One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 20, 2013, 06:43:24 PM
-
Based on the high contact cases so far this year Morris should get off but who knows with the MRP as they make it up as they go :-\.
-
Yep, in trouble.
The game has gone soft and you just cant do that anymore
-
Would think not. On the replay it looked like he jumped to smother the kick, and then turned mid flight to protect himself.
Who knows though, they'll probably just flip a coin.
-
Of course he will be in trouble. He hit the germ in the head, and thats all they worry about. The prudes are taking over the football world.
Morris did what we are all taught to do, tucked the arm into the body and made contact to give his teammate space. The skunk didnt want contact and tried to avoid it, but left his head in the way, doing the exact opposite of what we are taught to do
One thing you can guarantee, is that as those that sit down to pee hand down their verdict on morris, they will not give an explanation of what Morris should have done different.
-
3 weeks
-
unfortunately yes
-
No case to answer IMO
-
The replay on Elliot in slow mow shows Morris on a direct line and Elliot trying to void him that's why he hits him high!!!
-
For which one?
The stupid one on Swan on the 3rd
Or the one on Elliott?
He'll get at least 3 for the Swan one
-
The Swan one is a problem.
-
Was a real Scotty Turner moment.
Unfortunately it didn't give is the momentum this time.
-
Of course he is in trouble, its one of ours, if it was one of precious eddies darlings, it wouldn't even be reported.
-
The replay on Elliot in slow mow shows Morris on a direct line and Elliot trying to void him that's why he hits him high!!!
I love a good typo but this post has two of the best.
Mowing the lawn really slowly is cool but...
Elliot trying to void Morris just brings up a really scary mental picture.
:cheers
-
nah, its just the lingo of the younger generation. :rollin
like when they say say want to verse you. i expect then so launch into song or recite poetry. :lol
-
He will get a minimum of two weeks. :help
-
Mark Stevens from the Herald-Sun on Ch 7 reckons Morris will get a couple of weeks for the Elliot incident.
-
if they are consistent he will get 3
-
Interestingly Ch7 only showed the Elliott incident
No mention of the Swan one which IMV was worse
I reckon he'll be out for a totally of 3-5 because if they consistent he goes for both :-\
-
For those that say he should go for the one on Swan, can you explain why? I just don't see it. If he goes for the Thomas should go for the follow up bump
-
Interestingly Ch7 only showed the Elliott incident
No mention of the Swan one which IMV was worse
I reckon he'll be out for a totally of 3-5 because if they consistent he goes for both :-\
There was absolutely nothing in the swan one imo. Looked worse in real time but in slow mo there's nothing sinister about it.
Perfect execution of the bump on Elliot but unfortunately he made contact with the head so he'll cop 2.
-
For those that say he should go for the one on Swan, can you explain why? I just don't see it. If he goes for the Thomas should go for the follow up bump
With the Swan one IMV Morris is off the ground, not watching the ball, appears to have eyes only for Swan and he got him above the shoulder, throw in it was late and I reckon he is gone for it
-
For those that say he should go for the one on Swan, can you explain why? I just don't see it. If he goes for the Thomas should go for the follow up bump
With the Swan one IMV Morris is off the ground, not watching the ball, appears to have eyes only for Swan and he got him above the shpulder, throw in it was late and I reckon he is gone for it
That's the one I reckon he's in strife for too WP.
And having said that, I researched the Lindsay Thomas incident from early in the season with regards to the Elliot hit because to me it was a carbon copy and the thing that worries me is that Morris ticks all the boxes for being within the rules that the MRP mentioned in their summary except for contact between the head and the shoulder. I think Elliot was culpable by seeing and sensing the oncoming impact and then lowering his head but it will all depend on how the terribly inconsistent MRP view it.
-
For those that say he should go for the one on Swan, can you explain why? I just don't see it. If he goes for the Thomas should go for the follow up bump
With the Swan one IMV Morris is off the ground, not watching the ball, appears to have eyes only for Swan and he got him above the shpulder, throw in it was late and I reckon he is gone for it
That's the one I reckon he's in strife for too WP.
And having said that, I researched the Lindsay Thomas incident from early in the season with regards to the Elliot hit because to me it was a carbon copy and the thing that worries me is that Morris ticks all the boxes for being within the rules that the MRP mentioned in their summary except for contact between the head and the shoulder. I think Elliot was culpable by seeing and sensing the oncoming impact and then lowering his head but it will all depend on how the terribly inconsistent MRP view it.
