onto the ground and I'm not sure if the other did.

No it was both eyes - the player Dawson shepherded/bumped was in motion adter the umpire called play on and Joey ran off.
The player Thomas cannoned into from behind (Ellis?) was stationary and was left prone on the ground under assistance from a number of trainers for a lengthy period afterwards. He seemed to be in great discomfort, but maybe he was just faking it?????

But plugger, I'm sure with your AFL eyes you'll find a reason to dismiss any discussion of the incidents being similar.

ANd to answer one of your earlier points about what difference it would make.

Barry Hall - Prelim Final 2005 - ask WCE if it made a difference to their outcome?
I would hate to see a player unfairly get off an incident in the Prelim and then cause us to lose the GF the following week.
Would you?

was not faking that how could he that was a hard hit from behind he will have a very sore back today and that is not good ! for any player as you can not replace a back once it goes .

[stinger]

same as zac....

[desertsaint]

he came from behind right but caught him on the side. thought it was fine, but then again i thought zac's was fine - forgotten that afl was trying to appeal to the soccer crowd and mums!

some posters here are happy with a softer game, others not so (i'm in the latter camp - caught some nasty whacks in my short time playing but always happy that it was part and parcel of the game - and happy to return the favour when the opportunity arose - always knew you'd need to be fully aware of players behind you!)

[plugger66]

he came from behind right but caught him on the side. thought it was fine, but then again i thought zac's was fine - forgotten that afl was trying to appeal to the soccer crowd and mums!

some posters here are happy with a softer game, others not so (i'm in the latter camp - caught some nasty whacks in my short time playing but always happy that it was part and parcel of the game - and happy to return the favour when the opportunity arose - always knew you'd need to be fully aware of players behind you!)

The game is harder than ever because of the speed they hit but I dont think charging a guy on the mark who has no defence and giving him 2 weeks makes the game softer. It looks like MRP panel didnt pick on the Saints this week.

[golden hawk]

so Zac was in the side and the port one i know was well in truly in the back as X nearly bent in half with the impact , i love the bump but not that one !

[desertsaint]

The game is harder than ever because of the speed they hit but I dont think charging a guy on the mark who has no defence and giving him 2 weeks makes the game softer.

many famous shirtfronts and bumps also came without the other being aware - it's the nature of the game, unlike rugby where the opponent is generally always facing you.
as i said, some are happy with making the game safer, some aren't.

It looks like MRP panel didnt pick on the Saints this week.

no arguments there. i don't agree with them on this issue but happy that they're consistent.

[AP Erebus]

I think big props to the MRP. They have essentially dealt out the same penalty to the Port bloke as the same to Zac...

Good on them, and for letting Milney off!

[bigcarl]

2 weeks for Thomas but will be given 1 for early plea.

good. everyone now knows what the rule is and that you will be pinged for infringing it. consistency is all you want in these things.

[degruch]

I think big props to the MRP. They have essentially dealt out the same penalty to the Port bloke as the same to Zac...

Good on them, and for letting Milney off!

At last, commion sense! Of course, as I mentioned when Zac was suspended, it's time the AFL let KB and the umps in on the rule, so they can start enforcing it...seems the MRP are the only crowd determined to apply it.

[backit]

http://www.sportsentral.com/pro/main/st ... 049&sr=all

Matt Thomas is contesting his charge, the decision will now be interesting on how the tribunal determines the incident.

[bigcarl]

Matt Thomas is contesting his charge.

i don't like his chances. two weeks now i'd say, otherwise we're entitled to an explanation.

[Sainter_Dad]

Hang on: Thomas only got 125 points for the offense - it was his bad record that took it to 2 weeks - Zac got two weeks for the offense - What was the difference that makes Zacs reckless not negligent?

Zacs:

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), medium impact (two points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one- match sanction.

Thomas:

The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing bad record of three matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 30 per cent to 162.50 points. He also has 53.13 points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 215.63 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 161.72 points and a one-match sanction.

[kosifantutti23]

Hang on: Thomas only got 125 points for the offense - it was his bad record that took it to 2 weeks - Zac got two weeks for the offense - What was the difference that makes Zacs reckless not negligent?

Zacs:

The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), medium impact (two points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one- match sanction.

Thomas:

The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level One offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing bad record of three matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 30 per cent to 162.50 points. He also has 53.13 points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 215.63 points and a two-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 161.72 points and a one-match sanction.

And Steven King's was intentional