Yep ... incredible. Should have got two weeks minimum last week for a greater indiscretion, but gets one week this time. Who knows the inner workings of the tribunal :rolleyes:
Printable View
Disgraceful decision. Last week much worse, pleads guilty and gets a fine.
This week, it’s not even clear he did anything worth more than a free and they make it up as they go along and over-correct because of not suspending him last week.
The giants should absolutely appeal this nonsense.
Agree, how you can state the cases are assessed individually then agree with a week in this instance, and a fine the week prior in a much clearer and more serious case is beyond me. I'm in no way defending Greene; I'm scratching my head at this kangaroo court of a tribunal.
Giants appealing. Be interested to know what the basis for the appeal is.
Link
Lets hope they fail and he gets two weeks just because I don't like him.
Assuming the appeal gets squashed ... the only thing better than GWS failing in another prelim is them failing by the approximate margin of a typical Greene contribution.
I want to see Leon, Phil and Co. continue to defend the selfish, recalcitrant prick after his deranged f*ckwittery costs them a berth in a granny.
Let me put my feet up while you tell me all about how you don't want Toby to go changin' the way he goes about it THEN, wankers.
Well they have changed their tune for the AFL's love child.. This is what was reported with one of Big Red's suspensions.
On Monday, the Match Review Panel had found Redpath guilty of striking Davis intentionally to the head with low impact, with a previous bad record stretching his ban to two matches — with an early guilty plea.
Just because the AFL made a mistake last week, I don't see why they should be forced to repeat it.
Greene's ban should stand.
It's almost like they did this with Toby Greene in mind!!??
Gobsmacking!
Still haven't heard back from Gillon, by the way.
Appeal quashed!
I'd be furious if I was the Giants.
But I'm not, so ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAUNlO6-rlk
If that got a week, the Bontempelli incident was worth five !!!
Full credit to Nick Pane QC, the AFL's legal counsel.
His preparation for both the tribunal hearing and the appeal were meticulous and calculated.
He seemed to anticipate every move, every argument GWS would try and make and was ready for it. A complete contrast to Jack Gleeson's efforts last week.
But it's obviously the AFL's fault. And the judiciary for being so woefully out of tune with players who are just, lets be perfectly honest, are just pushing the edge.
After all if a couple of blokes walked up to you on the street and pushed you over, while one pins your arms on the ground and the other one gouges your eyes then you would understand that they are just pushing the envelope and playing for keeps wouldn't you? Nothing personal, it's just business mate.
Quote:
Hayes charged by MRO
Western Bulldogs midfielder Will Hayes has been offered a one-match sanction by the AFL Match Review Officer (MRO), for an incident in Saturday’s Marsh Community Series match in Whyalla.
The 24-year-old was charged with engaging in rough conduct against Port Adelaide’s Dan Houston during the first quarter.
His tackle was assessed by the MRO as careless conduct with medium impact and high contact.
Hayes can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea, which would see him miss the Bulldogs’ 2020 season-opener against Collingwood in a fortnight’s time.
Surely this is a joke.
It was a sling tackle, 1 week is fair enough.
Not when a hip and shoulder that knocks a bloke out is worth only two.
Usually this lottery of a system comes down to how injured someone gets. As far as I know there was no concussion/other injury received, so it should have only registered ‘Low impact’ not the medium it was graded at.
If it was done to one of our players I'd expect they got a week. Fair cop.
That sling tackles of a moderate nature are within spitting distance of KO'ing players like Richards is a seperate issue. I'm happy to keep the sling tackle like this at one week with a plea and to increase the suspension significantly on players causing a brain injury.
I finish where I start though, one week is fair.
Was Dutton injured? Was he concussed?
When is a sling tackle dangerous?
Quote:
Meanwhile, Melbourne’s Jack Viney has also been cleared of a sling tackle on Hawthorn defender Ben Stratton.“It was the view of the Match Review Officer that while this action constituted a dangerous tackle and was unreasonable in the circumstances, there was insufficient impact to constitute a reportable offence,” an AFL statement read.
There is a fine line
It's not too controversial the way I see it, but I get you're frustrated with the MRO. For me, I hate sling tacklesand the huge risk they pose to vulnerable players. So if a few players have to cop a week here or there to see a change in player behaviour I'm ok with it. Just like tripping back in the day got the treatment. Dutton may not have been injured or concussed and it's lucky he wasn't or it could've been two or three weeks. Hopefully Hayes takes it on the chin, reviews the tapes about what (if any) other options he had and works on his technique. Just as long as he doesn't brush his hand near Phil Davis upper torso and be a thug like Jack Redpath.
That would only work if Bulldog players didn't get suspended so often for minor offences that wouldn't even see a free kick paid against players from other teams. IE, our blokes are picked out so often I don't think other teams even notice unless we are playing them in the period of their suspension.
The only thing one should expect is constancy. If that can't be achieved they need to review the process.
Fair cop for the tackle and anyone that does the same should expect the same penalty.
That includes the brownlow favorites of this world.