Match Review Panel

[Brodlach]

Squids and Turbo are both Trolls. please treat accordingly

Oh the irony

[Spargo]

Squids and turbo, time to draw the curtains and pull the sheets back.

[Turbo]

Squids and turbo, time to draw the curtains and pull the sheets back.

No personal remarks thanks

[Turbo]

Squids and Turbo are both Trolls. please treat accordingly

Oh the irony

I found it amusing

[Turbo]

Just saw the Daniel Rich incident. Very lucky with 2 games and that a more significant injury was sustained.

[Jim05]

[quote="Turbo"]Just saw the Daniel Rich incident. Very lucky with 2 games and that a more significant injury was sustained.[/quote]
Yes that was poor, wouldnt of blamed Jones if he got up and threw one at Rich

[kneedeepinthehoopla]

Just sent this scathing email to the AFL...wonder if they'll reply.

Hi

Ive just seen Jack Ziebell has been given 4 weeks reduced to 3 for going for the ball in Friday nights game. Im just wondering how many people the AFL are willing to alienate by letting the current Match Review Panel to operate as it is.

How can a player be suspended when he is looking at the ball, running towards the direction the ball is coming from, and jumps to receive the ball at its highest point (which we've all been taught to do during junior footy)?

Isnt it "charging" if the Carlton player runs with the flight of the ball and collides with another player?

And the biggest defence for Zeebs is the umpire can clearly be heard yelling "he went for the ball, he was going for the ball". No free kick awarded.

So in essence, the MRP are undermining the umpires employed by the AFL. How are players supposed to respect umpires that have no authority?

Juddy must be sweating it right now, because surely what he did to Leigh Adams was much, much worse. Going by previous MRP decisions, they'll probably arrange for him to get Jason Bedding Man of the Match, but if they're serious, he should get 8+.

I look forward to your reply.

Brad

Don't know about 'scathing'. Could think of more appropriate words for it! You were right not to include your surname on this offering, it's a tad embarrassing. The fact is the bloke jumped into joseph, made head-high contact and left him with concussion. It's been a massive no-no for a few years now. To take the umpire's view is to suggest they never get it wrong. In the same game an umpire was heard telling yarran he didn't have eyes for the footy. Replays show he clearly did. And to suggest judd should get 8 weeks is obsurd. Adams will most likely play this week, it couldn't have been that bad. I don't know what he was thinking or doing, but i do know you've got a bit excited there. I think you need a deep breath fella

[overloaded]

the letter is fine. well written

eyes only for the ball. he will get off

[OnSong]

Just sent this scathing email to the AFL...wonder if they'll reply.

Hi

Ive just seen Jack Ziebell has been given 4 weeks reduced to 3 for going for the ball in Friday nights game. Im just wondering how many people the AFL are willing to alienate by letting the current Match Review Panel to operate as it is.

How can a player be suspended when he is looking at the ball, running towards the direction the ball is coming from, and jumps to receive the ball at its highest point (which we've all been taught to do during junior footy)?

Isnt it "charging" if the Carlton player runs with the flight of the ball and collides with another player?

And the biggest defence for Zeebs is the umpire can clearly be heard yelling "he went for the ball, he was going for the ball". No free kick awarded.

So in essence, the MRP are undermining the umpires employed by the AFL. How are players supposed to respect umpires that have no authority?

Juddy must be sweating it right now, because surely what he did to Leigh Adams was much, much worse. Going by previous MRP decisions, they'll probably arrange for him to get Jason Bedding Man of the Match, but if they're serious, he should get 8+.

I look forward to your reply.

Brad

Don't know about 'scathing'. Could think of more appropriate words for it! You were right not to include your surname on this offering, it's a tad embarrassing. The fact is the bloke jumped into joseph, made head-high contact and left him with concussion. It's been a massive no-no for a few years now. To take the umpire's view is to suggest they never get it wrong. In the same game an umpire was heard telling yarran he didn't have eyes for the footy. Replays show he clearly did. And to suggest judd should get 8 weeks is obsurd. Adams will most likely play this week, it couldn't have been that bad. I don't know what he was thinking or doing, but i do know you've got a bit excited there. I think you need a deep breath fella

Ziebell did Carlton a favour knocking Joseph out.
If he could get Armfield too, they'd probably make the finals.

[footballmad]

The MRP and the AFL are a joke and are ruining the very fabric of the game we love.
Ziebell 4 weeks is an absolute joke as his intention was the football not the player as opposed to Wellingham who was clearly trying to smash Simpson and the same penalty applies, JOKE MRP!!!!!!!!!

