Murphy gets ONE week

[DOG GOD]

murph gets 1
burton 2
waters 2

A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

[The Coon Dog]

So, 1 week with an early plea, or 2 weeks if he challenges & fails.

After the Peter Burgoyne one, I'd be inclined not to roll the dice & have him available to play Brisbane at the MCG.

[G-Mo77]

Unfortunatly it is not a joke.

I expected 1 week, a joke it may seem but this is the 2008 AFL we are talking about here! What I didn't expect was sissy charges on Burton and Waters which were both much more wreckless and could have been more damaging (fortunatly they were not) but to get the same punishment as Murphy is an absoloute disgrace!!

[Go_Dogs]

So, 1 week with an early plea, or 2 weeks if he challenges & fails.

After the Peter Burgoyne one, I'd be inclined not to roll the dice & have him available to play Brisbane at the MCG.

Shaun? But yes, agreed. Take the week. Unlucky, but better than 3.

[LostDoggy]

This is a bloody joke. How the hell could you suspend someone for a simple bump. It should have been a free kick at most. ffs it was just a bump, this is the most ridiculous thing that I have heard. The way things are going, we will be watching netball not footy in a few years time. :mad:

[bulldog]

a bloody disgrace

[ratsmac]

the old tribuneral system worked better than this bollocks. i agree with you G-Mo77, how can murphy recieve the same penalty as the other two incidents. the points system itself is flawed.
not happy jan.

[LostDoggy]

I agree that he doesn't deserve a week, especially given that he's pretty much holding his ground as Ellis is coming twoards him, but if Murphy does decide to appeal the decision, which factors of the suspension can he argue against?

The AFL site states that "Murphy's contact was assessed as negligent, medium impact and high, which drew 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension."

It doesn't help that Ellis had a bloody nose, and looked a bit proppy after the bump.

[GVGjr]

It's a two week suspension that has been knocked back to one on the proviso that he doesn;t challenge it. I'd expect that he would cop that.

[1eyedog]

Given he played in the Vic v All Stars game & most of his team mates had a week off, it mightn't be a bad thing.

Exactly, have a rest champ!

[Mantis]

Even if I don't agree with the way the game is being run the MRP & AFL have shown that any contact with the head wont be tolerated. With this being the case Murf was always going to get weeks, 1 is better than 2 so I think we just have to cop it on the chin.

[aker39]

The AFL site states that "Murphy's contact was assessed as negligent, medium impact and high, which drew 225 demerit points and a two-match suspension."




That is the problem with a system were you tick boxes to come up with an answer.

Under the old tribunal, he would not have been suspended. The tribunal used to at least show some common sense.

This system does not allow for any common sense.

If he is to take this to the tribunal, the only thing he could challenge is the medium impact. Negligent is the lowest rating, it was clearly high, so impact is the only challenge.

[mjp]

He ran past the ball. Yes, you are allowed to bump, but the moment he hit him in the head he was in trouble. The AFL have said again and again that the duty of care is with the player who initiates the contact...

I have no problem with the tribunal's decision.

[Super 27]

I am pretty dissapointed like the rest...just cop the week and move on. Who wil come into the side?

[The Pie Man]

I am pretty dissapointed like the rest...just cop the week and move on. Who wil come into the side?

Is it time to try Cam Wight on the forward line?

Callan Ward for Tim Callan?

On the Couch, both Sheahan & Walls reckon Murph deserves the week, as per the new rules.

[LostDoggy]

Is it time to try Cam Wight on the forward line?
Yes

Callan Ward for Tim Callan?
Yes

On the Couch, both Sheahan & Walls reckon Murph deserves the week, as per the new rules.
Of course, wouldn't have expected anything less from the pair of knuckleheads. Sheeds was spot on.
cheers,

Jaxs :cool:

[The Pie Man]

Of course, wouldn't have expected anything less from the pair of knuckleheads. Sheeds was spot on.
cheers,

Jaxs :cool:

That was funny from Sheeds - and Walls reckons he's 'dined' with Sheedy in the last few years....doubt he'll be around at his joint anytime soon after the extinct club call.

[LostDoggy]

wat a joke.
Burton doesn't deserve two either, didn't see Water's

[Mantis]

I only saw the Waters incident once on the news, but didn't think there was much in it. He hit him hard, but I thought there wasn't much contact to the head region..

[mjp]

wat a joke.
Burton doesn't deserve two either, didn't see Water's

Burton is very lucky - by far the worst of the 3 and could well have gotten a month. If it had been Pickett who hit him he would have got life.

[Tugun Goalsneak]

Of course, wouldn't have expected anything less from the pair of knuckleheads. Sheeds was spot on.
cheers,

Jaxs :cool:

Sheehan NEVER played the game and Walls is nothing less than a "holier than thou" armchair assassin. Never have I heard Walls say anything complimentary about our side, fair dinkum, Ted Whitten and jack Dyer would be turning in their graves right now at how they are softening up the game. Players go into packs unprotected but their stupidity is covered by the Duty-of-care crap.
I like to see opposition players bleed, especially from fair hard bumps. Any reference to netball should be discouraged, after all netball is now a much more physical game than our national game, I just hope they don't bring in the "duity of care" rule to netball. Unless of course we can get Robert - bloody - Walls commentating netball instead of footballIt's enough to make a bloke spew!

