One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on March 25, 2011, 06:08:46 AM
-
In a behind-the-play incident that will be heavily scrutinised by the AFL match review panel, Waite was crunched by Tiger Alex Rance.
Rance blocked Waite's run, made contact with his face, and so Waite left the ground with a bloodied mouth.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-roar-but-blues-triumph/story-e6frf9jf-1226027735012
Edit: Rance has copped 4 weeks from the MRP
Edit: Accepted the 3 week suspension with the early plea.
-
He has more to worry from the selection committee
-
He has more to worry from the selection committee
No on both counts ;D
-
He has more to worry from the selection committee
Are you sure you didn't accidentally watch a game of Rance's from 2 years ago?
Rance was one of our best. The ball was in our defensive 50 for 3/4's of the game.
-
He has more to worry from the selection committee
Would agree
-
He has more to worry from the selection committee
Are you sure you didn't accidentally watch a game of Rance's from 2 years ago?
Rance was one of our best. The ball was in our defensive 50 for 3/4's of the game.
never ever going to play Finals footy when you play guy like Rance,
Thinks to slow and moves to slow
Gave the blues 2 goals on a platter last night in 2 nd
-
never ever going to play Finals footy when you play guy like Rance,
Thinks to slow and moves to slow
Gave the blues 2 goals on a platter last night in 2 nd
So do we drop all the players who gave the blues goals on platter last night ;D
if we are then there's at least 4 changes right there :thumbsup
-
never ever going to play Finals footy when you play guy like Rance,
Thinks to slow and moves to slow
Gave the blues 2 goals on a platter last night in 2 nd
So do we drop all the players who gave the blues goals on platter last night ;D
if we are then there's at least 4 changes right there :thumbsup
Yep and 2 of those changes would be Edwards and Lids (which wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing)- how both of the with such a congested backline would try and short pass is beyond me. If nothing is on, kick it to the boundary...at least if it goes out we have a stoppage 60 metres away from goal but to short pass like they did was plainly stupid.
-
never ever going to play Finals footy when you play guy like Rance,
Thinks to slow and moves to slow
Gave the blues 2 goals on a platter last night in 2 nd
So do we drop all the players who gave the blues goals on platter last night ;D
if we are then there's at least 4 changes right there :thumbsup
Exactly all stand up who want Deledio dropped for last nights shocker. :shh
-
Exactly all stand up who want Deledio dropped for last nights shocker. :shh
tuckerbag - if someone else had put in a performance like Lids last night - say Rance - people would be saying he ought to be dropped.
Lids has a couple of best and fairests and seems to be immune from being dropped.
IMHO, if he puts in another shocker like last nights effort next week against the saints - then drop him. Why not? Would send a reality rocket to his doorstep.
Players should be picked on form not reputation. Having said that a gun player is allowed to have a bad night, but clearly he was underdone fitness wise and he really struggled to get into the game ...I dont care about stats and how many possessions...crickey the game was mainly played in our back half ...quite frankly he should have had more possessions.
-
Con I agree all can have an aberration and go through a form slump but as a part of our on field leadership group I just feel he was shocking last night and that whether its a one off or a weekly thing is unacceptable and needs to be addressed pronto.
Rance yes erred a few times last night but by the same token he really was good and for me that was one of his best games ever at the club. How one would want to drop Rance after that performance last night is beyond me.
Would like to know if Dimma makes an example of Deledio due to his stature within the playing group.
-
rance is an improving footballer
Has a way to go but is respected by the match comitee for being a competitive beast
-
Rance has showed some pretty decent improvement since Hardwick arrived.
Give him another year or two and I expect him to be well on his way to being the running key defender we drafted him to be
-
Rance had a few 'deer in headlights' moments last night but he did some terrific things too. When he was one out in a otherwise empty F50 with Walker he was able to beat the Blueboy and bring the ball over the boundaryline. I was impressed by that action. He's improving and you can't fault him for that especially given the sheer amount of F50 entries Carlton had last night :o
-
He has more to worry from the selection committee
Are you sure you didn't accidentally watch a game of Rance's from 2 years ago?
