SAM IS OK !!!!

[BRISWAN]

Only a 41000 FINE FOR OUR BOY

YEAHHHHH!!!!!

[AnnieH]

$1,000.

Should we pass the hat around?

[ernie koala]

$41000 ??

Could be a garage sale at Sam's place this weekend.....

That figure looks more like the attendance we can expect at ANZ in 2 weeks.

[CureTheSane]

When, thought this was about Reid coming back in to the side...

[Mel_C]

And of course Gibson wasn't charged...what a surprise.

[Doctor]

Can't believe Gibson wasn't charge considering what Sloane got.

[GongSwan]

$1000 for laying a hard tackle?

[BRISWAN]

Oh boy?.
Another typo SORRY GUYS

Only a 41000 FINE FOR OUR BOY

YEAHHHHH!!!!!

[Meg]

$1000 for laying a hard tackle?

No, for laying a carelessly executed tackle that caused injury to the body classified as medium impact. 'Duty of care' I think is a way to describe it.

[dejavoodoo44]

No, for laying a carelessly executed tackle that caused injury to the body classified as medium impact. 'Duty of care' I think is a way to describe it.

So, by the Tribunal's odd reckoning, when Sam Mitchell punches somebody in the head, is he exercising an appropriate level of 'duty of care', because he doesn't punch his opponents hard enough to be suspended?

[mcs]

So, by the Tribunal's odd reckoning, when Sam Mitchell punches somebody in the head, is he exercising an appropriate level of 'duty of care', because he doesn't punch his opponents hard enough to be suspended?

As always its one set of rules for some, another for others. Look at Gibson on the weekend - and just wait for super sniping Wees and Poos to reappear in September...

[Beerman]

So, by the Tribunal's odd reckoning, when Sam Mitchell punches somebody in the head, is he exercising an appropriate level of 'duty of care', because he doesn't punch his opponents hard enough to be suspended?

Are you referring to the Jack Watts incident? Let's just say that Jack Watts isn't exactly the toughest nut around, but even his reaction could be better described as "indignant" rather than "injured".

[CureTheSane]

So, by the Tribunal's odd reckoning, when Sam Mitchell punches somebody in the head, is he exercising an appropriate level of 'duty of care', because he doesn't punch his opponents hard enough to be suspended?

Yeah, this.
If the AFL is set on making the game the kind of sport mums want their kids to play, it's hard to reconcile how the degree of force a fist to the face defines the penalty.
Then accidental, or 'lack of duty of care' incidents appear to be more frowned upon.

[Meg]

As always its one set of rules for some, another for others. Look at Gibson on the weekend - and just wait for super sniping Wees and Poos to reappear in September...

Sometimes I think it is wise to take off the tin foil hat, look at the AFL guidelines set down for the MRP to administer, and to consider the reasons those guidelines have been put in place. And to look at replays of incidents objectively (whatever our feelings might be about the players/clubs involved).

There is no doubt that both Sloane and Gibson were trying to punch the ball away from the opposition player who was about to take a mark (in itself a perfectly legitimate action). That is what the MRP said about Sloane by classifying his incident as 'careless' and not 'intentional'. The umpire also implicitly judged Gibson's action to be careless by awarding a free kick against him (with which the MRP agreed).

However there is no comparison about the degree of carelessness involved in the two incidents.

Sloane arrived very late with his fist nowhere near the ball, consequently punching Ebert in the side of the face hurting him so badly he had to leave the field. Gibson also arrived late but with his fist firmly aimed at the ball, with the consequence (as the MRP said) that he 'made grazing contact with his forearm to the side of Greenwood?s head'. The video clearly shows it was incidental forearm contact and that is reinforced by the fact that Greenwood was able to get up and take his kick.

These were both accidents but with significant differences in the degree of culpability. The AFL does have a duty of care to have rules & guidelines which discourage players from actions which endanger other players, particularly actions which result in head injuries - however well intended the players taking those actions may have been in trying to simply win the footy.

[stevoswan]

As always its one set of rules for some, another for others. Look at Gibson on the weekend - and just wait for super sniping Wees and Poos to reappear in September...

.....and their sniping umpire mates. I worry about Saturday, in that the AFL would like for nothing more than the Giants to be victorious......"great for footy in NSW" yada yada yada......Please let it be umpired fairly!