[LostDoggy]

1 week is fair enough. For Burton and Waters they probably should have got more and the players had their head down.

[LostDoggy]

Players go into packs unprotected but their stupidity is covered by the Duty-of-care crap.
!

Ellis was wide open and if he wants to move to the ball like that he deserves to get wacked. That's part of the game.

Entirely different to the Burton effort where Slattery was over the ball and Burton charged in intending to make contact with the head

This running past the ball crap also annoys me. Nobody will ever shepherd again if this is the criteria. It's what shepherding and fending off is all about - allowing your team-mate to get the pill why you take care of the opposition.

The game is finished as a contact sport after this. Next the umpire will chop his wrist when any contact is made and award a free kick.

[bornadog]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/svHAWTHORN.jpg

Unfortunately Murphy's elbow contacted Ellis on the nose. I believe Murphy will accept the one week.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/rf_hawk_dog4_gallery__248x4000.jpg

[LostDoggy]

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/svHAWTHORN.jpg

Unfortunately Murphy's elbow contacted Ellis on the nose. I believe Murphy will accept the one week.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/rf_hawk_dog4_gallery__248x4000.jpg

THe elbow did not contact ellis on the nose or anywhere else

This pic is not evidence of contact with the elbow

[bornadog]

THe elbow did not contact ellis on the nose or anywhere else

This pic is not evidence of contact with the elbow

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/rf_hawk_dog4_gallery__248x4000.jpg

Note the blood on Ellis

[Go_Dogs]

Wasn't an elbow tho, was more shoulder/upper arm.

Agreed, he kept it tucked in pretty well. The photo above showing the 'elbow' looks like it was taken just after the initial contact, as the bodies were bouncing off each other and hence the elbow looks raised.

[Sockeye Salmon]

That first picture clearly shows Murphy's elbow below Ellis' nose and Ellis' head has already gone backwards.

He could only have been hit with the shoulder or bicep (maybe the problem is that Murphy's biceps are too big?).


I hate the way the AFL introduce a rule for a specific purpose, almost always on the basis of a single incident, and then over the years the rule evolves into something 10x bigger and collects all kinds of things that it was never meant too.

Trial by video was introduced for behind-the-play thugs following the Matthews-Bruns incident. Everything else was to be reported by umpires as usual. Within a few years umpires had given up reporting almost altogether and now the MRP do practically all the reporting.

The high shot rule was brought in following the Long-Simmonds hit in the 2000 GF and was designed to protect a player with his head over the ball. Now any minor touch of the head is a report. It's just not practical that blokes going 100 miles an hour get reported for missing a bumping target by 2 inches when they've done everything else right.

Burton deserved to go for a lot more than 2, Murphy bumped a bloke standing up.

[Twodogs]

Watch the replay. Ellis veers off the ball just as much as Murph. Murph would have been taken out if he hadnt reacted so what was he supposed to do?



The key point in all of this is Ellis is upright at the point of contact, not stooped over the ball unaware of what's coming.

[Twodogs]

Burton is very lucky - by far the worst of the 3 and could well have gotten a month. If it had been Pickett who hit him he would have got life.



With good reason. Pickett rarely had eyes for the ball, all he was ever interested in doing was maximum damage to any player who had his head over the ball. He was a sniper of the first order.

I've got no problem with cleaning the game of that sort of gutlessness.

[Twodogs]

One last thing while I'm in complaint mode.



What sort of judicial system says that you get a penalty, but if you dare to exercise your right to due process (IE appeal the decision) then we'll attempt to stop you by holding an extra penalty over your head?



A lousy one, that's what. If the AFL attempted to appeal a penalty they considered too light where's the deterent for them? How is that justice? It's not and it turns the MRP and the tribunal sytem itself into a farce. "Justice"? Yeah right!

[Sockeye Salmon]

With good reason. Pickett rarely had eyes for the ball, all he was ever interested in doing was maximum damage to any player who had his head over the ball. He was a sniper of the first order.

I've got no problem with cleaning the game of that sort of gutlessness.

Mike's point is valid, though.

Some players are dealt with much more harshly than others.

If Pickett had done what Burton had done he probably would have got 8.

Minson or Lake about 6
Murphy still would have got 1.

[bornadog]

Wasn't an elbow tho, was more shoulder/upper arm.

Whether its an elbow, shoulder, upper arm, the AFL has deemed he hit him in the head (bloody nose is evidence).

Look, I don't agree, but I can see where they are coming from.

[Twodogs]

Mike's point is valid, though.

Some players are dealt with much more harshly than others.

If Pickett had done what Burton had done he probably would have got 8.

Minson or Lake about 6
Murphy still would have got 1.


Understood and FWIW I cant understand how Burton got of as lightly as he did. My point is that Burton could claim his action as a singular, once off moment of madness. Pickett was a dangerous thug with a pattern of behaviour and I hate seeing him portrayed as some sort of he-man who was hard done by.




