MRP – Rd20

Written by Schwarzwalder on August 7 2017

The AFL wishes to advise the Match Review Panel has reviewed the matches played in Round 20 of the 2017 Toyota AFL Premiership Season. The following charges were laid:

Charges Laid:
Tom Hawkins, Geelong Cats, has been charged with striking Dane Rampe, Sydney Swans, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between the Geelong Cats and the Sydney Swans played at Domain Stadium on Friday August 4, 2017.

In summary, due to a previous poor record, his two-match sanction is increased by one further game to three matches and he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional contact with low impact to the face. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. A poor record over the last two seasons increases the penalty by one-game to a three-match sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a two-match sanction.

Mitch Duncan, Geelong Cats, has been charged with a striking Tom Papley, Sydney Swans, during the fourth quarter of the Round 20 match between the Geelong Cats and the Sydney Swans, played at Domain Stadium on Friday August 4, 2017.

In summary he can accept one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with medium impact to the body. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a one-match sanction.

Shane Mumford, GWS Giants, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Max Gawn, Melbourne, during the third quarter of the Round 20 match the GWS Giants and Melbourne, played at UNSW Canberra Oval on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with medium impact to the head. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. The player has a no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a one-match sanction.

Zach Merrett, Essendon, has been charged with striking Lachie Plowman, Carlton, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between Essendon and Carlton, played at the MCG on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Carlton Football Club, the incident was assessed as an intentional conduct with medium impact to the body. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a one-match sanction.

Joe Daniher, Essendon, has been charged with striking Blaine Boekhorst, Carlton, during the third quarter of the Round 20 match between Essendon and Carlton, played at the MCG on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a $1500 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Carlton Football Club, the incident was assessed as an careless conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was a second classifiable offence this season and classified as a $2500 sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1500 sanction.

Brodie Grundy, Collingwood, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Ben Brown, North Melbourne, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between Collingwood and North Melbourne, played at Etihad Stadium on Saturday August 5, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from North Melbourne Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with high impact to the head. The incident was classified as a three-match sanction. The player has no applicable record with impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a two-match sanction.

Josh Jenkins, Adelaide Crows, has been charged with a first wrestling offence for wrestling Jackson Trengove, Port Adelaide, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide, played at the Adelaide Oval on Sunday August 6, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.

A first offence for wrestling is a $1500 sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1000 sanction.

Jackson Trengove, Port Adelaide, has been charged with a third wrestling offence for wrestling Josh Jenkins, Adelaide Crows, during the second quarter of the Round 20 match between Port Adelaide and the Adelaide Crows, played at the Adelaide Oval on Sunday August 6, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a $2500 sanction with an early plea.

A third offence for wrestling is a $4000 sanction. An early plea enables the player to accept a $2500 sanction.

Other incidents assessed
Contact between Melbourne’s Jake Melksham and the GWS Giants’ Jacob Hopper from the third quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. It was the view of the panel that the force used in the contact was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

Contact between North Melbourne’s Ben Cunnington and Collingwood’s Tyson Goldsack from the third quarter of Saturday’s match was assessed. The panel said a Collingwood player had the ball and kicked upfield towards Goldsack. Goldsack begin to move to his left to seek to mark the ball while Cunnington ran towards the contest on his line to the ball. Contact was made between the pair as the ball arrived. It was the view of the panel that Cunnington ran in a direct path to the ball and his action was not a bumping action was not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.

The match day report laid against St Kilda’s Luke Dunstan for tripping West Coast’s Jack Redden was assessed. It was the view of the panel the force used was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

3
0


Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

36 thoughts on “MRP – Rd20”

  1. That is the toughest and biggest MRP Findings of the year Supercoach wise right in the middle of SC finals.
    Some SC players year will be over on the back of these suspensions.

    13

    0
  2. I’m confused about how are you supposed to tackle now, leave there arms free so they can make a handpass and cost you a big match. Really this rule is a joke, it’s a contact sport and injuries happen. The MRP and the rules commitee are a disgrace this year, umpiring rules even changed last weekend. As Thommo said leave the game alone.