Rance was one of our best. The ball was in our defensive 50 for 3/4's of the game.
Wayne your normally on the mark but i have to disagree here.
He was shocking last night. If it werent for Newman our general we would;ve got done by 10 goals.
Rance is a younger version of Kosi. Has no vision at all and that just cant be teached.
Apparently i heard last night Malthouse was quoted as saying we like him, he has good hands goes in hard but lacks footy smarts out there and that is why they never selected him.
It wasnt his worst game but he just not cut out for it IMO
-
He has more to worry from the selection committee
Are you sure you didn't accidentally watch a game of Rance's from 2 years ago?
Rance was one of our best. The ball was in our defensive 50 for 3/4's of the game.
Wayne your normally on the mark but i have to disagree here.
He was shocking last night. If it werent for Newman our general we would;ve got done by 10 goals.
Rance is a younger version of Kosi. Has no vision at all and that just cant be teached.
Apparently i heard last night Malthouse was quoted as saying we like him, he has good hands goes in hard but lacks footy smarts out there and that is why they never selected him.
It wasnt his worst game but he just not cut out for it IMO
Daniel I normally agree with a lot of what you say but on this one I think you should watch a replay. He was very compossed and self assured and the couple of "deer in headlights" moments came from him being directly sold into trouble by team mates - cant do anything about that and all players have those moments. He's developing nicely and think he's making serious strides to become a long term defender.
-
Con I agree all can have an aberration and go through a form slump but as a part of our on field leadership group I just feel he was shocking last night and that whether its a one off or a weekly thing is unacceptable and needs to be addressed pronto.
Rance yes erred a few times last night but by the same token he really was good and for me that was one of his best games ever at the club. How one would want to drop Rance after that performance last night is beyond me.
Would like to know if Dimma makes an example of Deledio due to his stature within the playing group.
tuckerbag...i misunderstood you..sorry.
I agree - if I was on the match comittee, I would drop Lids...maybe not this week but if he was poor against the saints then definately. The lack of chasing going the other way was not a good example to the others...
As for Rance I thought it was close to one of his best games for us...he really put in. Still lacks awareness though. His kickout was poor but the leaders at the club in defence (read newman and lids) should never have left him to kick out. I would not drop Rance.
-
Agree with Daniel. Rance has a good attitude and goes in hard. No one could fault him on his courage. The problem is when you dispose of the ball poorly or make a poor choice it really hurts the team. It puts too much pressure on others. It means that when the ball should have come out of defence it didn't. It led to the Blues having easy scoring shots. He will be on far better forwards than Walker in the future. Agree Newman played very well. Agree with comments shouldn't play cute in backline.
-
Agree with Daniel. Rance has a good attitude and goes in hard. No one could fault him on his courage. The problem is when you dispose of the ball poorly or make a poor choice it really hurts the team. It puts too much pressure on others. It means that when the ball should have come out of defence it didn't. It led to the Blues having easy scoring shots. He will be on far better forwards than Walker in the future. Agree Newman played very well. Agree with comments shouldn't play cute in backline.
but thats just it eliminator - unless I was watching a completely different game he didn't do any of that - his disposal was very un rance like. He slammed it on the boot a couple of times but if u watch the replay he was sold into unecessary trouble by a teammate(ie not his fault) and the Betts rundown he probably expected a shephard or call that he was hot
-
Agree with Daniel. Rance has a good attitude and goes in hard. No one could fault him on his courage. The problem is when you dispose of the ball poorly or make a poor choice it really hurts the team. It puts too much pressure on others. It means that when the ball should have come out of defence it didn't. It led to the Blues having easy scoring shots. He will be on far better forwards than Walker in the future. Agree Newman played very well. Agree with comments shouldn't play cute in backline.
Correct
-
He has more to worry from the selection committee
Are you sure you didn't accidentally watch a game of Rance's from 2 years ago?
Rance was one of our best. The ball was in our defensive 50 for 3/4's of the game.
Wayne your normally on the mark but i have to disagree here.