Whether its an elbow, shoulder, upper arm, the AFL has deemed he hit him in the head (bloody nose is evidence).

Look, I don't agree, but I can see where they are coming from.


But it's not. Not under any acceptable rules of evidence. The bloody nose could have been a product of his face hitting the ground when he fell. We all know that it was caused by Murph's shoulder but there's enough reasonable doubt for it not be. Remember it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not on the balance of probabilties.

[The Pie Man]

One last thing while I'm in complaint mode.



What sort of judicial system says that you get a penalty, but if you dare to exercise your right to due process (IE appeal the decision) then we'll attempt to stop you by holding an extra penalty over your head?



A lousy one, that's what. If the AFL attempted to appeal a penalty they considered too light where's the deterent for them? How is that justice? It's not and it turns the MRP and the tribunal sytem itself into a farce. "Justice"? Yeah right!

That's just an excellent point - I could maybe support an adding of 50 points to your next case should you lose an appeal, but not an increased sentence.

[Topdog]

The whole ordeal was a joke.

Murphy getting reported and then suspended is completely ridiculous. He took 1-2 steps and gave him a hip and shoulder.

Burton never even attempted to get the ball and smashed into a guy whose head was over the ball.

Waters wasn't too bad either but he got there a second too late.

[BulldogBelle]

The whole ordeal was a joke.

Murphy getting reported and then suspended is completely ridiculous. He took 1-2 steps and gave him a hip and shoulder.
.


Agree.
Anyone have it on tape? It looks to me like the ball went past Murf - he didn't 'run past the ball', and he was not moving when the guy crashed into him.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Darren Goldspink was on SEN discussing this.

He said Murphy "ran past the ball and got him high".

1) There is no rule that says you can't run past the ball. Eagleton has made a career out of it.
2) There were 9 free kicks paid on Saturday for high contact. Why were the other 8 not reports? Because high contact is not necessarily a report.


It was clearly not a strike, the elbow was tucked in tight.
It wasn't a charge as Ellis wasn't going for a mark.
Ellis didn't have his head over the ball.


I am yet to find out what Murphy has done wrong?

I suspect the answer is he gave Ellis a blood nose and blood looks bad on telly.

[mjp]

The fact he ran past the ball is not a crime. But it means that they can say it was 'intentional' contact rather than accidental contact.

In essence, what you are saying is right SS, but you surely knew what was going to happen here...he hit him in the head - with his shoulder in my opinion - and that means trouble. As soon as Ellis had blood on him and had to be helped from the ground, Murphy was gone...you are right, it looked bad on TV.

[Twodogs]

The fact he ran past the ball is not a crime. But it means that they can say it was 'intentional' contact rather than accidental contact.

In essence, what you are saying is right SS, but you surely knew what was going to happen here...he hit him in the head - with his shoulder in my opinion - and that means trouble. As soon as Ellis had blood on him and had to be helped from the ground, Murphy was gone...you are right, it looked bad on TV.



We all knew what was going to happen but it doesnt make it right or any easier to swallow.


The MRP making it up as they go along is the issue. When it somes down to it Murph was either guilty of an intentional/reckless head high bump/charge, in which case he should have got 3-4 weeks, or he did nothing wrong. You cant be a little bit pregnant and Murph's penalty was window dressing.

Judicial systems are supposed to be consistant and governed according to precedent. Anderson saying a couple of years ago that precedent didnt matter was the death knock for the MRP-it's dead in the water. Anderson is a lawyer and must know that he's being disingenous when he trys to argue two sides of an argument just to suit his purposes-that's not how the law works.

[alwaysadog]

Is it time to try Cam Wight on the forward line?

Callan Ward for Tim Callan?

On the Couch, both Sheahan & Walls reckon Murph deserves the week, as per the new rules.

Two bears of very small brains, but that is the level at which this aspect of the game is administered

[alwaysadog]

Judicial systems are supposed to be consistant and governed according to precedent. Anderson saying a couple of years ago that precedent didnt matter was the death knock for the MRP-it's dead in the water. Anderson is a lawyer and must know that he's being disingenous when he trys to argue two sides of an argument just to suit his purposes-that's not how the law works.

Your first point is correct that is how it is supposed to work, but lawyers are always fantastic at arguing with total sincerity of course, for the outcome that suits them. Anderson is just being true to type and in this case he's the advocate and the judge all at the same time... and he's not conflicted?

[Twodogs]

Your first point is correct that is how it is supposed to work, but lawyers are always fantastic at arguing with total sincerity of course, for the outcome that suits them. Anderson is just being true to type and in this case he's the advocate and the judge all at the same time... and he's not conflicted?


That's what a lawyers job is but lawyers have to work within the rules of evidence. I cant see that anything has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a lot of caes that are adjudicated by the MRP. The AFL were keen to avoid the type of legal challenges that were being lodged in the early to mid '90s by. The main problems were a lack of due process (right of appeal and judicial review of cases) and how/what type of evidence was apporopriate. Those problems still exist.


And you're dead right with your last point about Anderson being cheer leader and having the ultimate say in the outcome of a case. Where's the separation of powers? Or is it like the Joh government and they dont believe in all that nonsense?