SA Footy

I'm just totally confused on the gradings and rulings. In my eyes there were at least 3 maybe even 4 hits/bumps far worse than Hawkings who gets a week yet these blokes got nothing

carey wrote:I'm just totally confused on the gradings and rulings. In my eyes there were at least 3 maybe even 4 hits/bumps far worse than Hawkings who gets a week yet these blokes got nothing

I would have been confused if there was consistency.

carey wrote:I'm just totally confused on the gradings and rulings. In my eyes there were at least 3 maybe even 4 hits/bumps far worse than Hawkings who gets a week yet these blokes got nothing

Exactly what I was thinking. No wonder there is so much debate on this each week.

They seemed to have it about right for a while there, then they gave Hawkins 2 weeks ( > 1 ) for his little chin tap and Bernie Vince ( with a bad record this year ) gets a fine for a head high bump on Parker, so, WTF again MRP?

It seems like different people do the job every Monday. Do the AFL just get a few people from the office to look at the footage and work it out over a coffee?

Hard to see how Hawkins gets games and Firrito get's nothing for a few of his jumperies last Friday night. Doesn't make sense to suspend the bloke that can actually play the game.

Firrito, he really is a spud, isn't he? Laughed my head off when Breust nails a goal right on 3/4 time to make it just over a goal and North needed two to get in front.

Booney wrote:Firrito, he really is a spud, isn't he? Laughed my head off when Breust nails a goal right on 3/4 time to make it just over a goal and North needed two to get in front.

By all reports Bruest was wearing a set of "depends" by that time as well, fair effort.

Booney wrote:Firrito, he really is a spud, isn't he? Laughed my head off when Breust nails a goal right on 3/4 time to make it just over a goal and North needed two to get in front.

I see what you did there

I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.

Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?

Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.

Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?

Regardless of how hard it was. Never heard of the term 'insufficient force'? Vince elected to bump and got the guy high. You couldn't be more wrong in saying this is consistent.

regards,

REB

Zelezny Chucks wrote:Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?

Reckon Firrito forgot to grab the jumper the other night and gave a similar one to Smith (as Hawkins did), although Smith didn't play it up as much for a free (don't blame Davis for that, was the sensible thing to do). So more questioning the consistency between those two.

I thought Hawkins was just careless with his, reprimand would have done for mine.

Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.

Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?

You choose to bump and get the head = games (usually).

Rik E Boy wrote:

Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.

Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?

Regardless of how hard it was. Never heard of the term 'insufficient force'? Vince elected to bump and got the guy high. You couldn't be more wrong in saying this is consistent.

regards,

REB

End result has nothing to do with intent. Bernie was trying to bump Parker legally in the play and carelessly hit him in the head, Hawkins only intent was to hit him in the head in an off the ball situation. If you look back at things that are graded reckless, careless, intentional then I would think this is pretty consistent.

Whether you agree with it or not is another matter.

Zelezny Chucks wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.

Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?

Regardless of how hard it was. Never heard of the term 'insufficient force'? Vince elected to bump and got the guy high. You couldn't be more wrong in saying this is consistent.

regards,

REB

End result has nothing to do with intent. Bernie was trying to bump Parker legally in the play and carelessly hit him in the head, Hawkins only intent was to hit him in the head in an off the ball situation. If you look back at things that are graded reckless, careless, intentional then I would think this is pretty consistent.

Whether you agree with it or not is another matter.

Tried to bump legally but "carelessly got him high". Good, we do agree.

I would've thought Vince and Ziebell would've both got a game at least judging on previous bumps over the past 12 months.

Lightning McQueen wrote:I would've thought Vince and Ziebell would've both got a game at least judging on previous bumps over the past 12 months.

And you would have had a few riding that with you.

Booney wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:I would've thought Vince and Ziebell would've both got a game at least judging on previous bumps over the past 12 months.

And you would have had a few riding that with you.

Both have history's of being a little careless. I thought Ziebell's was plain rude.

Booney wrote:

Zelezny Chucks wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:

Zelezny Chucks wrote:I think the MRP has actually been consistent with these two. Hawkins punched a guy in the chin, the intent was there and it wasn't a footy action it was a blatant punch. Vince tucks his arm in attempted to bump and due to circumstances outside of his actions got him high. Vince didn't jump or raise an elbow he just didn't plan on Parker moving which is where his infringement lied by not taking due care.

Hawkins punching a guy in the chin, regardless of how hard it was, has only one intention to hurt/rattle the guy. It isn't something that has ever legally been in football and while you might say he barely hit him the intent was there. If Davis moves in a way Hawkins wasn't expecting and the punch breaks his jaw would you all be still saying he didn't deserve a week or more?

Regardless of how hard it was. Never heard of the term 'insufficient force'? Vince elected to bump and got the guy high. You couldn't be more wrong in saying this is consistent.

regards,

REB

End result has nothing to do with intent. Bernie was trying to bump Parker legally in the play and carelessly hit him in the head, Hawkins only intent was to hit him in the head in an off the ball situation. If you look back at things that are graded reckless, careless, intentional then I would think this is pretty consistent.

Whether you agree with it or not is another matter.

Tried to bump legally but "carelessly got him high". Good, we do agree.

Which I said from the start. You are completely ignoring the intent which is part of the grading and provides the guidelines for the penalties.

In regards to Hawkins, Nathan Burke explained as soon as he made intentional contact to the head with a closed fist the MRP had no choice but to give him 2 weeks down to one. They don't make the guidelines just review the incidents and apply them.

As someone said a better comparison would be Ziebell and Vince as they were both careless rather than intentional. I think Ziebell got lucky that an argument could be made he collected him across the upper chest, otherwise he'd have been looking at a week or two off as well.

Ziebell has been royally shafted previously by the MRP/Tribunal, about time he had one go his way.

Spargo wrote:Ziebell has been royally shafted previously by the MRP/Tribunal, about time he had one go his way.

Careful mate, you might cop a fine for that.