He was shocking last night. If it werent for Newman our general we would;ve got done by 10 goals.
Rance is a younger version of Kosi. Has no vision at all and that just cant be teached.
Apparently i heard last night Malthouse was quoted as saying we like him, he has good hands goes in hard but lacks footy smarts out there and that is why they never selected him.
It wasnt his worst game but he just not cut out for it IMO
Daniel I normally agree with a lot of what you say but on this one I think you should watch a replay. He was very compossed and self assured and the couple of "deer in headlights" moments came from him being directly sold into trouble by team mates - cant do anything about that and all players have those moments. He's developing nicely and think he's making serious strides to become a long term defender.
Tony I actually agree with everything here. Dan you are right in so many things but IMHO opinion I think Rance really looked good last night. Best game I have seen him play for the club.
-
Did I miss something? The incident when Waite went down looked like a head clash on the TV replay. Was there something else in it?
-
What about that thug Waite sticking the foot out at McGuane. :help
-
What about that thug Waite sticking the foot out at McGuane. :help
They showed this on Before The Game last night. Waite backheeled McGuane in the crown jewels :-X. Sam Lane got embarrassed after she said the incident was "off the ball" before realising the pun lol.
-
What about that thug Waite sticking the foot out at McGuane. :help
I seriously don't understand how that can not go up ??? He has kicked him ffs
-
Waite deserved it after his kick to McGuane's nuts early on.
-
Knowing the MRP don't be surprised if McGuane gets pinged also for retaliating with a jab ::).
-
thought Rance was very good the other night.
Would be a foolish decision to drop him after that performance. He just might be turning the corner.
It is possible for players to improve parts of their game. Look how much Jack's goal kicking has improved. Rance has an obvious decision-making floor, but he also has a lot of enviable qualities, in his strength, speed, mobility and ferocity. This is the year that he needs to prove that he has improved his composure. Lets give him a chance.
-
Rance has copped 4 weeks (early plea reduces it to 3)
-
Charges Laid:
Alex Rance, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Four engaging in rough conduct offence against Jarrad Waite, Carlton, during the second quarter of the Round One match between Richmond and Carlton, played at the MCG on Thursday March 24, 2011.
In summary, he can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Four offence, drawing 425 demerit points and a four-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 318.75 points and a three-match sanction.
Source: Herald-Sun & 3aw
-
Yet Waite has nothing to answer for for kicking McGaune in the groin ::)
Contact between Carlton’s Jarrad Waite and Richmond’s Luke McGuane from the first quarter of Thursday’s match was assessed. After examining the available footage and receiving a medical report from Richmond, it was determined that that force used was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. Further, the Panel was not satisfied that there was any attempt on the part of Waite to connect with greater force. No further action was taken.
Contact between Richmond’s Luke McGuane and Carlton’s Jarrad Waite from the first quarter of Thurday’s match was assessed. The force used was below that required to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.
The panel investigated an incident between Richmond’s Mitch Morton and Carlton’s Jeremy Laidler from Thursday’s match. After interviews with both players, it could not be determined if a reportable offence had occurred. No further action was taken.
http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-football-blog/scarlett-rance-face-suspensions/20110328-1cd5a.html
-
That's rubbish.
From the footage it looks like a head clash!!!
They're both of a similar height, and both were upright, and they clashed heads??
-
So not only is kicking allowed now but kicking an opponent in the groin is as well. What a joke the MRP is! :banghead
No surprises anymore when Tiger players cop harsh sentences yet opposition players get off ::). It was a bump off the ball on a player doubling back that happens 50 times a game. Sure Rance got him high and probably deserved a week or two but 4 weeks please!
-
for what its worth.
It happened right in front of me ( as WP knows where i sat ;))
Thought it was a stupid thing to do and aint surprised he got weeks.
4 is a bit high, 2 would be correct.
TV footage doesnt show it, I thought that Rance lined him up and could of avoided contact, thats my view on it from sitting behind both of them.
-
for what its worth.
It happened right in front of me ( as WP knows where i sat ;))
Thought it was a stupid thing to do and aint surprised he got weeks.
