Carlisle

[CarlD]

Perhaps Richo should do a Clarkson and go and "discuss" the MRO with Gillon (waste of time talking to the overlord in the middle). There are a number of inconsistent, implausible rulings in less than half a season that can be used as evidence that the new and improved review system is just as badly flawed as it's predecessor.

[asiu]

he comes across as a bit of a grub , that Bernard

[bigred]

Jake Carlisle so reminds me of the $7,000,000 man,Bernard Tomic !

Yeah its uncanny....

[Jacks Back]

The inconsistencies and character favouritism in our game are an embarrassment...

It's funny when the good players like Cotchin or Ablett get a full 5 minutes to get rid of the ball when tackled but a new kid gets all of 1 second (and sometimes not even that) before he is pinged.

[Jacks Back]

The tribunal decision is BS. Take it higher. Sick of one rule for some and crap for others!

[Moods]

Gotta say - I'm surprised by the uproar. He clearly hit him in the head. Riewoldt was clearly concussed. He was always going to get weeks. It was careless at best, reckless at worst. I reckon we move on and set ourselves to be outraged over more clearly unjust things

[iwantmeseats]

So
Points margin Saturday night?
Stock up the bottleo people.

[bigred]

I think the club really needed to just stand by Jake for once.

Glad they did. I reckon he takes these things to heart a bit. Definitely went into his shell on Saturday.

[sunsaint]

... explain the difference between rances hit on Breust vs what Carlisle did. They are virtually identical, only one of the recipients has a slightly harder/thicker skull...

But here is the problem with the inconsistency/persecution theory
You can't possibly tell the amount of force between the two hits - you are only guessing
Where was the impact point? Temple hit can be worse for concussion. Fleshy soft bicep vs a clenched fist - now that's got to have a difference in impact force.
For how long were the players unconscious? Medical reports submitted at the tribunal - Is that a point of difference?

As for the saints getting constantly shafted at the tribunal - what has been our record for the last two seasons?

[SuperDuper]

Gotta say - I'm surprised by the uproar. He clearly hit him in the head. Riewoldt was clearly concussed. He was always going to get weeks. It was careless at best, reckless at worst. I reckon we move on and set ourselves to be outraged over more clearly unjust things

I would agree except for the Rance footage... it really looks like different rules for different players

[axcellence]

Richo’s comments could have come from a politician. We think a concussion is bad so 1 week would have been enough. Never mind it was in play spoil gone bad. But Richo must not look noN-PC.


Welcome to the st kilda football “party”. Wait, is that name PC?

[perfectionist]

Really should have tried to get it down graded to accidental - would that have helped?

There is no "accidental" category. It is either "intentional" or "careless". So, "accidental" comes into the "careless" category. Jake's hit was assessed as being "careless", "High" contact ( Riewoldt was hit in the head) and "High" impact ( Riewoldt was concussed and left the field for the remainder of the game). This generates a 2 match suspension. There are no longer any "discounts" for early pleas for suspensions, but they do remain for fines i.e. the fine is reduced.

[CURLY]

So Riewoldt won't miss any training sessions and will play Saturday. The Rance hit was later and with the same amount of force but no action take. Its a piss take.

[freely]

This thread is all just angry for angry's sake. We've wasted $10,000 on it, now let's move on.

[saintspremiers]

Contesting that is ridiculous. What you’d expect from this admin
Took his eyes off he ball and clotheslined him.
Ridiculous.
FFS

Rubbish. At worst it was a week. Most people think that it seems, so we weren’t off on a tangent.

You have no idea if he was going for the ball or the man - that’s just an assumption.

[stonecold]

Gotta say - I'm surprised by the uproar. He clearly hit him in the head. Riewoldt was clearly concussed. He was always going to get weeks. It was careless at best, reckless at worst. I reckon we move on and set ourselves to be outraged over more clearly unjust things

Yes, this, Jake would have got lucky to get it reduced to a week!!!!!

As much as we don't like it, was too the letter of the law!!!!!

Move on!!!!!

[kosifantutti]

The only thing they could work on was the impact. The immediate impact on Breust looked similar to Riewoldt. But I don't know if Breust even came off. On first look it would be difficult to justify one as low and the other as high.

[Sainter_Dad]

Gotta say - I'm surprised by the uproar. He clearly hit him in the head. Riewoldt was clearly concussed. He was always going to get weeks. It was careless at best, reckless at worst. I reckon we move on and set ourselves to be outraged over more clearly unjust things

Yes, this, Jake would have got lucky to get it reduced to a week!!!!!

As much as we don't like it, was too the letter of the law!!!!!

Move on!!!!!

I agree that it was the letter of the law - but should not the smae be said of:
Rance;
Cox;
Fyfe;
Burton;
Mitchell;
...?

It feels like it is not that Carlisle is one of a string of players to get done for concussing someone, or doing an action that concussed someone - It is that he is highlighted as an individual among a sea of players getting off.

It is not this incident that I find offensive - it is the one rule for some teams - another for St Kilda

[stonecold]

Gotta say - I'm surprised by the uproar. He clearly hit him in the head. Riewoldt was clearly concussed. He was always going to get weeks. It was careless at best, reckless at worst. I reckon we move on and set ourselves to be outraged over more clearly unjust things

Yes, this, Jake would have got lucky to get it reduced to a week!!!!!

As much as we don't like it, was too the letter of the law!!!!!

Move on!!!!!

I agree that it was the letter of the law - but should not the smae be said of:
Rance;
Cox;
Fyfe;
Burton;
Mitchell;
...?

It is not this incident that I find offensive - it is the one rule for some teams - another for St Kilda

I don't think that is the case, (on my opinion), personally I don't think Fyfe did anything wrong (total accident, if you off your red, white and black goggles), haven't really seen enough of the others!!!!!

Anyway, I blame our defensive coach (Spud), if he wasn't constantly encouraging/rewarding the old 'Ear Massage' on Bounce, Jake may have spoiled correctly!!!!!

Move on, get some more games/experience into the younger guys!!!!!

Appreciate your loyalty and opinion though Dad!!!!!

[dragit]

Really should have tried to get it down graded to accidental - would that have helped?

There is no "accidental" category. It is either "intentional" or "careless". So, "accidental" comes into the "careless" category. Jake's hit was assessed as being "careless", "High" contact ( Riewoldt was hit in the head) and "High" impact ( Riewoldt was concussed and left the field for the remainder of the game). This generates a 2 match suspension. There are no longer any "discounts" for early pleas for suspensions, but they do remain for fines i.e. the fine is reduced.

But they do have the capacity to judge an act as "not unreasonable in the circumstance" > strangely this was the excuse made for Fyfe running into a pack attempting to kick the ball off the ground when a player had been on the ground for a long time.

E.g Carlisle was making a legitimate attempt to spoil, his open hand was very close to the ball, contact to Riewoldt's head was accidental.

[Sainter_Dad]

Gotta say - I'm surprised by the uproar. He clearly hit him in the head. Riewoldt was clearly concussed. He was always going to get weeks. It was careless at best, reckless at worst. I reckon we move on and set ourselves to be outraged over more clearly unjust things

Yes, this, Jake would have got lucky to get it reduced to a week!!!!!

As much as we don't like it, was too the letter of the law!!!!!

Move on!!!!!

I agree that it was the letter of the law - but should not the smae be said of:
Rance;
Cox;
Fyfe;
Burton;
Mitchell;
...?

It is not this incident that I find offensive - it is the one rule for some teams - another for St Kilda

I don't think that is the case, (on my opinion), personally I don't think Fyfe did anything wrong (total accident, if you off your red, white and black goggles), haven't really seen enough of the others!!!!!

Anyway, I blame our defensive coach (Spud), if he wasn't constantly encouraging/rewarding the old 'Ear Massage' on Bounce, Jake may have spoiled correctly!!!!!

Move on, get some more games/experience into the younger guys!!!!!

Appreciate your loyalty and opinion though Dad!!!!!

StoneCold

It is not about getting Jake off any more - I would be pissed if the roles were reversed and nothing happened - oh wait that has been the case.

My major bone of contention is that we have been taking it for long enough - the AFL wants to make a stance on something - lets do it to St Kilda!!!!!