[HH3]

Just sent this scathing email to the AFL...wonder if they'll reply.

Hi

Ive just seen Jack Ziebell has been given 4 weeks reduced to 3 for going for the ball in Friday nights game. Im just wondering how many people the AFL are willing to alienate by letting the current Match Review Panel to operate as it is.

How can a player be suspended when he is looking at the ball, running towards the direction the ball is coming from, and jumps to receive the ball at its highest point (which we've all been taught to do during junior footy)?

Isnt it "charging" if the Carlton player runs with the flight of the ball and collides with another player?

And the biggest defence for Zeebs is the umpire can clearly be heard yelling "he went for the ball, he was going for the ball". No free kick awarded.

So in essence, the MRP are undermining the umpires employed by the AFL. How are players supposed to respect umpires that have no authority?

Juddy must be sweating it right now, because surely what he did to Leigh Adams was much, much worse. Going by previous MRP decisions, they'll probably arrange for him to get Jason Bedding Man of the Match, but if they're serious, he should get 8+.

I look forward to your reply.

Brad

Don't know about 'scathing'. Could think of more appropriate words for it! You were right not to include your surname on this offering, it's a tad embarrassing. The fact is the bloke jumped into joseph, made head-high contact and left him with concussion. It's been a massive no-no for a few years now. To take the umpire's view is to suggest they never get it wrong. In the same game an umpire was heard telling yarran he didn't have eyes for the footy. Replays show he clearly did. And to suggest judd should get 8 weeks is obsurd. Adams will most likely play this week, it couldn't have been that bad. I don't know what he was thinking or doing, but i do know you've got a bit excited there. I think you need a deep breath fella

My surnames on the email and in my email address, just removed for this forum mate.

I wanted a reply, so toned down what I really wanted to say.

The fact is the bloke jumped into joseph

So you cant jump for the ball now? I didnt know that was a rule. Isnt it illegal to run with the flight of the ball and collide with the person attacking the football. Thats "charging" isnt it? Joseph ran into Ziebell as well, he just didnt attack the ball and try and take it out of the air. He put himself in that situation.

Load of shit report and all these people saying AFL's getting soft, but then defending the MRP when they make stupid decisions like this is baffling.

Also, heres a recent example of something similar, where the jumping player was not penalised....wheres the consistancy?

[Sorry Dude]

Just sent this scathing email to the AFL...wonder if they'll reply.

Hi

Ive just seen Jack Ziebell has been given 4 weeks reduced to 3 for going for the ball in Friday nights game. Im just wondering how many people the AFL are willing to alienate by letting the current Match Review Panel to operate as it is.

How can a player be suspended when he is looking at the ball, running towards the direction the ball is coming from, and jumps to receive the ball at its highest point (which we've all been taught to do during junior footy)?

Isnt it "charging" if the Carlton player runs with the flight of the ball and collides with another player?

And the biggest defence for Zeebs is the umpire can clearly be heard yelling "he went for the ball, he was going for the ball". No free kick awarded.

So in essence, the MRP are undermining the umpires employed by the AFL. How are players supposed to respect umpires that have no authority?

Juddy must be sweating it right now, because surely what he did to Leigh Adams was much, much worse. Going by previous MRP decisions, they'll probably arrange for him to get Jason Bedding Man of the Match, but if they're serious, he should get 8+.

I look forward to your reply.

Brad

Don't know about 'scathing'. Could think of more appropriate words for it! You were right not to include your surname on this offering, it's a tad embarrassing. The fact is the bloke jumped into joseph, made head-high contact and left him with concussion. It's been a massive no-no for a few years now. To take the umpire's view is to suggest they never get it wrong. In the same game an umpire was heard telling yarran he didn't have eyes for the footy. Replays show he clearly did. And to suggest judd should get 8 weeks is obsurd. Adams will most likely play this week, it couldn't have been that bad. I don't know what he was thinking or doing, but i do know you've got a bit excited there. I think you need a deep breath fella

My surnames on the email and in my email address, just removed for this forum mate.

I wanted a reply, so toned down what I really wanted to say.

The fact is the bloke jumped into joseph

So you cant jump for the ball now? I didnt know that was a rule. Isnt it illegal to run with the flight of the ball and collide with the person attacking the football. Thats "charging" isnt it? Joseph ran into Ziebell as well, he just didnt attack the ball and try and take it out of the air. He put himself in that situation.