So you're both more worried about the Swan one than the Elliot one? I must be missing something and will try and watch a replay of it. I honestly thought Morris's contact was minimal, he turned in midair and slowed right down.
The Elliot one is as clear cut as it gets under the new rules once you try for a bump if u hit the head its gg. Thomas got off bc it was head to head. If his shoulder or any other part of his body had of connected there's no way he wouldve got off.
-
i didnt see the game but Morro is not guilty. why is everyone trying to turn footy into a game for pansies seriously :help
-
For those that say he should go for the one on Swan, can you explain why? I just don't see it. If he goes for the Thomas should go for the follow up bump
With the Swan one IMV Morris is off the ground, not watching the ball, appears to have eyes only for Swan and he got him above the shpulder, throw in it was late and I reckon he is gone for it
That's the one I reckon he's in strife for too WP.
And having said that, I researched the Lindsay Thomas incident from early in the season with regards to the Elliot hit because to me it was a carbon copy and the thing that worries me is that Morris ticks all the boxes for being within the rules that the MRP mentioned in their summary except for contact between the head and the shoulder. I think Elliot was culpable by seeing and sensing the oncoming impact and then lowering his head but it will all depend on how the terribly inconsistent MRP view it.
So you're both more worried about the Swan one than the Elliot one? I must be missing something and will try and watch a replay of it. I honestly thought Morris's contact was minimal, he turned in midair and slowed right down.
The Elliot one is as clear cut as it gets under the new rules once you try for a bump if u hit the head its gg. Thomas got off bc it was head to head. If his shoulder or any other part of his body had of connected there's no way he wouldve got off.
Not at all TM reckon he is strife for both hence why I reckon he'll get 3-5 combined
The big problem for mine re the Swan one is how far he off the ground and his intent. There is no grey area for mine being at Least a metre off the ground is the big problem
-
i didnt see the game but Morro is not guilty. why is everyone trying to turn footy into a game for pansies seriously :help
Put it to you like his Ramps if it was a Tiger player copping the hit we'd be demanding a harsh penalty.
-
The Elliot one is as clear cut as it gets under the new rules once you try for a bump if u hit the head its gg. Thomas got off bc it was head to head. If his shoulder or any other part of his body had of connected there's no way he wouldve got off.
That's what I said as well TM but I think Elliot has to share some culpability because he reacted to the oncoming contact by lowering his head at the last second and helping to cause the head contact rather than the shoulder to shoulder contact that it was initially looking like. Will all depend on how the weekly MRP lottery numbers roll this week. :help
-
. Will all depend on how the weekly MRP lottery numbers roll this week. :help
Chook lotto numbers I reckon
-
For those that say he should go for the one on Swan, can you explain why? I just don't see it. If he goes for the Thomas should go for the follow up bump
With the Swan one IMV Morris is off the ground, not watching the ball, appears to have eyes only for Swan and he got him above the shpulder, throw in it was late and I reckon he is gone for it
That's the one I reckon he's in strife for too WP.
And having said that, I researched the Lindsay Thomas incident from early in the season with regards to the Elliot hit because to me it was a carbon copy and the thing that worries me is that Morris ticks all the boxes for being within the rules that the MRP mentioned in their summary except for contact between the head and the shoulder. I think Elliot was culpable by seeing and sensing the oncoming impact and then lowering his head but it will all depend on how the terribly inconsistent MRP view it.
So you're both more worried about the Swan one than the Elliot one? I must be missing something and will try and watch a replay of it. I honestly thought Morris's contact was minimal, he turned in midair and slowed right down.
The Elliot one is as clear cut as it gets under the new rules once you try for a bump if u hit the head its gg. Thomas got off bc it was head to head. If his shoulder or any other part of his body had of connected there's no way he wouldve got off.
I'm with TM, I just didn't see anything in it but maybe I missed it? I agree he left the ground which could put him in some trouble but seemed more to smother than to bump in my view so I thought leaving the ground wouldn't mean to much in that circumstance. Anyone roughly remember when it was I want to look again
-
3rd qtr yeahright, in the centre square just after the bounce immediately after one of the 8 goals :rollin
-
i didnt see the game but Morro is not guilty. why is everyone trying to turn footy into a game for pansies seriously :help
Put it to you like his Ramps if it was a Tiger player copping the hit we'd be demanding a harsh penalty.
6 weeks thanks ;D
-
3rd qtr yeahright, in the centre square just after the bounce immediately after one of the 8 goals :rollin
More specific please, I want to see Swan get smashed, not Collingwood kick a bunch of goals :thumbsup
-
3rd qtr yeahright, in the centre square just after the bounce immediately after one of the 8 goals :rollin
More specific please, I want to see Swan get smashed, not Collingwood kick a bunch of goals :thumbsup
:lol
-
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane twitter:
"Steve Morris can accept 1 game for rough conduction on Jamie Elliott."
-
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane twitter:
"Steve Morris can accept 1 game for rough conduction on Jamie Elliott."
Struth if that's all he gets then just take it tigers ;D
-
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane twitter:
"Steve Morris can accept 1 game for rough conduction on Jamie Elliott."
Struth if that's all he gets then just take it tigers ;D
Agree, whats done is done and will need him for the geelong clash with Christensen, motlop and all these other opportunists running around.
-
Woah oh,take the 1 week and run.
-
From The AFL Website- MRP Statement
Charges laid:
Steve Morris, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence (225 demerit points, two-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Jamie Elliott, Collingwood, during the second quarter of the Round Four match between Richmond and Collingwood, played at the MCG on Saturday April 20, 2013.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Collingwood Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-22/mrp-full-statement-round-four
As for the other one involving Swan: going by their statement the MRP didn't even look at it.
Have to say I'll take it but is just further proof as to why this whole system has become a farce. One week it's reportable then next week it's not. No wonder fans are doing this :banghead
-
Andy D cleaned up there with all the melee money from the Saints,Bums game. :lol
2,800 each player for some push and shove LMAO.
-
take it and run I reckon. :thumbsup
-
All sounds fair to me, max two weeks I thought with early plea
-
From The AFL Website- MRP Statement
Charges laid:
Steve Morris, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence (225 demerit points, two-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Jamie Elliott, Collingwood, during the second quarter of the Round Four match between Richmond and Collingwood, played at the MCG on Saturday April 20, 2013.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Collingwood Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-22/mrp-full-statement-round-four
As for the other one involving Swan: going by their statement the MRP didn't even look at it.
Have to say I'll take it but is just further proof as to why this whole system has become a farce. One week it's reportable then next week it's not. No wonder fans are doing this :banghead
Maybe you were just horribly wrong WP? Is there any chance of that? :thumbsup
-
From The AFL Website- MRP Statement
Charges laid:
Steve Morris, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence (225 demerit points, two-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Jamie Elliott, Collingwood, during the second quarter of the Round Four match between Richmond and Collingwood, played at the MCG on Saturday April 20, 2013.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Collingwood Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-22/mrp-full-statement-round-four
As for the other one involving Swan: going by their statement the MRP didn't even look at it.
Have to say I'll take it but is just further proof as to why this whole system has become a farce. One week it's reportable then next week it's not. No wonder fans are doing this :banghead
Maybe you were just horribly wrong WP? Is there any chance of that? :thumbsup
Clearly I was wrong as were a few others ;D. I only based my view on what's gone on before and to a lesser extent what others have got away with so far this season.
At some point the MRP are going to suspend someone for the exact same thing, thankfully for Steve Morris's it isn't going to be him
But I stand by my view that the system is farcical
-
Maybe you were just horribly wrong WP? Is there any chance of that? :thumbsup
Clearly I was wrong as were a few others ;D. I only based my view on what's gone on before and to a lesser extent what others have got away with so far this season.
At some point the MRP are going to suspend someone for the exact same thing, thankfully for Steve Morris's it isn't going to be him
But I stand by my view that the system is farcical
I know who is wrong and so does the rest of the AFL public. The MRP have no credibility because of the inconsistency with their rulings so on any given week it's a lottery how any incident will be adjudicated. Just a footnote to the whole farce that has become the rules and the umpiring really. :banghead
-
Vision of the incident here:
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2013-04-22/morris-offered-one-week-suspension
-
All sounds fair to me, max two weeks I thought with early plea
is this based on your opinion of the incident or what you believed the MRP would do?