4 is a bit high, 2 would be correct.
TV footage doesnt show it, I thought that Rance lined him up and could of avoided contact, thats my view on it from sitting behind both of them.
If Rance had avoided contact he probably would've been dragged by the coach for allowing a forward to double back right past him unchecked.
-
there was a bit of nigggle before that and unfortunately Rance lined him up, end of story.
My thoughts that Waite should of got suspended for the kicking incident.
Not good for the game and the development at junior level.
-
Rance has copped 4 weeks (early plea reduces it to 3)
You have GOT to be joking.
This is horsesh|t >:(
-
there was a bit of nigggle before that and unfortunately Rance lined him up, end of story.
My thoughts that Waite should of got suspended for the kicking incident.
Not good for the game and the development at junior level.
he stood his ground thats all, just unfortunate there was contact made to head
hardly lined him up
joke of a penalty
-
there was a bit of nigggle before that and unfortunately Rance lined him up, end of story.
My thoughts that Waite should of got suspended for the kicking incident.
Not good for the game and the development at junior level.
he stood his ground thats all, just unfortunate there was contact made to head
hardly lined him up
joke of a penalty
Exactly right Tony. What a crap penalty. Shame coz Rance was one of our better players on Thursday night.
-
Cop the next three and we gain him back for our first win of the season against norf.
:thumbsup
-
This is ridiculous.
4 weeks is pretty stiff for contact which looked rather innocuous....especially when you get 8 weeks for king hit.(Hall).
-
Disgraceful decision.
Rance gets 4 weeks for an accidental clash of heads, and Waite has no case to answer for a deliberate back-heel kick to the goolies :o
It just absolutely beggars belief. The more I see of the MRP, the more I'm convinced that their judgements are based on the team's position on the ladder.
-
That's byllshit. I feel sick.
Hille will put someone square in te jaw ad get off
-
So who plays on the opposition monster forwards, one of our many half back flankers.
I thought he played a reasonsable game and has improved on previous years, seem to run straight and give off to players in better positions most of the time.
4 weeks is very disappointing
-
there was a bit of nigggle before that and unfortunately Rance lined him up, end of story.
My thoughts that Waite should of got suspended for the kicking incident.
Not good for the game and the development at junior level.
Rance was hardly going full tilt at Waite as Waite doubled back. No way was it worth as much as 4 weeks. Compare that to Scarlett's swinging elbow into Nick Riewoldt's ribs (1 week) and Waite kicking McGuane in the groin (got off ::) ). Sorry Jack the MRP is a joke! There's no consistency.
-
The only consistency is that the verdicts consistently go against US. Just ask Rance, Cotchin, Jackson etc.
-
for what its worth.
It happened right in front of me ( as WP knows where i sat ;))
Thought it was a stupid thing to do and aint surprised he got weeks.
4 is a bit high, 2 would be correct.
TV footage doesnt show it, I thought that Rance lined him up and could of avoided contact, thats my view on it from sitting behind both of them.
Jack call a spade a spade you have made it clear what you think of the boys playing abilities don't play devils advocate now and say the boy deserved to get four weeks for that. That sentence was far too harsh for something like that. Reminds me of the Cotchin sentence last year. Punishment does not fit the crime.
Yet Waite is not even reprimanded for a petulant and insolent kick to the nuts. If I was on the street and someone did what that thug apple does not fall far from the tree............
Of course this was not helped by the Carlton cheer squad on before the game going over this at nauseum. This is where Mick needs to put the jokes aside and tell that piece of poo Maher how it is rather than saving his observational humour for his morning slot on MMM.
I hope we contest this at the least and the club stands up to this absolute horrifying tratment of our players at the hands of the MRP even if it is ultimately futile just to get the point across to these imbeciles.
-
perhaps we could suspend the MRP for 4 weeks for such a deplorable verdict. typical JOKE from these idiots. if it was Judd who clashed heads with someone else i'd almost bet my house that he wouldn't get 4 weeks.
