Round 1: the other games. Normal service has been resumed.

[RogueSwan]

First time I've seen it and it looks like Rioli jumps above the flight of the ball and hits Rowell high. One week seems light.

[stevoswan]

I'm not sure. Ziebell appears to make contact to the head with his forearm, while Rioli's contact is more a body check.

Though there's two things that surprise me. Firstly, why wasn't a free paid? And secondly, how did Rioli get so high, at such a rapid pace, when he seems so tubby?

Nah....he's in big trouble. As soon as you leave the ground, you are in trouble. A simple bump suddenly becomes a charge....and this absolutely should have been a free.

WC will argue that because a free wasn't awarded there should be no report....but technically, he should be suspended for that. Dangerously reckless in the least. Minimum two weeks IMO.

[RogueSwan]

Same incident but replace Rioli with Toby Green and Rowell for Bontompelli, would the media reaction and the MRO result be the same? I doubt it ...

[Bloods05]

Same incident but replace Rioli with Toby Green and Rowell for Bontompelli, would the media reaction and the MRO result be the same? I doubt it ...

Fair enough too.

[stellation]

We were watching the Suns/Eagles game at our place, the commentators did such a good job at praising Rioli's hit it took a little while for one of us to say "that really should have been a free before, right?" with a response of "Yes! I didn't want to say anything because the commentators were so odd about it".

I'm surprised it was only 1 week, it seemed really quite dangerous.

[barry]

Same incident but replace Rioli with Toby Green and Rowell for Bontompelli, would the media reaction and the MRO result be the same? I doubt it ...

10 weeks minimum.

[Bloods05]

10 weeks minimum.

So it should be.

[Mark26]

So it should be.

But he's free to play. Charge overturned.

[stevoswan]

But he's free to play. Charge overturned.

Truly bizarre in an age where the head is supposed to be sacrosanct.

Even in my playing days if you left the ground and made front on contact, the crime was instantly 'charging' and you could expect at least a week, depending on the severity of the contact, eg: arms tucked in, no head contact.....1 week; arms tucked in with head contact....2 weeks, maybe 3; elbow out.....at least 4 weeks (usually more). I know because I was found guilty of the second example once and got 2 weeks.....and I thought I'd get more!

Rioli should buy a lottery ticket.

[Aprilbr]

I was watching 360 last night and Robbo and Whately were both flabbergasted that Rioli won the appeal. Even the 2 players appearing on the show said he should go. I expect the AFL to appeal this decision as they have to do everything to protect the head. Jumping into the air and collecting a guy high like that is not protecting the head. It leaves a terrible precedent.

[barry]

The tribunal is out of control. Didn't I hear last year you can't use precedent (or, compare similar incidents from earlier in the season) either. Not that it would change rioli's case, but just shows the penalties are at the whim of the tribunal panel and their biases.

Lucky we don't have any thugs (tribunal targets) like Hall on the list, although Paddy McCartin has a bit of history.

[bloodspirit]

BARRETT: Forget the 1980s. Private ownership isn't a dirty word

This makes me sick. I can't imagine the "enormous benefit" - whatever it may be - would be worth the costs. Please don't let this happen to our game.

Here are some quotes from Jeff Browne, the Collingwood President, who, along with Richard Goyder, AFL Chairman, seem to be driving this conversation:

"The AFL has developed the business of football very well. Sponsorships are valuable, they deliver, and they deliver enormous benefit, the dollar value to a brand that is in the AFL system is very appealing, and by extension of that, the value of the club brand is of very strong appeal to investors.
"People can invest in the same metrics. It is all about ROI (return on investment). Investors would need to be patient, particularly in the expanding areas, but I think it would pay off for people with a long-term view.
This is not football. And it seems to be the tail wagging the dog. We got the expansion teams to drive a bigger broadcast deal. Now the expansion clubs are financially draining the AFL and we need private ownership to pay for them? If that is really true we should just cut our losses and the expansion teams and go back to the way it was. Apart from an extra game a week and a wider national footprint, what do the extra teams give us? I don't mind having them, but not if they are a financial drain and necessitate shifting to private ownership. I couldn't bear continuing to barrack for the Swans if they were privately owned and the private owner could just do what they wanted with the team. Such a team would have no soul, or at least a very compromised one - with a profit agenda. Please, please no.

[Ocker]

BARRETT: Forget the 1980s. Private ownership isn't a dirty word

I couldn't bear continuing to barrack for the Swans if they were privately owned and the private owner could just do what they wanted with the team. Such a team would have no soul, or at least a very compromised one - with a profit agenda. Please, please no.

But we are all happy to remain as supporters while the Swans are owned and controlled by the AFL?

[barry]

There are plenty of Russian oligrach's looking to hide some money. They don't care about returns. Get scomo to guarantee the investment is safe on his way out, and all good.

[bloodspirit]

But we are all happy to remain as supporters while the Swans are owned and controlled by the AFL?

Fair point but short answer is yes.

The AFL is both more and less accountable. Their formal accountability is less but the various stakeholders can expect them to have the best interests of the game at heart, even if the notion of stakeholders is a bit of a circle jerk. Whereas private ownership is either obliged to seek profits with any care for the game, the players, the club, the fans, only secondary and derivative OR it depends on the whims and caprice of one or more individuals who owe nothing to anyone.