-
Stiff to get any weeks for that one, I reckon Elliot as much to blame as Morris.
-
From The AFL Website- MRP Statement
Charges laid:
Steve Morris, Richmond, has been charged with a Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence (225 demerit points, two-match sanction) for engaging in rough conduct against Jamie Elliott, Collingwood, during the second quarter of the Round Four match between Richmond and Collingwood, played at the MCG on Saturday April 20, 2013.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the Collingwood Football Club, the incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the sanction by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-22/mrp-full-statement-round-four
As for the other one involving Swan: going by their statement the MRP didn't even look at it.
Have to say I'll take it but is just further proof as to why this whole system has become a farce. One week it's reportable then next week it's not. No wonder fans are doing this :banghead
Maybe you were just horribly wrong WP? Is there any chance of that? :thumbsup
Clearly I was wrong as were a few others ;D. I only based my view on what's gone on before and to a lesser extent what others have got away with so far this season.
At some point the MRP are going to suspend someone for the exact same thing, thankfully for Steve Morris's it isn't going to be him
But I stand by my view that the system is farcical
See I disagree. I think this year they have been more consistant than last. Forgot completely about last year, this year things have changed and the decissions have been consistant. At least you know the rules this year. Last year was more of a lotto.
In the Morris case, he decided to bumb, went in low, kept his elbow down but still got Elliot a little high, but no real damage done. A free kick or a minor report. Remembering Elliot didn't have the ball, so tackling is out, but bumping is still ok as long as its no more than 5 meters off the ball.. I think a 1 week suspension is about right for a bump that was exicuted quiet well but slide up a little to graze the side of Elliots head. Now that was right in front of me and if Morris didn't do what he did, I'd be filthy. Good result for the RFC
-
See I disagree. I think this year they have been more consistant than last. Forgot completely about last year, this year things have changed and the decissions have been consistant. At least you know the rules this year. Last year was more of a lotto.
In the Morris case, he decided to bumb, went in low, kept his elbow down but still got Elliot a little high, but no real damage done. A free kick or a minor report. Remembering Elliot didn't have the ball, so tackling is out, but bumping is still ok as long as its no more than 5 meters off the ball.. I think a 1 week suspension is about right for a bump that was exicuted quiet well but slide up a little to graze the side of Elliots head. Now that was right in front of me and if Morris didn't do what he did, I'd be filthy. Good result for the RFC
Agree it's a great result for the RFC, especially considering they didn't even look at the Morris "bump" on Swan which IMV was worse than the Elliott one
But where we disagree is the consistency of the MRP. To me they are horribly inconsistent especially if you compare what was reportable last year to this and the panel being the same. Pretty sure Mark Fraser was the head of it last year stand corrected if I am wrong there. they seemed to be interpreting things very differently this year to last, hence why people are confused and frustrated
I am still scratching my head as to how Thomas from N0rt got off in round 1 after Zieball got pinged last year. The Ziebell one was the precedant for head high contact regarding blokes leaving the ground and hitting a bloke in the head whether it was deliberate or accidental. But that whole duty of care thing seems to have been turfed aside in 2013. The Morris bump on Swan was almost a carbon copy of the Ziebell one but Morris doesn't get looked at. Why? It doesn't make sense. But as I said somewhere along the line in 2013, someone will again get suspended for that sort of bump and the howls of complaint will again be on
Again IMV the Morris one on Elliott is similar to the Thomas one in that in both cases the players (Thomas & Morris) both had eyes for the opponent not the ball and both were off the ground. Only difference being Morris bumped with the shoulder and Thomas not only hit him with the shoulder but his head made contact and that happened to cause the most damage. So why has Morris been suspended and Thomoas wasn't? Thomas certainly did more damage that Morris did
As I said I'd take the week and run but it still doesn't stop me from doing this :huh3 when it comes to the MRP
-
But they are consistently inconsistent :cheers
-
Agree it's a great result for the RFC, especially considering they didn't even look at the Morris "bump" on Swan which IMV was worse than the Elliott one
But where we disagree is the consistency of the MRP. To me they are horribly inconsistent especially if you compare what was reportable last year to this and the panel being the same. Pretty sure Mark Fraser was the head of it last year stand corrected if I am wrong there. they seemed to be interpreting things very differently this year to last, hence why people are confused and frustrated
I am still scratching my head as to how Thomas from N0rt got off in round 1 after Zieball got pinged last year. The Ziebell one was the precedant for head high contact regarding blokes leaving the ground and hitting a bloke in the head whether it was deliberate or accidental. But that whole duty of care thing seems to have been turfed aside in 2013. The Morris bump on Swan was almost a carbon copy of the Ziebell one but Morris doesn't get looked at. Why? It doesn't make sense. But as I said somewhere along the line in 2013, someone will again get suspended for that sort of bump and the howls of complaint will again be on
Again IMV the Morris one on Elliott is similar to the Thomas one in that in both cases the players (Thomas & Morris) both had eyes for the opponent not the ball and both were off the ground. Only difference being Morris bumped with the shoulder and Thomas not only hit him with the shoulder but his head made contact and that happened to cause the most damage. So why has Morris been suspended and Thomoas wasn't? Thomas certainly did more damage that Morris did
As I said I'd take the week and run but it still doesn't stop me from doing this :huh3 when it comes to the MRP
Disagree with one small point there WP. Morris most definitely wasn't off the ground when he impacted Elliot.
