Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Thu Jun 26, 2025 11:25 pm

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:17 pm 
Offline
Bert Deacon
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 9:47 am
Posts: 522
Location: Melbourne
Ridiculous decision by the MRP.

It was unintentional contact caused by thornton pushing porp on his side to interrupt him running into space to create an option in the forward 50. The push caused porp to go off balance and move/stumble into Browne's path. Now any person with any sense of awareness will always react to protect themselves when they are running and see an 80+kg person about to make impact with them. Not sure what Browne was meant to do - it was a split second accident, and not a pre-meditated action.

MRP = Spin the lucky wheel and see where it lands!!! :roll:

_________________
The glass is neither half full nor half empty. Rather the glass is twice as big than required.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:17 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
nikki wrote:
Just for those trying to decide whether this was behind the play or in play I am fairly sure that this no longer has in influence on the outcome. After a Barry Hall(?) incident one or two years ago this category was removed from the points system. This is the official verdict from the MRP and there is no mention of behind the play or in play so this particular argument is irrelevant
Quote:
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), severe impact (four points) and high contact (two points).


The rules have reference to head high contact when a player is playing the ball and refer to negligent head high contact.

From 2007 onwards, the stance is any bump causing contact to be made to an opponent's head or neck will be reportable for rough contact, unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to contest the ball, tackle or shepherd. Unfortunately Browne was neither contesting the ball, tackling a player with the ball or shepherding a player within the legal shepherding area. It occurred well off the play.

Unless Browne's act was intentional or reckless it will be deemed negligent if it doesn't meet the above criteria. He automatically gets the points for head high contact too. He could get them reduced for forecful, but it was a pretty forceful act.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:26 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:04 pm
Posts: 48548
Location: Prison Island
verbs wrote:
nikki wrote:
Just for those trying to decide whether this was behind the play or in play I am fairly sure that this no longer has in influence on the outcome. After a Barry Hall(?) incident one or two years ago this category was removed from the points system. This is the official verdict from the MRP and there is no mention of behind the play or in play so this particular argument is irrelevant
Quote:
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), severe impact (four points) and high contact (two points).


The rules have reference to head high contact when a player is playing the ball and refer to negligent head high contact.

From 2007 onwards, the stance is any bump causing contact to be made to an opponent's head or neck will be reportable for rough contact, unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to contest the ball, tackle or shepherd. Unfortunately Browne was neither contesting the ball, tackling a player with the ball or shepherding a player within the legal shepherding area. It occurred well off the play.

Unless Browne's act was intentional or reckless it will be deemed negligent if it doesn't meet the above criteria. He automatically gets the points for head high contact too. He could get them reduced for forecful, but it was a pretty forceful act.


the rules are ridiculous and too inflexible for accidental situations such as this

appeal and he will get off - common sense

waste of everyones time and money

_________________
*(grow - fun - gah) :fight:

Yeah but whatabout your whataboutism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:30 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
If we can prove Browne was running so hard his only choice was to turn the shoulder to protect himself we'd have a chance. It looks like Browne was going after the Porplyzia's shoulder and unfortunately hit him a little higher though. Good on him too!

We need to see more aggression from our boys.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:32 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am
Posts: 2141
Ciccio wrote:
Ridiculous decision by the MRP.

It was unintentional contact caused by thornton pushing porp on his side to interrupt him running into space to create an option in the forward 50. The push caused porp to go off balance and move/stumble into Browne's path. Now any person with any sense of awareness will always react to protect themselves when they are running and see an 80+kg person about to make impact with them. Not sure what Browne was meant to do - it was a split second accident, and not a pre-meditated action.

MRP = Spin the lucky wheel and see where it lands!!! :roll:


Maybe it was Browne's fault for running so near to porplysia. In future, he should run at least five metres away from him at all time and if he doesn't he gives away an automatic 50 metre penalty - such as other perfectly reasonable 50 metre penalties.

For example - the one Gibbs conceded for not hearing the umpire's whistle, using his iniatitive and playing on so as to play fast play on footy. :roll:
that made perfect sense that decision.


Last edited by tap in 79 on Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:33 pm 
Offline
Horrie Clover

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:17 pm
Posts: 337
Location: Melbourne
I didn't read that part verbs...my point was more that there is no points allocated for it being 'behind play'. However I would also argue that in Browne's situation:
Quote:
b. the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen

Browne was running to fill a hole in the backline when Thornton bumped Porp and he began to fall into his path. The way I see it Browne didn't think he had time to aviod contact so did the natural thing and protected himself by turning to avoid being hit in the stomach/ribs.
As a result I would argue that it is not negligent as it was unavoidable contact caused by Thornton's bump
(but then I get very confused by all of the AFL's definitions so I am probably way off)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:35 pm 
Offline
Wayne Johnston

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:59 am
Posts: 8631
nikki wrote:
I didn't read that part verbs...my point was more that there is no points allocated for it being 'behind play'. However I would also argue that in Browne's situation:
Quote:
b. the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen

Browne was running to fill a hole in the backline when Thornton bumped Porp and he began to fall into his path. The way I see it Browne didn't think he had time to aviod contact so did the natural thing and protected himself by turning to avoid being hit in the stomach/ribs.
As a result I would argue that it is not negligent as it was unavoidable contact caused by Thornton's bump
(but then I get very confused by all of the AFL's definitions so I am probably way off)


It was T-Birds fault he pushed Porp on to Browne. They have hung the wrong man :wink:

_________________
Cheats never prosper (except in the AFL)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:41 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
nikki wrote:
I didn't read that part verbs...my point was more that there is no points allocated for it being 'behind play'. However I would also argue that in Browne's situation:
Quote:
b. the bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen

Browne was running to fill a hole in the backline when Thornton bumped Porp and he began to fall into his path. The way I see it Browne didn't think he had time to aviod contact so did the natural thing and protected himself by turning to avoid being hit in the stomach/ribs.
As a result I would argue that it is not negligent as it was unavoidable contact caused by Thornton's bump
(but then I get very confused by all of the AFL's definitions so I am probably way off)


Well that's the best chance we've got, to argue that it was unavoidable and not a negligent act.

A few things though. Browne was watching Porplyzia from a little way back and was going for him, but Thornton definitely created the contact by pushing him. Browne does look to be bracing himself. The biggest problem is he turns his shoulder into Porplyzia's head/neck.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:53 pm 
Offline
Horrie Clover

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:17 pm
Posts: 337
Location: Melbourne
verbs wrote:
Well that's the best chance we've got, to argue that it was unavoidable and not a negligent act.

A few things though. Browne was watching Porplyzia from a little way back and was going for him, but Thornton definitely created the contact by pushing him. Browne does look to be bracing himself. The biggest problem is he turns his shoulder into Porplyzia's head/neck.


Good points...I haven't looked at the incident close enough to establish where Browney was looking but I would suggest that he was probably going to bump Porp in his shoulder as he ran past, as most of our players had all day, and Thornton's bump put him off course. In the end I think it will come down to the mood the tribunal is in and how good our defence is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:59 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
Well if we can argue our way out of the negligent charge he will be free.

Some times I reckon he saw a chance to target the shoulder, other times I feel he was just bracing himself. It's hard to tell from watching the incident.

He can't avoid the severe impact or high contact factors so a conduct defence is his only option.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:00 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 6272
Location: Lurking
Sydney Blue wrote:
I didn't think SA people had brains to bruise

Not really a very nice thing to say about Kernahan, Bradley, McKay, and especially Motley.

Some of you should really think about where some of our greatest players come from before you go posting crap like this.

_________________
I AM DISENFRANCHISED


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:05 pm 
Online
Alex Jesaulenko

Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 2:15 pm
Posts: 21587
Location: North of the border
Lurker Blue wrote:
Sydney Blue wrote:
I didn't think SA people had brains to bruise

Not really a very nice thing to say about Kernahan, Bradley, McKay, and especially Motley.

Some of you should really think about where some of our greatest players come from before you go posting crap like this.


Being a bit precious there are you not

Never heard of friendly banter between states


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:14 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:43 pm
Posts: 4745
samblueboy wrote:
With the footage that was shown how on Earth did they come up with that. Incidental contact if there ever was one.

I don't know how Lenny Hayes survived without a mere mention. Port player had his head over the ball, Hayes slides in and his shoulder makes reasonable contact with the other guys neck. Had the guy gone off in a stretcher like Porplezia, Hayes would be out for the season. It seems like the review board are spending more time watching footage that follows the incident than the actual incident.


And B Goddard should get 6 then for his late raised elbow which collected that Port bloke on the scone. They replied it 3 times on On The Couch, and dear old Mike actually made sense for a change when he said "Gee Robert........I reckon he was a bit lucky there".

Milburn gets the same penalty for his disgraceful pile drive of young Edwards FFS !

What a joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:20 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am
Posts: 23123
verbs valiently trying to cover his arse.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:20 pm 
Offline
Geoff Southby
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 7:43 am
Posts: 5175
Location: Corner of Queen and Collins
Looked to me like Browne was trying to protect himself from a vicious headbutt to the guts that may or may not have been caused by fellow Blue Bret Thornton pushing Porplyzia in the back. Those headbutts can be a real way to earn free kicks a la Jude Bolton...it should have been a free kick to Browne.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:28 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 6272
Location: Lurking
Sydney Blue wrote:
Lurker Blue wrote:
Sydney Blue wrote:
I didn't think SA people had brains to bruise

Not really a very nice thing to say about Kernahan, Bradley, McKay, and especially Motley.

Some of you should really think about where some of our greatest players come from before you go posting crap like this.


Being a bit precious there are you not

Never heard of friendly banter between states

Given what happened to Motts, I really don't 'think there's anything "friendly" or funny about it at all.

_________________
I AM DISENFRANCHISED


Last edited by Lurker Blue on Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:28 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
Jarusa wrote:
verbs valiently trying to cover his arse.


It fits the criteria 100%. To the letter. I said from the start I expected 1 week. He'll be lucky if that's what he ends up with as he made no attempt to avoid contact.

Still if I am covering my arse what am I risking? The respect of of a "doctor"? what a shame that would be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:32 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:00 am
Posts: 23123
verbs wrote:
Jarusa wrote:
verbs valiently trying to cover his arse.


It fits the criteria 100%. To the letter. I said from the start I expected 1 week. He'll be lucky if that's what he ends up with as he made no attempt to avoid contact.

Still if I am covering my arse what am I risking? The respect of of a "doctor"? what a shame that would be.


The shame of TC, it is a terrible shame.

You wanted Browne gone for 3 weeks at the start.

In the last few posts you have changed your position to 'maybe'.

That is covering your arse Mr Didak.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:35 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 28377
Location: *Currently banned*
Jarusa wrote:
verbs wrote:
Jarusa wrote:
verbs valiently trying to cover his arse.


It fits the criteria 100%. To the letter. I said from the start I expected 1 week. He'll be lucky if that's what he ends up with as he made no attempt to avoid contact.

Still if I am covering my arse what am I risking? The respect of of a "doctor"? what a shame that would be.


The shame of TC, it is a terrible shame.

You wanted Browne gone for 3 weeks at the start.

In the last few posts you have changed your position to 'maybe'.

That is covering your arse Mr Didak.


How does two weeks reduced to one equal three?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:52 pm 
Offline
Stephen Silvagni

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 25436
Location: Bondi Beach
From the footage I've seen (from 2 angles) there's no way known that the MRP would have seen a short upper cut to the temple, if there was one.

There's no doubt the porpoise was heading straight into Browne from a Thornton push and Browne braced himself.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AGRO, bluedog, CarltonComeback, Laguna, Mickstar, MPH78, Traveller86 and 56 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group