-
Sadly no surprise with this decision for mine- it is the MRP we are talking about
There doesn't need to be any logic let alone one iota or common sense of consistency
Don't agree with it but suck it up Tiges and just take the 3 weeks it aint worth fighthing it :-\ :-[
-
I thought he'd get 1 or 2 at first glance but 4's a bit over the top.
If Waite wasn't concussed that's all it would've been - they're obviousy trying to send a message. It's a contact sport boys.
-
for what its worth.
It happened right in front of me ( as WP knows where i sat ;))
Thought it was a stupid thing to do and aint surprised he got weeks.
4 is a bit high, 2 would be correct.
TV footage doesnt show it, I thought that Rance lined him up and could of avoided contact, thats my view on it from sitting behind both of them.
Jack call a spade a spade you have made it clear what you think of the boys playing abilities don't play devils advocate now and say the boy deserved to get four weeks for that. That sentence was far too harsh for something like that. Reminds me of the Cotchin sentence last year. Punishment does not fit the crime.
Yet Waite is not even reprimanded for a petulant and insolent kick to the nuts. If I was on the street and someone did what that thug apple does not fall far from the tree............
Of course this was not helped by the Carlton cheer squad on before the game going over this at nauseum. This is where Mick needs to put the jokes aside and tell that piece of poo Maher how it is rather than saving his observational humour for his morning slot on MMM.
I hope we contest this at the least and the club stands up to this absolute horrifying tratment of our players at the hands of the MRP even if it is ultimately futile just to get the point across to these imbeciles.
learn the rules.
head high hits behind the ball will be dealt with severly, as so they should.
Just watched it again on oneHD, doesnt look good.
shoulder straight into the head.
Might also add 2 mins before, he hit Warnock as well and the emergency umpire had run out and warned him
-
And Quartermain, Walls and Darcy all said it was way harsh and Darcy said he would appeal. As Walls said what was Rance meant to do .... ridiculous to expect him to just get out of the way and let Waite through.
I also agree with Quartermain about McGaune. Luke should have gone down like a pack of spuds and miled it for all it was worth and Waite would not being getting off.
-
thought Waite should of got 2 weeks.-no doubt
rance didnt have to make contact with his head, should and could of been shoulder to shoulder -a bump, not shoulder in face full on.
READ THE RULES - no contact with face/head
-
thought Waite should of got 2 weeks.-no doubt
rance didnt have to make contact with his head, should and could of been shoulder to shoulder -a bump, not shoulder in face full on.
READ THE RULES - no contact with face/head
I would have no problem with this if Rance had copped 1-2 weeks because the shoulder bump included head high contact but 4 weeks is overkill and ridiculous for what occurred. Rance had no way of avoiding contact unless abnormally going out of his way to do so (which would have peeed off the coach and got himself dragged). Rance's intention was a shoulder-to-shoulder bump on contact as he had his arm down by his body. He didn't swing an elbow nor kick someone in the groin ::). Sorry the MRP have no idea if they believe a bump is far far worse those latter two cheap shots which don't belong on a footy field and require dirty intentional motives.
-
thought Waite should of got 2 weeks.-no doubt
rance didnt have to make contact with his head, should and could of been shoulder to shoulder -a bump, not shoulder in face full on.
READ THE RULES - no contact with face/head
It looked like an accidental hit to me. Waite ran into him. Besides, each case is looked at on its merits not a blanket out for head high contact. Thus, the bloke who hit Johnathan Brown had no case to answer, or Selwood. But anytime a Tiger player is up, they always throw the book at them regardless of the evidence. It stinks, and we should appeal, even if he gets an extra week. I'm sick of this crap.
-
thought Waite should of got 2 weeks.-no doubt
rance didnt have to make contact with his head, should and could of been shoulder to shoulder -a bump, not shoulder in face full on.
READ THE RULES - no contact with face/head
I would have no problem with this if Rance had copped 1-2 weeks because the shoulder bump included head high contact but 4 weeks is overkill and ridiculous for what occurred. Rance had no way of avoiding contact unless abnormally going out of his way to do so (which would have peeed off the coach and got himself dragged). Rance's intention was a shoulder-to-shoulder bump on contact as he had his arm down by his body. He didn't swing an elbow nor kick someone in the groin ::). Sorry the MRP have no idea if they believe a bump is far far worse those latter two cheap shots which don't belong on a footy field and require dirty intentional motives.
