One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Phil Mrakov on April 22, 2012, 05:33:11 PM
-
Will he go?
Opinions please..
-
this thread should be Conca's "mistakes" cost dearly today
-
Conca playee well in the 2nd q
-
Willing, but error-riddled game today from Concs.
-
If he plans on disposing the way he did today then I hope so. :banghead :banghead :banghead
On the bump I have no idea what your talking about. Didnt see it?
-
No free kick was awarded :huh but he is gone. Head high, forceful contact. The AFL hates that.
-
No free kick was awarded :huh but he is gone. Head high, forceful contact. The AFL hates that.
i thought he went for the ball and the head high contact was incidental... :huh :huh
-
He slid into the contest, if goodes went then he could be in strife
-
he should go.....and see a shrink about those horrible brain fades
-
Off bf:
The Tigers face the prospect of losing Reece Conca to suspension for the second time this year after he delivered a high bump to Christensen in the last quarter.
-
he should go.....and see a shrink about those horrible brain fades
get real
-
Far bigger concerns to whinge about the Conca's little mistakes.
Won't go, i'd classify that the collision was a genuine attempt at going for the ball.
-
The fact the umpires let it go without paying a free was disgraceful - it was clearly a free
And based on how the MRP views that sort of contact I reckon he is in trouble - 3 weeks most likely with the points from his pre-season infringement hanging over his head
-
Well if that's the case dumb and dumber will be reunited. (Shed n jacko)
-
It didn't really look like a bump, just clipped him with the arm as he was trying to get the ball.
-
Alas I think he might get a holiday for a few weeks. :help
-
It didn't really look like a bump, just clipped him with the arm as he was trying to get the ball.
Had 2 options, go for the ball or bump the opponent. He went for the ball, Christensen came back on and kicked a goal.
So
Wasn't intentional, Maybe reckless.
In play.
High contact
Low Impact. (Christensen came back on minutes later)
1 week max?
-
He slid into the contest, if goodes went then he could be in strife
Totally different situations. Goodes slid in with his knees which is very dangerous.
I just saw the Foxtel highlights on the Herald-Sun website and they showed the Conca 'bump'. With the MRP you never know but looking at the clip about 10 times I think Reece may still get off. Ellis tackles Christensen to the ground with an arm pinned. Christensen while on the ground tries to lift his upper body up and for a split second looks like he's about to try and get a handball out to his teammate which is what Reece reacts to. However the contact which results from Reece sliding in with his body from the side (it wasn't front on) causes the ball to drop camera side under Christensen (leaving him face down) and Ellis grabs the ball and runs away. Clearly the ump (mistakenly?) believed Conca came in from the side and contacted with Christensen's side (shoulder rather than the head) otherwise the ump would've paid the free. Then again the ump made have paid holding the ball against Christensen first and then allowed advantage to Ellis.
Go to 1:20 in the clip attached to the match report:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/geelong-holds-on-to-topple-richmond-by-10-points/story-e6frf9jf-1226335536844
-
I couldn't see any head contact, he was foxing
-
From where I was sitting which was behind the far point post (and I think there was a camera near by) his knee clearly copped the base of Christenson's head and his neck and didn't look good. Watching the replay last night it doesn't look as bad but still doens't look great for Conca
So going by the MRP assess theses things that is very INCONSISTENTLY & coupled with how he has points from the pre-season I still reckon he is strife
Clearly the ump (mistakenly?) believed Conca came in from the side and contacted with Christensen's side (shoulder rather than the head) otherwise the ump would've paid the free. Then again the ump made have paid holding the ball against Christensen first and then allowed advantage to Ellis.
Clearly like a lot of situations during the game the ump was on the blind side of the play; hate seeing umpires guessing simply becuase they are out of position >:(
-
could do without this...
At least Tucky is still flying, he will be in brownlow contention soon ROAR!
-
Think he's ok from what I saw. BTW he made the skill errors after the bump so he may have been distracted.
-
Conca should still get 2 weeks because he failed to take out the player completely. When you go after a player at least make it worthwhile and put the little bludger out of business for afew weeks. Conca should be shown tapes of Neil Balme in action. Thats how you do it, and I forgot to add Jackson should get 6 weeks coz we're all sick of watching him play. ;D
-
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane twitter
"Reece Conca cleared contact A Christensen. Conca attempting to win possession and he had no realistic alternative way to contest the ball."
-
Well thats a relief, Conca really needs to watch himself though, if he keeps pushing it he will go and for a while!!!
-
:clapping
-
:clapping :clapping
-
:clapping :clapping
:clapping :clapping :clapping
-
:clapping :clapping
:clapping :clapping :clapping
:clapping :clapping :clapping :clapping
-
Official Match Review Panel Report
Contact between Richmond's Reece Conca and the Geelong Cats' Allen Christensen from the fourth quarter of Sunday's match was assessed. Christensen has the ball when he is tackled by Richmond player Brandon Ellis. As Christensen goes to ground, the tackle is released and the ball spills free. Christensen attempts to regain possession of the ball and he is met high by Conca, who is coming in to contest the ball. It was the view of the panel that Conca was attempting to win possession and he had no realistic alternative way to contest the ball. No further action was taken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead both Trent West and Steve Johnson (twice) were reported:
Trent West, Geelong, has been charged with a Level one engaging in rough conduct offence against Ty Vickery, Richmond, during the first quarter of the round Four match between the Geelong Cats and Richmond, played at Simonds Stadium on Sunday April 22, 2012,
In summary, due to a five-year good record, he can accept a reprimand and 70.31 points towards his future record with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Richmond Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and high contact (two points). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level one offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing five-year good record, which reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 93.75 points towards his future record and a reprimand. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 70.30 demerit points towards his future record and a reprimand.
