MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 11

[citizen-erased]

Jai Newcombe wacked Redman, so Redman wacked him back. Surely you can retaliate in defence!?

if you're a brownlow medalist or carlton player

 

[Underarm]

Aren't we always complaining about them suspended based on outcome rather than the action?.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

In all seriousness though, Scicily should be at most a fine (if that) as per AFL tribunal guidelines. The contact was negligible. Even if you argue it was more than negligible then it was not more than low impact. As per the table in the AFL tribunal guideliens, low impact should also only be a fine: contact wasnt to the head or groin, low impact at most and to the non high/groin area.

View attachment 1931216
View attachment 1931218

I would agree Low Impact and a fine is a perfectly fair argument. Its not negligible, and its certainly intentional.
But its so often the "optics" in these things, as well as whether a player is from a favoured club.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Can't blame umpires for this, but it's an ongoing factor in Sicily (and more generally Hawthorn) incidents. If the umpires stayed impartial, it's very likely this incident didn't happen.

IF:
Sicily was awarded the original contested mark (paid hands in the back which was very marginal, then not paid for the rest of the game - including twice against Sicily in the next 5 minute period), OR
The free kick was reversed when an Essendon player came in to remonstrate and pushed Sicily to ground, OR
Essendon were penalised for the multiple players engaging with Sicily, OR
Monfries was penalised when he ran in to remonstrate/bump Sicily, OR
The umpire didn't penalise Sicily when he lifted Monfries up, OR
The umpires controlled the EFC players inciting the issue with off-the-ball intimidation

THEN:
The incident would never have happened. It did however, and the footage from the pocket shows Sicily did raise the leg, so (like any punch/kick/etc off the ball incident), I don't have an issue if he is suspended for the action (regardless of how "medium impact" it was. I will have an issue when others get off for similar incidents, or if umpires continue to treat Sicily differently.

It should have been Sicily's kick (contested mark). Then even if the umpire chose to pay the soft free, the obvious decision was to reverse when EFC came in to remonstrate and pushed Sicily over. Instead, the umpires allowed the situation to escalate beyond their control.

If the AFL came out and upheld the suspension, but made specific comment about the ugly actions by EFC - that this inflammatory/intimidatory conduct was not acceptable and afterwards free kicks were paid for all off-the-ball contact - then at least some good could come from it.

 

[Chief]

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Redman is unlucky but I don't have issues with the AFL trying to stamp out these cheap shots, Hewett should have got a week though

 

[falcons2]

Redman is unlucky but I don't have issues with the AFL trying to stamp out these cheap shots, Hewett should have got a week though

Redman not unlucky. He whacked Newcombe in the face with both hands. Not sure if they were fists.
Laura Kane made it very clear last week you can only hit people in the face at a stoppage and not away from the stoppage, then you get a week.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Redman not unlucky. He whacked Newcombe in the face with both hands. Not sure if they were fists.
Laura Kane made it very clear last week you can only hit people in the face at a stoppage and not away from the stoppage, then you get a week.

Not saying otherwise but Hewett should have got a week too, I wish they didn't differentiate between a contest and not a contest. You whack someone you get a week simple

 

[citizen-erased]

Essendon not challenging the redman ban
Our weak underbelly has gone nowhere. have at it all other clubs. we'll lie down instead of ruffle feathers

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Essendon not challenging the redman ban
Our weak underbelly has gone nowhere. have at it all other clubs. we'll lie down instead of ruffle feathers

You were never going to win it. What can you possibly win it on? It was high, they have said before the year any of these were going to be graded intentional so you can't win on that one. Only one is the impact being medium or low. Waste of time if anything makes Redman pull his head in, you are winning by 4 goals why even do it?

 

[citizen-erased]

You were never going to win it. What can you possibly win it on? It was high, they have said before the year any of these were going to be graded intentional so you can't win on that one. Only one is the impact being medium or low. Waste of time if anything makes Redman pull his head in, you are winning by 4 goals why even do it?

except Hewett and Neale last week

we could argue careless easily enough.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

except Hewett and Neale last week

we could argue careless easily enough.

Both of those should have got a week too. There is no way Redman was "careless" it was dumb and intentional, players need to cut the rubbish out there's just no need for cheap shotting other players.

 

[citizen-erased]

Both of those should have got a week too. There is no way Redman was "careless" it was dumb and intentional, players need to cut the rubbish out there's just no need for cheap shotting other players.

Hewett cheap shotted Neale with a closed fist at a player not looking at him
Newc and Mason were pushing each other face to face and Redman pushes him high.

Careless isn't hard to argue, and you at least argue it. but we don't upset HQ anymore

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Hewett cheap shotted Neale with a closed fist at a player not looking at him
Newc and Mason were pushing each other face to face and Redman pushes him high.

