Changes for Adelaide

[Dirtyburt]

On what grounds...

It was deemed...
intentional - can't dispute that,

low impact - can't dispute that,

high contact- can't dispute that

Can dispute all 3, I think they will dispute intentional high contact

[R-1]

A case for "below the required force"?

[Matt79]

A case for "below the required force"?

That's the angle I'd be going for. Pods barely flinched.

[BillyRayCypress]

That's the angle I'd be going for. Pods barely flinched.

I think intentional covers that one

Grundy was sick last year from the finals with glandular fever. He might just hate playing finals.

[Matt79]

I think intentional covers that one

Grundy was sick last year from the finals with glandular fever. He might just hate playing finals.

Oooh...conspiracy theories! I like it!

[BillyRayCypress]

Oooh...conspiracy theories! I like it!

We could make up 100 about the Swans lack of success at the MCG.

[Matt79]

We could make up 100 about the Swans lack of success at the MCG.

...and the 7 year Collingwood hoodoo!

[Ludwig]

The problem the MRP had was that since the Grundy incident was off the ball, it was either called intentional and a week off with good behaviour or insufficient force to be a reportable offense. Now Geelong had 3 incidents, the Johnson hit and half chicken wing and the Benny hit. So if they let Grundy off then they also would have to let all the others go as well, as they were no worse, which would have had Ross Lyon going off his rocker about different rules for finals, and how Freo were disadvantaged by the no calls.

So in the end the MRP took the middle ground. And as much controversy there will be about these decisions, other scenarios would have been worse. They got themselves into a bit of trouble with the Selwood-Selwood bump, and some of the heavy penalties to Ziebel and like.

It doesn't pay fighting the Grundy incident as the outcome has already been decided. Insufficient force is the only grounds to fight this on and it's already been decided that it was.

[Dirtyburt]

It doesn't pay fighting the Grundy incident as the outcome has already been decided. Insufficient force is the only grounds to fight this on and it's already been decided that it was.

The MRP and the tribunal are two seperate bodies. That is the whole point of the system.

I would appeal, the club may not.

[Wardy]

Still at the end of the day he was an idiot to do it. Teddy is going to have his work cut out for him - let's hope whoever replaces Grundy he will see this as his chance to shine and Render Tippett and Mullett useless.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Grundy's was a moronic act and I have no sympathy. If he was from another team playing against us we'd all say he got what he deserved. Having said that, I'd love to hear the AFL explain how Judd's elbow into Pav's face last year wasn't considered sufficiently forceful to warrant reporting. Given he split Pav's face open it was inarguably a lot harder than Grundy's . The explanation is the obvious one we will never hear.

[Nico]

Just saw the Grundy report again on 360. He is as guilty as hell and would have no hope of getting off. As elbows go, yes it was a soft one, but it was so obvious, intentional and hit him flush. AS BRC said he missed the finals through illness last year. It was a plain dumb act to put himself in that position and deny himself playing finals.

[Dirtyburt]

Still at the end of the day he was an idiot to do it. Teddy is going to have his work cut out for him - let's hope whoever replaces Grundy he will see this as his chance to shine and Render Tippett and Mullett useless.

Yep no argument, tool of the highest order.

[Ludwig]

Just looked at the incident again, and it was blatant. Not much damage done, but definitely one you pay time for.

Will probably go to Adelaide anyway to visit the family. Relax with the folks and watch the game on TV.

[Jewels]

Will probably go to Adelaide anyway to visit the family. Relax with the folks and watch the game on TV.

Well I hope his father gives him a good clip across the ears for being such an idiot!