    17

    1
      1. I thought the rule was pin the arms & drop the player head 1st was the offence , now if they fall flat n hurt their head at any time they,re reported , only way to stop confusion about this rule is to eliminate the tackle , like they did with the bump , it will change the game , but tacklers wont be getting suspended n the AFL wont have to deal with being sued by players in the future

        1

        0
    1. Yes I grew up in 80s n 90s loving the game and its physicality. AFL is a joke now. The world of political correctness in all facets of our lives is changing us for the worse. Society and our lives will soon be enclosed in a vast bubble of protection.

      16

      2
  3. Umpires should also cop a week.Ziebell gets pinged for a dangerous tackle and no MRP sanction,Grundy gets a free for holding the ball and cops 2 weeks!!!!

    14

    1
  4. I mentioned it on Twitter last week with Dangerfield…….what’s the incentive to tackle fairly when you run the risk of getting suspended? Absolute joke of a rule. What’s next? If a player takes a big pack mark but collects another player with their knee on the way up, are they going to cop a few weeks as well? Where does it end? Do you have to suspend every player that causes an injury but has played within the rules?

    17

    1
    1. I’ve forgotten the player’s name……go back a few years to when Nathan Brown (RICH) broke his leg so badly while getting smothered. Would he get suspended for the smother nowadays? Because it caused a serious injury? Because that’s what’s happened to Danger & Grundy. They’ve played within the rules but unfortunately the opposition player has gone off injured. It happens, it’s a contact sport and there was no malice in any of those incidents…..PLAY ON ffs! Rant over……

      17

      0
      1. You make some good points but what you are saying about malice is wrong. It was classes as careless because that is what the tackle was, this might be an unpopular opinion but when you say “it happens” I really feel like it shouldn’t. These calls should be made as Brown could have easily been seriously injured which should never happen.

        3

        4
        1. If the tackle is fair (and in Grundys case, he won the free kick) then I’m of the opinion that the resulting injury shouldn’t be taken into account…..

          4

          1
    2. Guy at work and I were joking this afternoon that one day someone will get bumped/pushed off that ball which will result in them crashing into someone causing a broken nose and copping the careless/high/high finding. Then turned into that silence/awkward laugh that it could go that way one day and they’ll say something like “should have made an evasive effort” ….

      7

      0
    3. Not much pisses me off mate but this rule does, if you hurt someone in a tackle you get suspended. How do you make a good tackle now without pinning the arms, rule makers tell us.

      5

      0
  5. bugger, i have duncan, mummy and zerrett…add to that darcy and duckwood along with no trades my chances of making any further just stopped…allows me me time to spend on my epl team…

    15

    0
  6. If it wasn’t for SC I would have very little interest in AFL footy.
    It isn’t (& hasn’t been for many years) Aussie Rules Footy but some hybrid game called AFL.
    Interchange rotation turned the game into a hyper flood game resembling little leaguers.
    We loved the game coz we mere mortals weren’t good enough/brave enough to be out there. Now my 14 year old could get out there & get a kick & walk away without a bruise. It’s so sad that my beloved game has lost me.

    8

    8
    1. You’re 14 year old must be good. What’s his name? What’s his kick:handball ratio like? Wanna pick him as a starting rookie next season? Will he have DPP status?

      6

      0
    2. People have an image in their mind of the way our game looked from around the 70s through to the mid-2000s, and they think that up until now, it always looked that way. It didn’t. Indeed, many supposedly ‘modern’ tactics have been popular in past eras. Rolling zones, for example, were popular in the 1890s, and again in the 1930s. But whatever the tactical fashions of the day, congestion has always been a part of our game.

      Take a look at the picture of an Australian Rules game drawn in 1866: https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/50313/area14mp/jr764s5r-1401933398.jpg

      Look familiar?

      Or how about this article published in The Age in 1911, bemoaning the tendencies of players to leave their ‘natural’ positions to press up, fold back, or attend a stoppage: https://www.foxsports.com.au/news/afl-congestion-1911-newspaper-article-shows-afls-longstanding-problem/news-story/c639f9e90b9c3182014fc04412cccc34

      Sound familiar?

      The reality is that congestion is as old as the game itself. Far from being the natural state of the game, the look of 70s through early-2000s football was the exception, not the rule.