I agree, should of been 2 weeks max
-
If head high contact like that gives him 4 weeks what would he have got if he king hit him in the face?
If so 4 weeks I would have done the latter.
Wouldn't be the first Richmond player to belt a Waite. :cheers :bow :thumbsup ;D :lol :rollin :lol :clapping
-
The footage isn't clear enough to see where contact was made
If anything Waite ran into Rance
-
Is the AFL review panel nuts?
Mark Robinson
From: Herald Sun
March 29, 2011
THE unlucky at the weekend were Jonathan Brown, Joel Selwood, Mark Le Cras and Brent Staker, for injuries are football's handicap.
The luckiest, by far, was Jarrad Waite.
The Carlton veteran lashed out with a boot and connected Richmond's Luke McGuane in the most sensitive of places.
Sorry, ladies, but this is a male thing.
If there is to be any sort of contact on a football field, we, the males, would much rather prefer a clip across the head than a kick to the "cousins" of our best friend.
That Waite was yesterday cleared by the AFL match review panel is baffling.
Put it this way: How can somebody kick an opponent on the sporting field and not be suspended?
Not just in the AFL, but any sport.
The MRP said: "After examining the available footage and receiving a medical report from Richmond, it was determined that the force used was below that required to constitute a reportable offence.
"Further, the panel was not satisfied that there was any attempt on the part of Waite to connect with greater force."
Seriously, the force was below that required?
Seriously, Waite did not attempt to connect with great force?
The footage clearly shows it was intentional. Waite knew McGuane was behind him because, as a defender, McGuane was shoving and niggling his opponent.
The MRP's explanation as to what exactly Waite was attempting to do when he swung his leg back and upwards, other than trying to kick McGuane, is difficult to accept.
Another question.
What was worse? Geelong's Matthew Scarlett, who received a week for elbowing Saints skipper Nick Riewoldt, or Waite's kick?
Scarlett's was a cheap shot, but it was foreplay compared to what Waite got away with.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/is-the-afl-review-panel-nuts/story-e6frf9jf-1226029660701
-
Tigers may appeal Rance's four-game ban
Martin Blake
March 29, 2011
RICHMOND will ponder overnight whether to take the case of defender Alex Rance to the AFL Tribunal after he was given a four-game suspension by the match review panel for rough conduct against Carlton's Jarrad Waite during last Thursday's season-opener.
Rance can either accept a three-game sanction or risk copping the full four matches if he takes the case to the tribunal and loses.
http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/tigers-may-appeal-rances-fourgame-ban-20110328-1cdg8.html
-
ridiculous if they cop it on the chin - go and get it reduced to 1-2 weeks and we'll wear that
-
We've accepted the 3 weeks for Rance
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/matthew-scarlett-out-for-cats-dockers-clash/story-e6frf9jf-1226029664865
Herald-Sun's Jon Ralph: "Can't believe Tigers didn't appeal the Rance penalty. He got in Waite's path but then Waite ran into him. "
-
ridiculous if they cop it on the chin - go and get it reduced to 1-2 weeks and we'll wear that
But the problem was the chances of getting it reduced were practically zero - history shows that and we don't have a great record when it comes to taking these things on at the tribunal
If we went in and lost the penalty is 4 weeks
I don't agree with the penalty but reckon we've done the right thing by just accepting it. It was a fight we weren't going to win
-
Was worth the risk of an extra week to challenge it
I think they were short sighted and focussed on downgrading each of the point rankings rather than simply arguing that Waite ran into Rance who was in the way to take some of the responsibility off him for the hit in the first place
-
I think there was a decent chance of getting it reduced by arguing negligence? Im no legal eagle but eff me, we need to re-evaluate our legal representatives bc that is farcical
-
good to see they took the 3.
reality is that Waite got hit in the head and didnt play the rest of game
Case closed
-
I think there was a decent chance of getting it reduced by arguing negligence? Im no legal eagle but eff me, we need to re-evaluate our legal representatives bc that is farcical
As I said I don't agree with the penalty it is too hard but as I said to someone via email this morning:
"Problem for Rance going by the footage is that he isn’t looking at the ball and they’ve made it clear the head is a protective area. If you bump and hit the head and you “appear” to have another option to bumping you are gone. That’s what has done Alex in I reckon."