Load of shit report and all these people saying AFL's getting soft, but then defending the MRP when they make stupid decisions like this is baffling.

Also, heres a recent example of something similar, where the jumping player was not penalised....wheres the consistancy?

That is where the rule come from. You are not allowed to make contact with another players head. The rule has been in for almost 2 seasons now. While Ziebell shouldn't be reported for that you can see why it has happened. Also, Joseph was the one going with the flight of the ball and Zeibel didn't have to jump in to Joseph to take possesion of the ball.

[HH3]

1) He had eyes for the ball...as the umpire clearly states.

2) He was running towards where the balls coming from, Joseph was running with the flight of the ball, which means Joseph is not allowed to make contact with Zeibell front on. Ziebell should be able to attack the football.

3) You are taught to take the ball at the highest point possible, to give yourself an advantage over your opponent. Ziebell jumped, Joseph stayed on the ground waiting for the ball to come to him, so he wasnt attacking the football as he should have been.

The AFLs a joke if you get 4 weeks for attacking the footy like you've been taught since juniors.

[Sorry Dude]

1) He had eyes for the ball...as the umpire clearly states.

2) He was running towards where the balls coming from, Joseph was running with the flight of the ball, which means Joseph is not allowed to make contact with Zeibell front on. Ziebell should be able to attack the football.

3) You are taught to take the ball at the highest point possible, to give yourself an advantage over your opponent. Ziebell jumped, Joseph stayed on the ground waiting for the ball to come to him, so he wasnt attacking the football as he should have been.

The AFLs a joke if you get 4 weeks for attacking the footy like you've been taught since juniors.

I am not disagreeing with any of your facts. At the end of the day the umpires and MRP are being consistent to the head high rule. The problem is that Ziebell has form (Riewoldt incident) and the MRP saw something in this incident.

In no way should it have been 4 weeks when Wellinghams was a lot worse (no eyes for the ball) and got 5 reduced to 3. I think Ziebel will get off or only 1 week.

[Q.]

Clearly Tomahawk should have been suspended for this one

[Lightning McQueen]

1) He had eyes for the ball...as the umpire clearly states.

2) He was running towards where the balls coming from, Joseph was running with the flight of the ball, which means Joseph is not allowed to make contact with Zeibell front on. Ziebell should be able to attack the football.

3) You are taught to take the ball at the highest point possible, to give yourself an advantage over your opponent. Ziebell jumped, Joseph stayed on the ground waiting for the ball to come to him, so he wasnt attacking the football as he should have been.

The AFLs a joke if you get 4 weeks for attacking the footy like you've been taught since juniors.

I am not disagreeing with any of your facts. At the end of the day the umpires and MRP are being consistent to the head high rule. The problem is that Ziebell has form (Riewoldt incident) and the MRP saw something in this incident.

In no way should it have been 4 weeks when Wellinghams was a lot worse (no eyes for the ball) and got 5 reduced to 3. I think Ziebel will get off or only 1 week.

He can't get it reduced, it's either 0,3 or 4.

[D14]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODCRuHeY ... ure=relmfu

Or Douglas for this

[Lightning McQueen]

CARLTON captain Chris Judd will face the AFL Tribunal over his controversial 'chicken-wing' tackle on North Melbourne's Leigh Adams after the match review panel chose to send the case straight to the judiciary.

Judd was reported by a boundary umpire and charged with rough conduct over for the second-quarter incident on Friday night in which he wrenched Adams' arm back while the Kangaroos midfielder lay on the ground with Andrew Carrazzo on top of him.

The medical report tabled by North Melbourne to the MRP is understood to have said that the tackle dislocated Adams' shoulder

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

No penalty by the MRP then, straight to the tribunal...

Whats the difference between the two?

Did Judd have his eyes on the ball?

[kneedeepinthehoopla]

if running with the flight of the ball is reportable then god knows how j brown gets a game every week. ziebel's knock was nowhere near as bad as wellingham's, agreed, but you just can't leap in the air and concuss another player in today's game. and you need to get over what the umpire said. t walker was awarded holding the ball 3 weeks ago don't forget...
ziebel's was an unfortunate incident that 4 years ago wouldn't have been looked at. but today it is, and everyone knows it.

ps, for interest's sake, can you post what you wanted to write in your e-mail?!?!

[HH3]

I didnt say running with the flight of the ball is reportable. But he put himself in the position to get smashed.

Im just gonna shirtfront the full forward every time he goes for the lead and see how many games he gets this weekend.