      1

      0
  7. I’ll have my 2 cents too. In my book, it is not about whether the Grundy tackle is good or bad, it’s more about how new rules should be implemented.

    I believe the AFL needs to start modelling rules in the VFL, WAFL, SANFL, etc for 2 years before changing AFL rules. Instead they continue to change rules on the fly and then we get unforeseen consequences. Often the rule changes designed to protect players’ welfare simply led to a different type of injury occurring because no one correctly guessed how the coaches and players would adjust.

    I said stop changing the rules but what I should have said was stop changing rules as a knee jerk reaction. A tackle causing a concussion in Round 10 that wasn’t cited by the MRP should not result in a suspension 10 weeks later. At least give the players an off-season to adjust their technique.

    And if the AFL is too unpeofessional to model new rules then bloody leave the game alone.

    10

    0
  8. I had a lot to say about the Grundy tackle on the night, but I will reiterate my position here:

    #1 If Grundy did the wrong thing, why was he awarded a free kick? And if he didn’t do the wrong thing, how can you justify suspending him (especially given that you actually REWARDED him on the night).

    #2 If the MRP is going to judge actions by their consequences rather than their intent (which is, in my view, patently stupid, but that’s another story), why wasn’t Buddy suspended for his tackle on Selwood? Brown *might* miss a week. Selwood is going to miss at least a month.

    #3 Say what you will about players pinning both arms, but a big factor here that nobody seems to be talking about is the hardness of the playing surfaces these days, and particularly the shortness of the grass. Let the grass grow out a bit, and I guarantee that you will see less of these kinds of injuries.

    #4 Some have suggested that part of this is a PR-driven attempt to reassure overprotective parents that the game is safe, so that they will let their children play it, lest they go and play soccer. Firstly, we shouldn’t pander to these types of people. If they want to go and play a wimpy sport, let them. Secondly, soccer does not pose a long-term threat to the AFL. Look at the dominant football codes on either side of the Barassi line (the rugby codes in NSW and Queensland, Australian Rules everywhere else): aside from the fact that they both use an ovoid ball, the main thing that they have in common is that they are rough, full-contact sports. Australians love their biffo. Indeed, one of the most common complaints that you hear from Australians with regard to soccer is that it is soft. Until the rules of association football are changed so that you are allowed to shirtfront somebody (or at the very least tackle them to the ground), it will never capture the hearts and minds of most Australians. Put simply, soccer does not pose a credible threat to the AFL.

    #5 There are times when the MRP’s power goes to its head, and it starts behaving as if it were a shadow Laws of the Game committee. What we need more than anything in times like this is for some brave person to stand up and challenge them, to have some stupid decision of the MRP overturned, and to put them back in their box.

    Take, for example, the MRP’s blatant attempt to eradicate the bump from our game in early 2014. Players were being hit with big suspensions for just about any bump that made contact with the head, intentional or otherwise. This culminated in an incident involving Jack Viney being referred directly to the Tribunal, which handed him a two week ban, without him having actually done anything wrong. The bump was dead, or so it seemed. Backed by the club hierarchy, Viney challenged the decision. The AFL Appeals Board took just thirteen minutes to overturn his suspension, and, in effect, labelled the MRP and Tribunal as stupid (or “so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it”, as stated by the AFL’s rules for overturning such decisions). The MRP was emasculated. They backed off. The bump lived.

    Will somebody do the same for the tackle?

    11

    1
    1. The grass??

      When you have maybe 100kgs slamming you down hard into the turf surely a few extra cm’s of grass won’t do diddly squat

      Apologies if i missed the sarcasm

      2

      1
      1. It used to be a lot longer. There’s a difference between jumping off a roof onto concrete and jumping onto a stunt mat. All things being equal, hitting a soft surface will have a lower impact to the body than hitting a hard one. That’s not sarcasm, it’s physics.

        In any case, point #3 is probably the least important point in my argument.

