Rance hit vs Carlisle hit

[Devilhead]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-04-08/ ... r-this-hit

So Carlisle gets two weeks but Rance ......gets zip

Very similar hit - both players concussed

Rance's hit was deemed - careless conduct with low impact - $2000 fine

Carlisle - careless with high impact and high contact - 2 weeks

One rule for some teams and another rule for others

Disgraceful

(apologies for ad at the start of video)

[WellardSaint]

It actually looks worse than Carlisle's,
because Rance comes from the side and his arm collects the head
well before his fist gets anywhere near the ball.

In Jake's case, guess what- his longer reach means he is closer to the ball,
so he has a more realistic attempt to spoil.
But it's just rotten luck that JR had his head in the way.
Jake's is a much better spoil, much better.
I am stunned beyond belief.

[Sainter_Dad]

GUESS what...the video will not play.
AFL has done what they do best, cover up.
Like the old KGB

I could watch the video and it shows three significant differences.
1 (most importantly) Rance was way later than Carlisle and had no chance of spoiling the ball
2 (also most importantly) Rances jumper has yellow and black not Red, White and Black
3 (also most importantly) That video is from almost 2 months ago - they cant even apply consistency from a fortnight ago!!!

[Devilhead]

Michael Christian is a fkn joke - making it up as he goes

And i am not saying Carlisle should have got off but there needs to be consistency and these two examples shows the huge gap in his decision making

Richmond kissed on the tadger once again

[WellardSaint]

the club better show the Rance vision in their appeal.
If they don't use that vision,
I seriously will reconsider going to this weekend's game,
even though I have $99 tickets.

Seriously p1ssed off...

[bigcarl]

Use it as basis for appeal. Also show them the Fyfe knee to Carlisle’s head

[Sainter_Dad]

Use it as basis for appeal. Also show them the Fyfe knee to Carlisle’s head

I may be wrong be wrong but surely some consideration needs to be given to the fact that Reiwoldt carried a suspected concussion into the game - as he was in doubt for the game against us.

[stevie]

f****** disgraceful. Rance is way worse! This garbage that the penalty depends on the severity of the injury is s***.

[WellardSaint]

How can the club use "Strength Through Loyalty"
as its motto,
how can it demand loyalty from its players,
when it shows NONE to the players.
Throwing Jake under the bus TWICE
The first was that disgraceful Marc Murphy rubbish.
This just takes the cake.
The club has lawyers on the board.
A lawyer is obliged to use everything possible to secure a win or lessen the penalty for their client.
The directors who are lawyers MUST point to the Rance incident as a valid and appropriate precedent.
It occurs in eerily similar circumstances
however the respective penalties are poles apart.

The LAW always uses precedent, whether it's 120 years old or only 2 months old.
There's a very famous case from Ireland from about 1920,
where a lady drank a large bottle of ginger beer, and saw a dead snail (!) in the bottom of the bottle.
In Year 11 Legal Studies, it was described to my class as a very significant case, with wide-reaching implications.
So 2 months ago should be front and centre.
Simple.

[Sainter_Dad]

How can the club use "Strength Through Loyalty"
as its motto,
how can it demand loyalty from its players,
when it shows NONE to the players.
Throwing Jake under the bus TWICE
The first was that disgraceful Marc Murphy rubbish.
This just takes the cake.
The club has lawyers on the board.
A lawyer is obliged to use everything possible to secure a win or lessen the penalty for their client.
The directors who are lawyers MUST point to the Rance incident as a valid and appropriate precedent.
It occurs in eerily similar circumstances
however the respective penalties are poles apart.

The LAW always uses precedent, whether it's 120 years old or only 2 months old.
There's a very famous case from Ireland from about 1920,
where a lady drank a large bottle of ginger beer, and saw a dead snail (!) in the bottom of the bottle.
In Year 11 Legal Studies, it was described to my class as a very significant case, with wide-reaching implications.
So 2 months ago should be front and centre.
Simple.

The Board/Club has not decided it's actions as yet - so cool your jets - but if they don't appeal this and take it as high as it goes we might as well change our motto to 'Bring your Own Vaseline'.

[CarlD]

Perhaps my memory has failed me but I thought the AFL refused to use precedents (makes it easier to make whatever decision they feel like).

[bigred]

Waaaaaaaay later.

Need to appeal just to make these asshats explain

[samuraisaint]

How can the club use "Strength Through Loyalty"
as its motto,
how can it demand loyalty from its players,
when it shows NONE to the players.
Throwing Jake under the bus TWICE
The first was that disgraceful Marc Murphy rubbish.
This just takes the cake.
The club has lawyers on the board.
A lawyer is obliged to use everything possible to secure a win or lessen the penalty for their client.
The directors who are lawyers MUST point to the Rance incident as a valid and appropriate precedent.
It occurs in eerily similar circumstances
however the respective penalties are poles apart.

The LAW always uses precedent, whether it's 120 years old or only 2 months old.
There's a very famous case from Ireland from about 1920,
where a lady drank a large bottle of ginger beer, and saw a dead snail (!) in the bottom of the bottle.
In Year 11 Legal Studies, it was described to my class as a very significant case, with wide-reaching implications.
So 2 months ago should be front and centre.
Simple.

