Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
I wish to raise my utter disgust and dismay at the Match Review Panel’s (MRP) decision to allow a 1 week suspension Amon Buchanan.
The AFL clearly identified at the start of the season that the head was sacrosanct and players hitting opponents must take a duty of care.
Martin Clarke was totally defenceless as he had just kicked the ball and Buchanan jumped high and forcefully and made contact to Clarke’s head.
Clarke was mildly concussed and was helped from the field by 2 trainers. He did return to the field some 10-15 minutes later but he was obviously still affected by the bump to the head.
I fully understand that originally the MRP allocated 325 activation points and with an early plea and good record the sentence was reduced.
However the MRP reasoning at apportioning this penalty is fundamentally flawed.
The MRP rationale on this decision was that contact had been to the body and not the head. This is unmistakably wrong.
I have watched a replay of the incident at least 25 times and from various angles and contact was made to the head not the body. Every football journalist including the likes of Gerard Healy, Graeme Bond, Mike Sheahan, Robert Walls, Stephen Quartermain (all impartial non Collingwood people) have said that contact was made to the head.
I implore you and the AFL to appeal the MRP decision, change the ruling to HEAD high contact and send the matter to the tribunal where a more appropriate and lengthy penalty would no doubt be determined.
I would like a response from you and the MRP as soon as possible at this decision as it currently stands brings the integrity of the MRP into question.
And this was the response, not from him.
Thankyou for your email in relation to the incident involving Amon Buchanan rough conduct against Marty Clarke of Collingwood. The Match Review Panel is made up of Chairman Andrew McKay, Nathan Burke and Peter Carey.
The Match Review Panel analysis all incidents diligently and view various angles of the incident a number of times some of which are not shown on the broadcast and take into account the medical report of Clarke. It was there view taking all things into account that contact was made to the body and not the head.
Thanks
Scott
Anyways, that met with this response from my mate -
Hi Scott,
Thanks for your reply.
Why are Andrew McKay, Nathan Burke and Peter Carey the only people that think that contact was made to the body and not the head.
I would like them to explain this to me and the football public.
I originally thought my bias as Collingwood fan clouded my views but every football person I have heard has stated contact was made to the head.
I am amazed how a MRP and then a tribunal can suspend Steven Baker for 7 weeks with no video evidence but then say with vision that Buchanan didn't make reckless, high and forceful contact to Martin Clarke's head.
Sorry I am still not satisfied with this decision and would request Andrew McKay to respond with a detailed explanation.
Yeah he was off for some 15 minutes, and at the time it didnt look good, so from that aspect I was disappointed he didnt cop more. In fact fuming. I guess I have mellowed now in that outcomes like this do not surprise anymore. A bit like interest rate rises, u get them when u least expect it.
As for Marty yeah a really good kid guys, hard trainer and one of these guys u do not have to prompt to do extra work. Brilliant work ethic and attitude to match. Has come along way as the reports from MM and Brad Gotch (Williamstown Coach) would indicate.
Incidentally on the afl.com.au website we have just invited over another Irish lad who is supposed to be something special as well. Will wait and see though.
Another thing that really concerns me is the weight that 'the medical report' can be given. I mean the fact that a medical report isn't too bad doesn't neccessarily mean that the offenders actions were potentially any less serious.
Usually I'm all for the old bloody tribunal hates StK etc etc.
Baker got 3 weeks more than what he should've, he told the truth and as soon as he did that it was up to the tribunal how many they'd give him and we couldn't argue it because we had no video evidence.
I thought after i found out he told the truth that he'd get 2 weeks (without the points added on). Tribunal went overboard, but as I said it was there discretion after Bakes told the truth.
Buchs, sensational record, borderline body/head contact. left the ground, but so did Gia last year.....got 3 weeks. And lost 2 weeks on an early plea.
Tribunal has been in good form lately.
As much as it hurts me to know that Baker in gone for 7 weeks. And absolutely hate the tribunal for making the call, Baker simply shouldn't of told the truth, AFL is all over head contact and will nearly always go overboard now.
Last edited by Sam23 on Thu 30 Aug 2007 12:03am, edited 1 time in total.
Was just saying that because the words in his email were legitimate English words (analysis, there), they would not have been picked up by Spellcheck.
However, they were clearly misspelt in the context in which they were used in the email. Proofreading would have picked that up, whereas Spellcheck would not.
Hence, Scotty Taylor was overreliant on Spellcheck.
"To be or not to be" - William Shakespeare
"To be is to do" - Immanuel Kant
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra
