Bevo Contesting MRP charges

[CJK]

According to the AFL and SEN Twitter.

Good on the club

[AnnieH]

What charges???

[CJK]

What charges???

R21, AFL 2010 Swans V Bulldogs: Gameday & Autopsy

2nd post

[Plugger46]

Given what Josh Hunt got over the weekend (and Mummy earlier in the year), I thought Bevo was pretty lucky.

[AnnieH]

The bastards.

Bevo's finally come good!!!

[laughingnome]

Given what Josh Hunt over the weekend (and Mummy earlier in the year), I thought Bevo was pretty lucky.

As I said in another thread, Hunt's was a spear tackle. Mummy's was what they call a "sling" (and a soft-as one at that). I haven't seen footgae of Bevo's one and must have missed it on the night.

[liz]

Given what Josh Hunt got over the weekend (and Mummy earlier in the year), I thought Bevo was pretty lucky.

How so?

All the other tackles that have deemed to be reportable offences have had the "high" classification. Although the contact to the player from the offender wasn't high, the fact that the tackle resulted in the tacklee's head hitting the ground is deemed to create high contact. Whether or not one agrees with this (and whether or not one wonders why this appears to matter for some tackles but not others), Bevan's tackle wasn't deemed to be high contact so presumably Griffen's head didn't hit the ground.

So Bevan appears to be the first player charged where, by the MRP's own assessment, the tackle was low impact and body contact and yet is against the rules. Given that tackling is not against the rules, Griffen should have expected contact as he was in possession, and there was no head high contact, it is very hard to understand what offence Bevan has supposedly committed that players don't commit every time they lay a tackle.

[CJK]

it is very hard to understand what offence Bevan has supposedly committed that players don't commit every time they lay a tackle.

The audacity to play for the Sydney Swans?

[Plugger46]

How so?

All the other tackles that have deemed to be reportable offences have had the "high" classification. Although the contact to the player from the offender wasn't high, the fact that the tackle resulted in the tacklee's head hitting the ground is deemed to create high contact. Whether or not one agrees with this (and whether or not one wonders why this appears to matter for some tackles but not others), Bevan's tackle wasn't deemed to be high contact so presumably Griffen's head didn't hit the ground.

So Bevan appears to be the first player charged where, by the MRP's own assessment, the tackle was low impact and body contact and yet is against the rules. Given that tackling is not against the rules, Griffen should have expected contact as he was in possession, and there was no head high contact, it is very hard to understand what offence Bevan has supposedly committed that players don't commit every time they lay a tackle.

Looked just as bad to me but I suspect the club have a better idea than I do.

Maybe I need to look at it again but it looked like Griffen's head hit the ground to me.

[liz]

Looked just as bad to me but I suspect the club have a better idea than I do.

Maybe I need to look at it again but it looked like Griffen's head hit the ground to me.

But the MRP's own assessment says it didn't.

[Kirkari]

What a bad joke they are at the MRP. Absolutely bloody hopeless. Fingers crossed on a good outcome but I'm not holding my breath.

[msb]

Why bother? He can take a reprimand and still play this week.

[dimelb]

Why bother? He can take a reprimand and still play this week.

Precedent.

[ugg]

He can still play even if he doesn't beat the charge because of his 5 year good record earning him a 25% discount.

[GoSouth33]

I do remember him making a tackle which slid down the legs and he gave away a free. I commented about his rugby league background being to blame. Surely, this wasn't the incident????