        4

        1
  9. Sorry to disagree with most of you, but I think you all have a romantic, but inaccurate recollection of how “footy used to be”.
    The incidence of players being tackled & knocked unconscious, via pinning of the arms, is a new phenomenon, perhaps only 2 or 3 years old. Prior to that & certainly 5 or more years ago, it just didn’t happen! Players didn’t have the skill or willingness to tackle like they do now.
    Fortunately, there is a duty of care now, particularly with regard to the head & I’m all for that. That’s not to say that Grundy, Danger & others, are “dirty” players, but we must recognize that the landscape has changed. It won’t take long before players make an adjustment!
    Finally, I do think that the MRP should make a distinction, when handing out penalties, so that incidents such as these, although subject to suspension, are not deemed to be actions causing the perpetrator to be ineligible for the Brownlow.

    2

    2
    1. Surely this is a matter for the Laws of the Game committee, not the MRP? It is simply not the proper role of the latter to be inventing new rules.

      3

      1
    2. You have every right to disagree, LS. And you’ve laid out a good case……..
      There is definitely a move by the MRP/AFL to protect the players heads especially in regards to these tackles and I can understand that. But like I said before, where will it end if they’re only interested in the resulting injury. And just for the record, Kreuzer didn’t miss a game due to the Dangerfield tackle……would the MRP reverse its decision if they knew that in advance? Ben Brown might still get up for the weekend even after being carried off. Like Jack mentioned in his comment, Selwood is out for the next three weeks after a tackle from Franklin, yet Buddy doesn’t have a case to answer……why? I’m still of the opinion that ALL were fair tackles and the resulting injury shouldn’t influence any MRP decision.

      7

      1
      1. I agree the driving force behind all of these new….umm initiatives….is most likely a combination of point 4 referred to above by Jack i.e. some sort of a PR attempt to encourage parents that the game is safe and a directive from the AFL hierarchy/lawyers to protect the players heads – refer fear of litigation comments by Chillo below.

        Hypothetical scenario – say 30 years down the track in 2047 – science would almost certainly be advanced enough to accurately pinpoint causes and extent of even the slightest damage to brain cells sustained in 2017. Scary thought for employers in any form of contact sport? Anyone know what type of dec & waivers the AFL currently get players to sign re injuries sustained while playing?

        2

        0
  10. Higher salaries lead to team owners wanting their valuable assets protected. The more players are paid, the less tolerance for injury their is going to be.

    2

    0
    1. Perhaps. But do they want those valuable assets to get suspended? Because as far as player non-availability is concerned, an injury and a suspension are basically the same thing.

      3

      1
      1. I can’t agree with injuries being the same as suspensions. Injuries can end careers. The effects of an injury can linger much longer than a suspension. Injuries are inflicted on others, suspensions you inflict on yourself. A fringe player could take out a gun for a long time, and that is exactly what the league owners and management want to avoid.

        4

        0
  11. Can’t remember so many discussion points in an MRP statement 😉 Whatever your views on the incidents, thanks for sharing with us! Great footy debate………

    3

    0
  12. Agree with Schwarz, this thread is some fantastic reading. It’s good to see so many so passionate about the game!
    My two cents is that, unfortunately, fear of litigation is driving this movement. As seen in the US, there is a case for former athletes claiming failure of duty of care against their employers, due to head injuries suffered throughout their career. Whether they would be successful in each case is immaterial, because the cost of the legal proceedings, both financially and from a publicity perspective, would be incredibly damaging.
    I agree with Thommo that these rule changes have been very poorly handled, from what is normally a highly professional league. That’s the only reason I disgreed with the Dangerfield suspension though.
    I actually think the way forward is to reduce interchange numbers even further, and force coaches to change the way they play. Ideally this would reduce congestion around stoppages and open up the game, reducing tackle numbers but also reducing the opportunity for forceful and potentially harmful tackles such as these to be made.
    I’m not saying tackling should be outlawed, far from it, it’s one of the best parts of the game. But in the long run, the AFL has to do something to mitigate the risks in circumstances where injuries such as those to Kreuzer and Brown have happened. Broken bones heal, you can live with dodgy knees, but the head must be protected.

    3

    0
  13. Definitely on the side of the tackle, like Jack’s argument the best, there were a lot of good one’s on both sides but is it fair to say that Etihad is a major culprit here? Can anyone remember why the VFL broke away from the VFA in 1896 ? When playing fair within the rules of the game results in a suspension then there will come a time when this may happen again and I wouldn’t be against it.

    4

    0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *