Max King 1 match suspension rough conduct

[Teflon]

Is it heard tonight??

[The Fireman]

Is it heard tonight??

Tomorrow

[Teflon]

Listening to these twits on Fox….theyre all suggesting…unlikely..
Just BS

[SAINT-LEE]

He didnt do it, it was his evil twin

[Yorkeys]

Listening to these twits on Fox….theyre all suggesting…unlikely..
Just BS

The myriad of Collingwood boosters have not taken our win well. Some vindictive. It's like Collingwood have the right to win every game and if they don't the system's fixed, heads must roll, someone must pay. Pendlebery, Sidebottom, Mitchell and Howe are not slow; no one can nullify the Daicos brotherhood; every one else must be juiced. Dwayne was bereft and cross, when I thought he couldn't do two things at once.

[Scollop]

The AFL pretends it cares for player welfare. The anti-St Kilda twits reckon King is a thug...but Maynard and Lynch are ball players

If you're nominated for a suspension...the media want blood.

It's ok if you're Richmond's Tom Lynch and you knock out blokes every 2nd or 3rd week .Go ahead Tom... line up opposition players and whack a few in the head.

No one will say boo.

[Sainter_Dad]

The AFL pretends it cares for player welfare. The anti-St Kilda twits reckon King is a thug...but Maynard and Lynch are ball players

If you're nominated for a suspension...the media want blood.

It's ok if you're Richmond's Tom Lynch and you knock out blokes every 2nd or 3rd week .Go ahead Tom... line up opposition players and whack a few in the head.

No one will say boo.

LOL - Did Lynch step out with your mum?

[Banger9798]

This is from the ABC live blog below. The reporter called the late hit 'agricultural'

How many times can Tom Lynch plough through opposition players without getting suspended?

Richmond have the ball in defence in the final seconds, but Zac Butters marks on the wing - and Tom Lynch is a bit agricultural with that challenge, running through the back of the Port star.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-24/ ... post-80149

I remember when he did that to Ben Paton....no eyes for the ball, just an elbow to his head in a pack....no case to answer.

[Banger9798]

This is from the ABC live blog below. The reporter called the late hit 'agricultural'

How many times can Tom Lynch plough through opposition players without getting suspended?

Richmond have the ball in defence in the final seconds, but Zac Butters marks on the wing - and Tom Lynch is a bit agricultural with that challenge, running through the back of the Port star.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-24/ ... post-80149

I remember when he did that to Ben Paton....no eyes for the ball, just an elbow to his head in a pack....no case to answer.

[Teflon]

Yep Lynch has form
Needs a lengthy spell to send a message

[chook23]

King lucky to get 1 week

The vision is clear cut

[Devilhead]

So Draper's charge was considered intentional low and body ... so that is a fine

Kings charge is careless, medium and high .... so that's 1 week

If King's charge is considered low impact he gets a fine

So in both cases either a 50 metre pen was paid (Draper) or a free down field was paid (King) .... in both cases the opposition player got up straight away and played out thr rest of the game .... yet one is low impact and one is medium ...... yet when you look at the replays Draper hit looked a lot harder than Kings .... in fact he launched and cannoned through the Swans player at a higher velocity than King's bump

You see this is a problem ..... the inconsistency of the MRO when grading incidents

There is no way Kings hit was a higher impact than Drapers

[Devilhead]

King lucky to get 1 week

The vision is clear cut

The vision of him dishing out a low impact bump?

Or do you believe it was a medium impact?

If so tell me the difference?

[Devilhead]

This is from the ABC live blog below. The reporter called the late hit 'agricultural'

How many times can Tom Lynch plough through opposition players without getting suspended?

Richmond have the ball in defence in the final seconds, but Zac Butters marks on the wing - and Tom Lynch is a bit agricultural with that challenge, running through the back of the Port star.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-24/ ... post-80149

I remember when he did that to Ben Paton....no eyes for the ball, just an elbow to his head in a pack....no case to answer.

Lynch is a sniping cnt ... so was Cotchin

Different team ... different rules

[chook23]

So Draper's charge was considered intentional low and body ... so that is a fine

Kings charge is careless, medium and high .... so that's 1 week

If King's charge is considered low impact he gets a fine

So in both cases either a 50 metre pen was paid (Draper) or a free down field was paid (King) .... in both cases the opposition player got up straight away and played out thr rest of the game .... yet one is low impact and one is medium ...... yet when you look at the replays Draper hit looked a lot harder than Kings .... in fact he launched and cannoned through the Swans player at a higher velocity than King's bump

You see this is a problem ..... the inconsistency of the MRO when grading incidents

There is no way Kings hit was a higher impact than Drapers

Think you have mixed up things

medium impct

Body (termed low) = fine

Head (termed high)= suspension

[Devilhead]