-
Agree it's a great result for the RFC, especially considering they didn't even look at the Morris "bump" on Swan which IMV was worse than the Elliott one
But where we disagree is the consistency of the MRP. To me they are horribly inconsistent especially if you compare what was reportable last year to this and the panel being the same. Pretty sure Mark Fraser was the head of it last year stand corrected if I am wrong there. they seemed to be interpreting things very differently this year to last, hence why people are confused and frustrated
I am still scratching my head as to how Thomas from N0rt got off in round 1 after Zieball got pinged last year. The Ziebell one was the precedant for head high contact regarding blokes leaving the ground and hitting a bloke in the head whether it was deliberate or accidental. But that whole duty of care thing seems to have been turfed aside in 2013. The Morris bump on Swan was almost a carbon copy of the Ziebell one but Morris doesn't get looked at. Why? It doesn't make sense. But as I said somewhere along the line in 2013, someone will again get suspended for that sort of bump and the howls of complaint will again be on
Again IMV the Morris one on Elliott is similar to the Thomas one in that in both cases the players (Thomas & Morris) both had eyes for the opponent not the ball and both were off the ground. Only difference being Morris bumped with the shoulder and Thomas not only hit him with the shoulder but his head made contact and that happened to cause the most damage. So why has Morris been suspended and Thomoas wasn't? Thomas certainly did more damage that Morris did
As I said I'd take the week and run but it still doesn't stop me from doing this :huh3 when it comes to the MRP
Disagree with one small point there WP. Morris most definitely wasn't off the ground when he impacted Elliot.
Thanks smokey, going by one camera angle I thought he was. I haven't watched the replay in full yet ;D
-
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane twitter:
"AFL Tribunal to sit at 5pm tonight with Adelaide's Scott Thompson to contest his w/e charge. All other players accepted their MRP penalties."
So the Club and Morris have accepted the one week penalty.
-
All sounds fair to me, max two weeks I thought with early plea
is this based on your opinion of the incident or what you believed the MRP would do?
Tried to have unbias opinion. As a tiger supporter I thought he deserved nothing ;D. Put it simply he didn't mean to get him high and did IMO, so that deserves a week or two.
-
See I disagree. I think this year they have been more consistant than last. Forgot completely about last year, this year things have changed and the decissions have been consistant. At least you know the rules this year. Last year was more of a lotto.