I did not think that Fyfe should go for what he did to Carlisle - but the result was the same so therefore it must be the intent that Jake took into the action that got him looked at. I saw a clumsy spoil - with the intent of punching the ball - so nope - no illegal act there, whereas Mason Cox can intentionally bump and almost hit the head, or Ryan Burton can clean a guy up and that is all in the 'spirit' of the game.

The AFL can go and get stuffed as far as I am concerned. This s*** about having one MRO instead of a panel can get f@rked. One person cannot bring a discussion to the table - so you get one point of view - one bias.

I want the MRP bought back, and to be formed by people who understand due process:

In my simple thoughts the following is the process that needs to be followed:
1. Was there an action to be reviewed?
2. What was the intent?
3. Is the intent reportable?
4. What was the result of the action?

On the above:
1 - Yes (due to Jack being concussed)
2 - To spoil the ball
3 - No

Therefore no further action.

On Tom Mitchell
1 - Yes - He clearly swung an elbow
2 - To injury or hurt
3 - Yes
4 - No injury - fine.

On Mason Cox:
1 - Yes - bump to the head/neck area
2 - To bump head high
3 - Yes
4 - No injury - fine

On Nat Fyfe:
1 - Yes - Carlisle was knocked out
2 - To attempt to get the ball
3 - No

It is a simple formula but one that is driven by intent (as evidenced by the action. If clumsiness if a crime then we need to get rid of the spoil, bump, tackle.

You watch next week one of our guys will be hurt from a spoil/tunnel and it will be 'Nothing to see hear - move on' Especially seeing that we are playing in the West!!!!

[freely]

Meanwhile, I see on the AFL site that in fact, if anyone ought to have a gripe against the umps - it's Richmond!
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-30/f ... es-em-away

[The_Dud]

Gotta say - I'm surprised by the uproar. He clearly hit him in the head. Riewoldt was clearly concussed. He was always going to get weeks. It was careless at best, reckless at worst. I reckon we move on and set ourselves to be outraged over more clearly unjust things

Yes, this, Jake would have got lucky to get it reduced to a week!!!!!

As much as we don't like it, was too the letter of the law!!!!!

Move on!!!!!

I agree that it was the letter of the law - but should not the smae be said of:
Rance;
Cox;
Fyfe;
Burton;
Mitchell;
...?

It is not this incident that I find offensive - it is the one rule for some teams - another for St Kilda

I don't think that is the case, (on my opinion), personally I don't think Fyfe did anything wrong (total accident, if you off your red, white and black goggles), haven't really seen enough of the others!!!!!

Anyway, I blame our defensive coach (Spud), if he wasn't constantly encouraging/rewarding the old 'Ear Massage' on Bounce, Jake may have spoiled correctly!!!!!

Move on, get some more games/experience into the younger guys!!!!!

Appreciate your loyalty and opinion though Dad!!!!!

For once Stoney I agree with everything you say!

[stonecold]

Gotta say - I'm surprised by the uproar. He clearly hit him in the head. Riewoldt was clearly concussed. He was always going to get weeks. It was careless at best, reckless at worst. I reckon we move on and set ourselves to be outraged over more clearly unjust things

Yes, this, Jake would have got lucky to get it reduced to a week!!!!!

As much as we don't like it, was too the letter of the law!!!!!

Move on!!!!!

I agree that it was the letter of the law - but should not the smae be said of:
Rance;
Cox;
Fyfe;
Burton;
Mitchell;
...?

It is not this incident that I find offensive - it is the one rule for some teams - another for St Kilda

I don't think that is the case, (on my opinion), personally I don't think Fyfe did anything wrong (total accident, if you off your red, white and black goggles), haven't really seen enough of the others!!!!!

Anyway, I blame our defensive coach (Spud), if he wasn't constantly encouraging/rewarding the old 'Ear Massage' on Bounce, Jake may have spoiled correctly!!!!!

Move on, get some more games/experience into the younger guys!!!!!

Appreciate your loyalty and opinion though Dad!!!!!

For once Stoney I agree with everything you say!

No, I think that's twice now!!!!!

And don't make a habit of it!!!!!

[asiu]