-
I think there was a decent chance of getting it reduced by arguing negligence? Im no legal eagle but eff me, we need to re-evaluate our legal representatives bc that is farcical
As I said I don't agree with the penalty it is too hard but as I said to someone via email this morning:
"Problem for Rance going by the footage is that he isn’t looking at the ball and they’ve made it clear the head is a protective area. If you bump and hit the head and you “appear” to have another option to bumping you are gone. That’s what has done Alex in I reckon."
Correct
-
ridiculous if they cop it on the chin - go and get it reduced to 1-2 weeks and we'll wear that
But the problem was the chances of getting it reduced were practically zero - history shows that and we don't have a great record when it comes to taking these things on at the tribunal
If we went in and lost the penalty is 4 weeks
I don't agree with the penalty but reckon we've done the right thing by just accepting it. It was a fight we weren't going to win
So if you do not take the chance you can not win.
The club got this one wrong.
-
I think there was a decent chance of getting it reduced by arguing negligence? Im no legal eagle but eff me, we need to re-evaluate our legal representatives bc that is farcical
As I said I don't agree with the penalty it is too hard but as I said to someone via email this morning:
"Problem for Rance going by the footage is that he isn’t looking at the ball and they’ve made it clear the head is a protective area. If you bump and hit the head and you “appear” to have another option to bumping you are gone. That’s what has done Alex in I reckon."
For mine he did no more than stand his ground, he didnt line him up and go for a big bump hence I feel arguing negligence over malicious intent is reasonable? AAgree according to the rules he had to go bc head contact was made however i just find it very dissapointing that the MRP came to this decision.. I still feel they should have contested on priniciple but its done now -I will say its these decisions that kill off a little bit more of the passion I have for this great game.
-
good to see they took the 3.
reality is that Waite got hit in the head and didnt play the rest of game
Case closed
Rubbish! We'll never improve as a club until we stand up to the AFL and say we won't take their crap anymore. Absolute miscarriage of justice. We have to jump up and down like Eddie McGuire did when Maxwell was outed for busting an Eagle's jaw. He had that decision turned around despite it being a much worse hit and accompanied with overwhelming video evidence. They did us on a bit of faraway, blurry footage, and in Jake King's case in the pre-season last year, no footage at all. Just the word of Cloke. Why? Because the league figures it's just Richmond, and will continue to treat us like dirt, because we always just meekly cop it on the chin.
-
Waite was concussed.
AFL Rules clearly states is that you cannot contact the head.
I was sitting behind Rance and he wasnt stationary.
interesting the club didnt contest case as it fullys understands the rules the AFL set.
-
If i ever run into one of those pepe le pews from MRP i am going to kick them right in the nuts, just without enough force or intent to warrant a suspension.
-
My point is that just getting a head high knock is not in itself an automatic suspension. Last weekend alone there were two horrific head injuries to Brown and Selwood that were much worse than Waite's, and the perpetrators, quite rightly had no case to answer.
Rance's case had to be judged on its own merits, and studying the blurry split-second and far away footage that was shown ad infinitum on the news was inconclusive evidence in itself for such a stringent penalty.
You could argue for hours about who got in who's way, whether the arm was raised, whether it was accidental or clumsy or intentional, and on that footage alone not be able to prove anything conclusively. Yet we have a damning piece of clear footage of Waite throwing his leg back and making forceful contact with McGuanes groin, and he has no case to answer.
It's this baffling inconsistency from the MRP that frustrates fans. And by the way, I sit in the cheer squad, the incident with Rance happened in front of me too, and my initial feeling was he'd have no case to answer. I should have known that these things ALWAYS go against us.