Remember that textbook very well - did that subject in Year 11 in 1984. Wasn't it let the buyer beware or something?

[dragit]

Perhaps my memory has failed me but I thought the AFL refused to use precedents (makes it easier to make whatever decision they feel like).

So zero consistency, zero accountability.

Stick a wet finger in the air... perfect.

[WellardSaint]

"Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence, establishing general principles of the duty of care." from wikepedia

[Jacks Back]

Waaaaaaaay later.

Need to appeal just to make these asshats explain

+100. We need to show this and appeal the f*** out of it. I'm sick of us getting the rough end of the pineapple all the f****** time. Stand up and be counted all those bloody chefs in the Saints backroom!

[saintspremiers]

Settle guys!

Stop this “appeal” nonsense.

He’s been charged by the MRP.

We can take it to the tribunal without risking a heavier penalty.

If that fails to reduce or remove the suspension, I highly doubt we’d take the “appeal” route.

We should definitely take it to the tribunal IMO, but not appeal if it fails

[SuperDuper]

good OP

Rance hit clearly worse... When you look at the still of Carlisle he gets very close to the ball with his hand and hits riewoldt with his arm... Rance gets nowhere near the ball

[SuperDuper]

the MRP really is based on who you are rather than what you did
Carlisle is not liked and had no chance

[SinCitySainter]

No point taking it anywhere.
The AFL will instruct the tribunal to enforce the penalty as they can't have more of the MRP results overturned.
We are an easy target because we can't fight back that hard as if we do the AFL will simply squeeze us.

[sunsaint]

seriously?
the AFL appealed the tribunal decision with both Curnow brothers...

[perfectionist]

The incident with Rance occurred in the last 2 minutes of the game. Breust got up and played out the game. He played the next week against Melbourne. He was not concussed. Just why people make up "facts" to suit their purposes alludes me. There is no doubt that the actions were similar. That's irrelevant. It's the outcome that is important. And in terms of outcome, taking a player out in the first minute of a game, which causes him to miss the remainder of the game is different to doing the same thing in the last minute. People may not like that, but that's the way the MRP ( Christian) is required to view it.

[dragit]

There is no doubt that the actions were similar. That's irrelevant. It's the outcome that is important.

The problem here is that the outcome doesn't always dictate the penalty... see Fyfe 2 weeks ago > Carlisle missed more football than jack will.

I think the act and intention are far more important than a resultant injury, the range and Carlisle cases show that a "reckless" or "careless" act is okay, so long as the player isn't knocked out, which is tottaly dependent on the receiving players physiology. This won't really discourage players from continuing to perform them which should really be the aim in protecting the head.

I saw another incident this week where a Brisbane player was punching heads under a pack, no charge because there apparently wasn't enough force... I reckon off the ball whacks and punches are worse than a mid air contest which ends in a knock.

For me the punishment shouldn't revolve around 'luck' of who you are in a contest with and how hard there head is... rance and Carlisle did the exact same thing so should have a very similar punishment.

Jack Riewoldt is probably like his older cousin nick who got knocked out from bumps that most players would shake off.

[Devilhead]

The incident with Rance occurred in the last 2 minutes of the game. Breust got up and played out the game. He played the next week against Melbourne. He was not concussed. Just why people make up "facts" to suit their purposes alludes me. There is no doubt that the actions were similar. That's irrelevant. It's the outcome that is important. And in terms of outcome, taking a player out in the first minute of a game, which causes him to miss the remainder of the game is different to doing the same thing in the last minute. People may not like that, but that's the way the MRP ( Christian) is required to view it.

Firstly, Breust was prostrate on the ground just as long as Riewoldt , maybe more - he was shaken up enough that he couldn't take his kick - O'Meara took it

Also quite a few Hawthorn players remonstrated with Rance but not one Richmond player took Carlisle to task over his action - maybe because Rance's hit was a lot later (more intent) whereas Carlisle attempt to spoil was more clumsy but in the moment - Breust also got a 50 / Riewoldt didn't.

Lastly most forumites here probably agree that Carlisle should have got a week - the point is so should have Rance - as he was late and cannoned into Breust's head with just as much force - the fact that he didn't cop him in the perfect knockout sweet spot should be irrevelant.

For one action to be graded low impact and the other high impact is a joke considering the similarities to each hit are close enough bang on the same - to have such a gulf in penalties just because one player is maybe more robust than another or one hit was one inch lower than the other is extremely problematic.

The unfortunate scenario that may now start to pervade into the competition is whereby players fake knock outs / concussion to get the offending player suspended - especially late in the game when there team is well ahead or far behind that it would not matter if the hit player sat out the rest of the game.

This could may well happen in a Semi Final whereby a player fakes being knocked out to get the opposition player suspended from the subsequent Grand Final for the fact that their team might have to play the suspended player's team again.

[SMS]

Rance hit was much worse. It had intent and late. Carlisles was in play hence no 50. It was clumsy at worst.

Absolute no justice. Known fact christenson hates stkilda.

He needs to go now his decisions are deplorable