Careless isn't hard to argue, and you at least argue it. but we don't upset HQ anymore

So don't go high, it's intentional and just very dumb from someone who should know better. Players have got to get it through their very thick heads that if you go high you are sitting down. What is annoying and I agree is that both Neale and Hewett last week should have gone, hopefully internally they admitted they were wrong in those rulings and from r1 they have gone anything high is a week.

 

[citizen-erased]

So don't go high, it's intentional and just very dumb from someone who should know better. Players have got to get it through their very thick heads that if you go high you are sitting down. What is annoying and I agree is that both Neale and Hewett last week should have gone, hopefully internally they admitted they were wrong in those rulings and from r1 they have gone anything high is a week.

stand alone, i'd cop the redman ban
But its a week out and Kane/Christian had to know this was coming this week

im waiting to see if Bailey's high hit gets a week or a fine or even noted this week.
the inconsistency bothers me as a paying fan.

but more than anything, the fact the hawks will go into bat for Sicily who clearly kicked a leg out, but we won't.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

stand alone, i'd cop the redman ban
But its a week out and Kane/Christian had to know this was coming this week

im waiting to see if Bailey's high hit gets a week or a fine or even noted this week.
the inconsistency bothers me as a paying fan.

but more than anything, the fact the hawks will go into bat for Sicily who clearly kicked a leg out, but we won't.

Hawks will likely lose, and you shouldn't challenge for the sake of it it's 10k on the soft cap every time. Honestly what should be happening is a week every time and grade them all intentional it's not that hard really.

 

[WN123]

Shouldn’t McGrath be in more trouble ?
Intentional
High

Who’s at fault here in the pic ?
Who chose to bump ?
Whose feet are off the ground ?

View attachment 1930824

You froze the pic AFTER the contact which I suspect you know. McGrath did not jump, Sicily dipped, bumped upward and upended him complete with an attempt trip to complete the action.
Nothing in it till the tripping action.

 

[HairyO]

Well done to McGrath saying he barely felt it.

Hopefully gets it dropped to Low and a fine, which is what it deserves.

A week for that is beyond a joke.

 

[falcons2]

Not saying otherwise but Hewett should have got a week too, I wish they didn't differentiate between a contest and not a contest. You whack someone you get a week simple

You're right.
The issue is why Hewett didn't get a week.
All I'd say is the push and shove was all coming from Neale (in this instance) and he got a clip for his trouble. I feel the AFL have to find a way of not just punishing the retaliator.
You could argue the AFL through their on field affiliate - the umpires, failed to protect Hewett and it was only his retaliation that has created the conflict.
Much the same as Sicily on Saturday. One Essendon player had a go after the free was paid, another 2 after the goal and McGrath was the third and he was upended. The whole saga was created by umpires failing to protect Sicily from physical provocation. If you haven't seen it, it was 70 seconds into the game and a super soft free kick against him - no angst or aggro to suggest the Essendon response.

 

[Chief]

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Both of those should have got a week too. There is no way Redman was "careless" it was dumb and intentional, players need to cut the rubbish out there's just no need for cheap shotting other players.

so in the space of a week we already have utter inconsistecy?

Do we all think for a second that a bloke favored to win a Brownlow or a bloke who's up for prelim will get a week for what Redmond did?

Essendon are ****in utter pussies for not appealing this when low and behold Neale a Brownlow heavy doesn't get cited for the exact same thing? not a week earlier.

what a shit show.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Well done to McGrath saying he barely felt it.

Hopefully gets it dropped to Low and a fine, which is what it deserves.

A week for that is beyond a joke.

I am all for sciliy getting off. But how redman cops a ban and then accepts it is laughable.

The AFL is a piss take and Essendon are even more so.

I guarantee you another player will do the exact same thing later in the season, and because they will either be in the finals, or a brownlow favourite they either wont be cited or will get off. Save this post.

 

[HairyO]

I am all for sciliy getting off. But how redman cops a ban and then accepts it is laughable.

The AFL is a piss take and Essendon are even more so.

I guarantee you another player will do the exact same thing later in the season, and because they will either be in the finals, or a brownlow favourite they either wont be cited or will get off. Save this post.

If you hit someone in the face youre going to get a week. Or, if its late in the season and it was a Brownlow favourite then they would do their best to meddle, but at the start of the year is when the AFL is tough. Every player should know this.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

If you hit someone in the face youre going to get a week. Or, if its late in the season and it was a Brownlow favourite then they would do their best to meddle, but at the start of the year is when the AFL is tough. Every player should know this.

yap unless you are Hewiit or Neale, who did the exact same thing a week prior.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

so in the space of a week we already have utter inconsistecy?

Do we all think for a second that a bloke favored to win a Brownlow or a bloke who's up for prelim will get a week for what Redmond did?

Essendon are *in utter pussies for not appealing this when low and behold Neale a Brownlow heavy doesn't get cited for the exact same thing? not a week earlier.

what a s**t show.

Let’s hope they learnt from the farce the week prior both should have got a week and so should Redman. Simply put players need to not be cheap shotting others