In the Morris case, he decided to bumb, went in low, kept his elbow down but still got Elliot a little high, but no real damage done. A free kick or a minor report. Remembering Elliot didn't have the ball, so tackling is out, but bumping is still ok as long as its no more than 5 meters off the ball.. I think a 1 week suspension is about right for a bump that was exicuted quiet well but slide up a little to graze the side of Elliots head. Now that was right in front of me and if Morris didn't do what he did, I'd be filthy. Good result for the RFC
Agree it's a great result for the RFC, especially considering they didn't even look at the Morris "bump" on Swan which IMV was worse than the Elliott one
But where we disagree is the consistency of the MRP. To me they are horribly inconsistent especially if you compare what was reportable last year to this and the panel being the same. Pretty sure Mark Fraser was the head of it last year stand corrected if I am wrong there. they seemed to be interpreting things very differently this year to last, hence why people are confused and frustrated
I am still scratching my head as to how Thomas from N0rt got off in round 1 after Zieball got pinged last year. The Ziebell one was the precedant for head high contact regarding blokes leaving the ground and hitting a bloke in the head whether it was deliberate or accidental. But that whole duty of care thing seems to have been turfed aside in 2013. The Morris bump on Swan was almost a carbon copy of the Ziebell one but Morris doesn't get looked at. Why? It doesn't make sense. But as I said somewhere along the line in 2013, someone will again get suspended for that sort of bump and the howls of complaint will again be on
Again IMV the Morris one on Elliott is similar to the Thomas one in that in both cases the players (Thomas & Morris) both had eyes for the opponent not the ball and both were off the ground. Only difference being Morris bumped with the shoulder and Thomas not only hit him with the shoulder but his head made contact and that happened to cause the most damage. So why has Morris been suspended and Thomoas wasn't? Thomas certainly did more damage that Morris did
As I said I'd take the week and run but it still doesn't stop me from doing this :huh3 when it comes to the MRP
See in my view, Thomas got shoulder to shoulder with the other bloke but his head got him, that's completely accidental whereas Morris was negligent. Then for the Morris Ziebell comparison, Ziebell jumped up and went the bump but Morris jumped but turned to avoid the bump as he went a smother. Thats just how I remember it though
-
All sounds fair to me, max two weeks I thought with early plea
is this based on your opinion of the incident or what you believed the MRP would do?
Tried to have unbias opinion. As a tiger supporter I thought he deserved nothing ;D. Put it simply he didn't mean to get him high and did IMO, so that deserves a week or two.
what could he have done differently? he did everything right. tuched the elbow in, stayed low and elliot tried to spin out of the way rather than take the bump
It was elliots own fault he got collected high.
stuffing girls game when that is even looked at, let alone given a suspension.
although it is less than i expected from the softies
-
actually, can anyone who thinks that morris deserved a suspension ( as opposed to believing he would be given a suspension by the MRP) explain what he could have done differently?
-
actually, can anyone who thinks that morris deserved a suspension ( as opposed to believing he would be given a suspension by the MRP) explain what he could have done differently?
Stood and watched like the rest of the team did in the third. :whistle
-
actually, can anyone who thinks that morris deserved a suspension ( as opposed to believing he would be given a suspension by the MRP) explain what he could have done differently?
Stood and watched like the rest of the team did in the third. :whistle
:lol
-
actually, can anyone who thinks that morris deserved a suspension ( as opposed to believing he would be given a suspension by the MRP) explain what he could have done differently?
Stood and watched like the rest of the team did in the third. :whistle
:lol :thatsgold
-
actually, can anyone who thinks that morris deserved a suspension ( as opposed to believing he would be given a suspension by the MRP) explain what he could have done differently?
Great point al, I don't think it deserved a ban because to me it was a good old fashion "hip 'n' shoulder" ala Scotty Turner but unfortunately those days are going the way of the dinosaur and Tassie Tiger
He did the right thing by his team, team first footy can't ask for anymore than that IMO
-
actually, can anyone who thinks that morris deserved a suspension ( as opposed to believing he would be given a suspension by the MRP) explain what he could have done differently?
Stood and watched like the rest of the team did in the third. :whistle
:lol :clapping
-
what could he have done differently? he did everything right. tuched the elbow in, stayed low and elliot tried to spin out of the way rather than take the bump
It was elliots own fault he got collected high.
:clapping
Stiff to get any weeks for that one, I reckon Elliot as much to blame as Morris.
:clapping
Correct. Elliott had to take the bump.
You can't help people that don't want to help themselves. And why should you protect people that refuse to protect themselves?
-
All sounds fair to me, max two weeks I thought with early plea
is this based on your opinion of the incident or what you believed the MRP would do?
Tried to have unbias opinion. As a tiger supporter I thought he deserved nothing ;D. Put it simply he didn't mean to get him high and did IMO, so that deserves a week or two.
what could he have done differently? he did everything right. tuched the elbow in, stayed low and elliot tried to spin out of the way rather than take the bump
It was elliots own fault he got collected high.
stuffing girls game when that is even looked at, let alone given a suspension.
although it is less than i expected from the softies
Yeah I get that, but the fact he got him high is why he got a little holiday like it or not
-
what could he have done differently? he did everything right. tuched the elbow in, stayed low and elliot tried to spin out of the way rather than take the bump
It was elliots own fault he got collected high.
