Michael Christian

[Scollop]

The decision to suspend Ryder had been predetermined during the live broadcast and the judgment had already occurred

The main reason why players get suspended is because of the reasoning given by the Channel 7 commentators.

They are the judge and jury and they influence public opinion. They provide the evidence and they prosecute.

If Darcy and Linga ignored the contact and if they said 'nothing in it, move on' we wouldn't be debating this. Ryder was prosecuted live on air yesterday

The suspension was a foregone conclusion

[Jacks Back]

Absolute bulls*** decision from a wanking f****** biased c***

[SaintPav]

I don’t care if they have changed the rules, given what happened to Hunter Clark last season and other verdicts that have gone in favour of the bigger clubs, this penalty is insulting.

[mad saint guy]

This is absurd. This begins with Paddy and Day running towards each other when Day has the ball. Once they get close, Day elects to kick so Paddy pulls up and braces for impact - Day has kicked it so close to Ryder that he isn't able to stop running after his kick before they collide. What other choice did Ryder have? Either try to spin around and let Day run past him or collide face to face?

He didn't leave the ground, didn't keep charging towards him after the ball was kicked and didn't stick his elbow out. Downfield free kick would be the right call and leave it at that.

[SainterX1]

Watching the replay, the Hawks player changes direction with his last couple of steps to run straight into Paddy. Looks like he is trying to milk the downfield free.

[Banger9798]

Wasn't even a free kick....he held his ground.
Also immediately concerned when he saw the bloke had hurt himself by crashing into Paddy.

[SunnyErnie]

Resign NOW! And give your job to someone with a brain

Post of the year!!!

[CURLY]

I would really love these media clowns to try and explain what Ryder should have done. They say he had a choice but what was it? A player running with the ball di you need to start back tracking away? Do you stop allowing him clear passage? Do you tackle conceding 50 meters? It’s fine to say he had a choice if in fact he actually did.

Absolute bunch of muppets.

[I love the saints!]

This was a trial by Channel 7 call. I lost count of the amount of times they showed it and said that he was in trouble.

[takeaway]

I don't think you can blame Christian. It is the AFL rules. You should protect the head, but accidental head injuries caused by poor technique (Day), from a fair bump should not result in weeks. I agree with Buckley, game has gone soft. Jack Steele didn't help with his comments, should have gone with the Ratten response "thought it was a fair bump", or at the very least the standard line "didn't see it".

Paddy doesn't risk an extra week, so they definitely appeal.

[magnifisaint]

The decision to suspend Ryder had been predetermined during the live broadcast and the judgment had already occurred

The main reason why players get suspended is because of the reasoning given by the Channel 7 commentators.

They are the judge and jury and they influence public opinion. They provide the evidence and they prosecute.

If Darcy and Linga ignored the contact and if they said 'nothing in it, move on' we wouldn't be debating this. Ryder was prosecuted live on air yesterday

The suspension was a foregone conclusion

I agree but then Christian has no brains. He thinks a formula cuts it when he adjudicates except he has no idea how to apply it. As they they say - rubbish in equals rubbish out.

[saynta]

So why wasn't the Richmond player who tackled Higgins causing him to be concussed suspended?

Good question. Answer that AFL you turds.

[Sainter_Dad]

The MRO should be someone outside of Football who can review and submit their findings - someone with a legal background who is used to ascertaining cause and effect

[StPeter]

Undoubtedly the excessive media coverage and match day commentary had a huge influence on this decision.

Why does St Kilda consistently seem to be harshly dealt with by the powers that be in regard to suspensions?

So often players from other clubs get off, are overlooked or get light suspensions in regard to what seem to be punishable offences.

[meher baba]

It seems a bit unfair to blame the Channel 7 commentators for Christian's consistently inconsistent decision-making. All they really did was accurately predict the way he was going to go.

As always in these cases, the broader AFL commentariat is split between those who tend to say that "we must protect the player's head at all costs and make sure that concerns about concussion don't undermine our sport as they have done some others" and those who say "it's a body contact sport, a man's game, harden up you snowflakes."

I typically will side with the people who are concerned about concussion rather than the chest-thumping macho types. I have always been of the view that what happened to Hunter Clark last year was totally within the rules - if it hadn't been, then Aaron Hamill would have never had a career - but that meant that the rules needed to be changed. And I support those changes.

However, I do think that the case for suspending Ryder is a very marginal one. He did seem to make an active attempt to bump Day, albeit that he didn't really follow through with it (thank goodness for Day's sake). As Day was running straight at Ryder for whatever reason (lack of awareness IMO), there was always going to be a clash. So the questions is, to what extent did Ryder's actions make it worse? I would say that they did to some extent, but the real cause of the incident was Day's lack of awareness of what he was running towards. On that basis, I think a warning might well have been appropriate. One week suspension at a stretch. Two weeks looks very harsh. Let's see what happens.

[shanegrambeau]

It seems a bit unfair to blame the Channel 7 commentators for Christian's consistently inconsistent decision-making. All they really did was accurately predict the way he was going to go.
….

+1

Absolutely.

Complete hogwash to blame Channel 7 for the verdict.


(As usual)

Darcy was just giving his view and he was right.

Typical emotional rhetoric from who knows where.

But, it must be said there is a zeitgeist thingo in general. And there ate agendas that collide and collude. But right here to say cause and effect is Channel 7 = verdict is nonsense.

[Scollop]

... shane and meher

You are either very naïve or just not very perceptive

There are definitely other factors at play including the fact that there is a 'St Kilda' tax and we seem to be too weak to fight the AFL, but this is just 'power' and influence and how it works

[Sainternist]

The decision to suspend Ryder had been predetermined during the live broadcast and the judgment had already occurred

The main reason why players get suspended is because of the reasoning given by the Channel 7 commentators.

They are the judge and jury and they influence public opinion. They provide the evidence and they prosecute.

If Darcy and Linga ignored the contact and if they said 'nothing in it, move on' we wouldn't be debating this. Ryder was prosecuted live on air yesterday

The suspension was a foregone conclusion

Yep, it was trial by media on match day.

Wouldn’t expect any less from two peanuts like Ling and Darcy