-
It's this baffling inconsistency from the MRP that frustrates fans. And by the way, I sit in the cheer squad, the incident with Rance happened in front of me too, and my initial feeling was he'd have no case to answer. I should have known that these things ALWAYS go against us.
That's the key point though isn't it? We are more frustrated (rightly) because of the lack on consistency of the MRP
Are we as Tiger fans more annoyed that Waite got off rather than Rance getting suspended. They are 2 very different issues IMHO
I think the Rance penalty is to severe but following the rules as they stand right now the charge was a correct one unfortunately for us. Whether the rules are right or wrong is another argument altogether
Waite should have been sighted and there is no way in the world anyone can justify why he wasn't cited but to say it is unfair Rance got suspended and Waite didn't is not right either.
-
Luke McGuane has had a nice dig at the MRP on twitter :thumbsup
LukeMcguane: "Feeling for young alex rance at the moment 3 weeks seems a bit steep personally it feels like a bit of a kick in the nuts"
-
That's the key point though isn't it? We are more frustrated (rightly) because of the lack on consistency of the MRP
Are we as Tiger fans more annoyed that Waite got off rather than Rance getting suspended.
A little from column A, a little from column B ;D
-
My point is that just getting a head high knock is not in itself an automatic suspension. Last weekend alone there were two horrific head injuries to Brown and Selwood that were much worse than Waite's, and the perpetrators, quite rightly had no case to answer.
Rance's case had to be judged on its own merits, and studying the blurry split-second and far away footage that was shown ad infinitum on the news was inconclusive evidence in itself for such a stringent penalty.
You could argue for hours about who got in who's way, whether the arm was raised, whether it was accidental or clumsy or intentional, and on that footage alone not be able to prove anything conclusively. Yet we have a damning piece of clear footage of Waite throwing his leg back and making forceful contact with McGuanes groin, and he has no case to answer.
It's this baffling inconsistency from the MRP that frustrates fans. And by the way, I sit in the cheer squad, the incident with Rance happened in front of me too, and my initial feeling was he'd have no case to answer. I should have known that these things ALWAYS go against us.
Both brown and selwood were in possesion of the ball, Selwood tapped the ball forward 1 second before collison and Brown was in a marking contest.
The waite incident happened 30 metres off the ball, BIG difference
-
Luke McGuane has had a nice dig at the MRP on twitter :thumbsup
LukeMcguane: "Feeling for young alex rance at the moment 3 weeks seems a bit steep personally it feels like a bit of a kick in the nuts"
:lol :clapping :lol :clapping :lol :clapping :lol :clapping :lol :clapping :lol :clapping
-
Humphrey B Bear was on Sen tonight and reckons it should of been reffered and copped 2 weeks. Has opened a can of worms for later in the season.
-
Humphrey B Bear was on Sen tonight and reckons it should of been reffered and copped 2 weeks. Has opened a can of worms for later in the season.
Since when has Humphrey B Bear started to speak and I didn't know he was a Richmond fan? :lol :rollin :lol
Maybe we should put him in the other thread of famous Richmond supporters. :thumbsup
-
Luke McGuane has had a nice dig at the MRP on twitter :thumbsup
LukeMcguane: "Feeling for young alex rance at the moment 3 weeks seems a bit steep personally it feels like a bit of a kick in the nuts"
;D Love it
-
Dimma today on the verdict.....
Hardwick says the Tigers never seriously considered appealing the Rance's penalty.
"We don't debate that there was contact made," he said. "It was a clash of heads, so we just accepted the penalty.
"The match review panel do as good a job as they can and they made their decision.
"We're disappointed. He's been in really good form, Alex. It's a real shame for the kid.
"He's starting to carve a career at stuff, so he'll take his three weeks on the sidelines and we'll move on."
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/110377/default.aspx
-
Interesting to see what Tapscott cops from the MRP for his blind bump on Nicoski behind the play. He should get more than Rance's 3 weeks because Nicoski was totally not expecting it but with the MRP who can tell anymore :-\.
-
that idiot is in my dream tream :banghead