Steve Johnson, Geelong, has been charged with a Level one engaging in rough conduct offence against Chris Newman, Richmond, during the first quarter of the round Four match between the Geelong Cats and Richmond, played at Simonds Stadium on Sunday April 22, 2012.
In summary, due to his previous poor record, his one-match sanction must remain at one game, even with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Richmond Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level one offence, drawing 125 demerit points and a one-match sanction. He has an existing bad record of three matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 30 per cent to 162.50 points and a one-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 121.88 points and a one-match sanction.
Steve Johnson, Geelong, has been charged with a Level one tripping offence against Daniel Jackson, Richmond, during the fourth quarter of the round Four match between the Geelong Cats and Richmond, played at Simonds Stadium on Sunday April 22, 2012.
In summary, he can accept a reprimand and 78 points towards his future record with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Richmond Football Club, the incident was assessed as reckless conduct (two points), low impact (one point) and body contact (one point). This is a total of four activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level one offence, drawing 80 demerit points and a reprimand. He has an existing bad record of three matches suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 30 per cent to 104 demerit points and a one-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to a reprimand and 78 demerit points towards his future record.
As there are two cases involving Steve Johnson from the one game, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FINAL PENALTY FOR JOHNSON, IF THERE ARE MULTIPLE CASES, WILL BE THE TOTAL OF ALL DEMERIT POINTS FOR ALL OFFENCES. For each 100 points, a one-match penalty must be served.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/133876/default.aspx
-
Goods news
But guarantee the next week if someone does it they'll cop 4 weeks
The week after they'll get off and then in come July they'll be handing out 6 weeks
No consistency with the MRP ;D
-
This is the one that staggers me.
-------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Thomas, North Melbourne, has been charged with a Level three engaging in rough conduct offence against Gary Rohan, Sydney Swans, during the first quarter of the round Four match between North Melbourne and the Sydney Swans, played at the SCG on Sunday April 22, 2012.
In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), severe impact (four points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He also has 60 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 385 demerit points. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 288.75 points and a two-match sanction.
-------------------------------------------------
So Thomas slides in to get front position (putting his own leg and hip at risk) by blocking Rohan and because his foot lands on Rohan, breaking his leg, he gets two weeks. :huh
-
Thought so
-
I love his hard at it spirit and a year ago a lot of you were having a good ol moan about how soft we were. Not like anyones leg got snapped or something.
-
This is the one that staggers me.
-------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Thomas, North Melbourne, has been charged with a Level three engaging in rough conduct offence against Gary Rohan, Sydney Swans, during the first quarter of the round Four match between North Melbourne and the Sydney Swans, played at the SCG on Sunday April 22, 2012.
In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), severe impact (four points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He also has 60 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 385 demerit points. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 288.75 points and a two-match sanction.
-------------------------------------------------
So Thomas slides in to get front position (putting his own leg and hip at risk) by blocking Rohan and because his foot lands on Rohan, breaking his leg, he gets two weeks. :huh
Fortunately for footy in general Thomas won his appeal and has been cleared
Even KB said this morning it had to thrown out
Wonder if the AFL will aappeal the appeal as under the rules they are allowed too
-
This is the one that staggers me.
-------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Thomas, North Melbourne, has been charged with a Level three engaging in rough conduct offence against Gary Rohan, Sydney Swans, during the first quarter of the round Four match between North Melbourne and the Sydney Swans, played at the SCG on Sunday April 22, 2012.
In summary, he can accept a two-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Sydney Swans Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), severe impact (four points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of six activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He also has 60 demerit points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 385 demerit points. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 288.75 points and a two-match sanction.
-------------------------------------------------
So Thomas slides in to get front position (putting his own leg and hip at risk) by blocking Rohan and because his foot lands on Rohan, breaking his leg, he gets two weeks. :huh
Fortunately for footy in general Thomas won his appeal and has been cleared
Even KB said this morning it had to thrown out
Wonder if the AFL will aappeal the appeal as under the rules they are allowed too
How did Stevie J's appeal go??
-
How did Stevie J's appeal go??
Sadly the mongrel got off
-
How did Stevie J's appeal go??
Sadly the mongrel got off
Wasn't that much in it
-
Wasn't that much in it
Who cares he should be suspended because of who he is - can't stand him ;D
-
Wasn't that much in it
Who cares he should be suspended because of who he is - can't stand him ;D
Surely mods of such a balanced site are above these sorts of unfounded biases? No? ;D
-
I'm more interested in seeing players suspended just before we play their team, not after.
-
haha im with al
-
Wasn't that much in it
Who cares he should be suspended because of who he is - can't stand him ;D
Surely mods of such a balanced site are above these sorts of unfounded biases? No? ;D
Oh no. I'm still waiting for the day Steve Milne goes to the tribunal to answer the charge.
WP the moderator I'm positive will have a balanced view on that. :thumbsup
-
Wasn't that much in it
Who cares he should be suspended because of who he is - can't stand him ;D
Surely mods of such a balanced site are above these sorts of unfounded biases? No? ;D
Oh no. I'm still waiting for the day Steve Milne goes to the tribunal to answer the charge.
WP the moderator I'm positive will have a balanced view on that. :thumbsup
Could i add Ballentyne to that list?
-
Wasn't that much in it
Who cares he should be suspended because of who he is - can't stand him ;D
Surely mods of such a balanced site are above these sorts of unfounded biases? No? ;D
Depends on the day and the player :eyebrow