So Draper's charge was considered intentional low and body ... so that is a fine

Kings charge is careless, medium and high .... so that's 1 week

If King's charge is considered low impact he gets a fine

So in both cases either a 50 metre pen was paid (Draper) or a free down field was paid (King) .... in both cases the opposition player got up straight away and played out thr rest of the game .... yet one is low impact and one is medium ...... yet when you look at the replays Draper hit looked a lot harder than Kings .... in fact he launched and cannoned through the Swans player at a higher velocity than King's bump

You see this is a problem ..... the inconsistency of the MRO when grading incidents

There is no way Kings hit was a higher impact than Drapers

Think you have mixed up things

medium impct

Body (termed low) = fine

Head (termed high)= suspension

No read again

Draper - intentional low body

King - careless medium high

Why is King medium impact but Draper low impact ?

[SaintPav]

Player got up immediately didn’t he?

He didn’t seem to affected at all.

That should be low impact.

[Scollop]

The AFL pretends it cares for player welfare. The anti-St Kilda twits reckon King is a thug...but Maynard and Lynch are ball players

If you're nominated for a suspension...the media want blood.

It's ok if you're Richmond's Tom Lynch and you knock out blokes every 2nd or 3rd week .Go ahead Tom... line up opposition players and whack a few in the head.

No one will say boo.

LOL - Did Lynch step out with your mum?

I'm pissed off that Max's late hit has been deemed as worthy of 1 week. If his action is worthy, then so was Lynch's.

The AFL are trying to reduce incidents of head trauma. The experts are warning clubs not to have too much tackling practice etc...neurologists are saying it's a risk when players cop repeat hits to the head.

What are they teaching kids who look at what Lynch did? Is it ok to whack someone in the back of the head now is it?

Lynch's action is something that has the capacity to cause serious injury. If repeated often enough on a player (on top of other head knocks) it could be a trigger for CTE.

[MC Gusto]

Honestly I don’t know what the plan is here by the brains trust.
I’ve watched it a few times. Just don’t see how he gets off. Take the week and move on. Save the appeal for when we really need it eg. finals. This could be double edged in my mind

[wally]

They played it a bit and different angles last night on fox .
I think he should have taken the 1 week kept quiet and we move on.

[Beno88]

Honestly I don’t know what the plan is here by the brains trust.
I’ve watched it a few times. Just don’t see how he gets off. Take the week and move on. Save the appeal for when we really need it eg. finals. This could be double edged in my mind

We have nothing to lose, it's not going from 1 to 2 weeks if unsuccessful.

And it's not a test match, we don't have limited unsuccessful reviews.

[Life Long Saint]

Honestly I don’t know what the plan is here by the brains trust.
I’ve watched it a few times. Just don’t see how he gets off. Take the week and move on. Save the appeal for when we really need it eg. finals. This could be double edged in my mind

They should be arguing low impact and have it reduced to a fine.
He got up unaffected without holding his head. The act was silly, but not worthy of a week off.

[Sainter_Dad]

Honestly I don’t know what the plan is here by the brains trust.
I’ve watched it a few times. Just don’t see how he gets off. Take the week and move on. Save the appeal for when we really need it eg. finals. This could be double edged in my mind

They should be arguing low impact and have it reduced to a fine.
He got up unaffected without holding his head. The act was silly, but not worthy of a week off.

All of the commentators are saying this is what we will be arguing.

[terry smith rules]

I think many of you here need to read this

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/docume ... elines.pdf

Firstly, what happened last year(s) is irrelevant, as stated the MRO can ignore their previous deliberations.

Secondly in assessing impact they can (particularly with head high) look at potential to cause injury. It’s all written down in this document


Therefore unfortunately Max gets a week and having read the document it will stay a week.

Anyway in all these discussions please stop talking about previous years, it is now 2024 new rules, new interpretations, the history is irrelevant

FQF

[Life Long Saint]

I think many of you here need to read this

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/docume ... elines.pdf

Firstly, what happened last year(s) is irrelevant, as stated the MRO can ignore their previous deliberations.

Secondly in assessing impact they can (particularly with head high) look at potential to cause injury. It’s all written down in this document


Therefore unfortunately Max gets a week and having read the document it will stay a week.

Anyway in all these discussions please stop talking about previous years, it is now 2024 new rules, new interpretations, the history is irrelevant

FQF

Still worth the fight though...
Fight the fights that are worth fighting.

The booklet says

Any high bump which constitutes Rough Conduct that has the potential
to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact,
even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

I seriously doubt that contact had the potential to cause injury and that's what we should be arguing.
It should have been assessed as low from the start...and we'd accept a fine.