:clapping
Stiff to get any weeks for that one, I reckon Elliot as much to blame as Morris.
:clapping
Correct. Elliott had to take the bump.
You can't help people that don't want to help themselves. And why should you protect people that refuse to protect themselves?
And when you watch it in slow motion, Morris even turns his back at the last minute and the actual contact is more a glance across the back of his shoulder rather than a full shoulder bump. The more times I watch it the angrier I get because it was well within the rules and Elliot was the culpable party by ducking his body at the last moment.
-
See I disagree. I think this year they have been more consistant than last. Forgot completely about last year, this year things have changed and the decissions have been consistant. At least you know the rules this year. Last year was more of a lotto.
In the Morris case, he decided to bumb, went in low, kept his elbow down but still got Elliot a little high, but no real damage done. A free kick or a minor report. Remembering Elliot didn't have the ball, so tackling is out, but bumping is still ok as long as its no more than 5 meters off the ball.. I think a 1 week suspension is about right for a bump that was exicuted quiet well but slide up a little to graze the side of Elliots head. Now that was right in front of me and if Morris didn't do what he did, I'd be filthy. Good result for the RFC
Agree it's a great result for the RFC, especially considering they didn't even look at the Morris "bump" on Swan which IMV was worse than the Elliott one
But where we disagree is the consistency of the MRP. To me they are horribly inconsistent especially if you compare what was reportable last year to this and the panel being the same. Pretty sure Mark Fraser was the head of it last year stand corrected if I am wrong there. they seemed to be interpreting things very differently this year to last, hence why people are confused and frustrated
I am still scratching my head as to how Thomas from N0rt got off in round 1 after Zieball got pinged last year. The Ziebell one was the precedant for head high contact regarding blokes leaving the ground and hitting a bloke in the head whether it was deliberate or accidental. But that whole duty of care thing seems to have been turfed aside in 2013. The Morris bump on Swan was almost a carbon copy of the Ziebell one but Morris doesn't get looked at. Why? It doesn't make sense. But as I said somewhere along the line in 2013, someone will again get suspended for that sort of bump and the howls of complaint will again be on
Again IMV the Morris one on Elliott is similar to the Thomas one in that in both cases the players (Thomas & Morris) both had eyes for the opponent not the ball and both were off the ground. Only difference being Morris bumped with the shoulder and Thomas not only hit him with the shoulder but his head made contact and that happened to cause the most damage. So why has Morris been suspended and Thomoas wasn't? Thomas certainly did more damage that Morris did
As I said I'd take the week and run but it still doesn't stop me from doing this :huh3 when it comes to the MRP
The rule has changed from last year WP, so comparing last year to this is void. Last year the bumping player had all the onus not to make head high contact even if it was accidental. This year, like in the Thomas case, if the bump is legal and heads accidentally clash then it's considered an accident. No suspention.. That's why last week Ryder and that other bogan from the Bombers both got weeks. Both their bumps hit the opponents high and deliberate.
-
The more times I watch it the angrier I get because it was well within the rules and Elliot was the culpable party by ducking his body at the last moment.
I do too. I feel jibbed even more in the sense that I have been waiting 30 goddamn years to watch a Richmond side that works for each other in the form of shepherding then you get this. I hope Morris doesn't change his game because of this. Can you imagine the outcry by the likes of us OER types if he stops bumping in that situation!
-
The rule has changed from last year WP, so comparing last year to this is void. Last year the bumping player had all the onus not to make head high contact even if it was accidental. This year, like in the Thomas case, if the bump is legal and heads accidentally clash then it's considered an accident. No suspention.. That's why last week Ryder and that other bogan from the Bombers both got weeks. Both their bumps hit the opponents high and deliberate.
When did it change, when did they announce the change? Not trying argue for the sake of it; I am being serious
It seems it only changed after the MRP didn't penalise Thomas. Up until that point everyone (media, players, coaches and fans) thought what he did was reportable and warranrted a suspension. Maybe it isn't the rule that's changed just they way they enforce it :huh3