One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on April 14, 2018, 04:06:15 PM
-
According to 3aw, Graham reported for a high elbow.
They are also saying a incident involving McIntosh will be looked at.
-
McIntosh was a high tackle if it's the one they're talking about
-
I think JG will get 1 week coz Christian hates us. I didn't see the McIntosh one.
-
Not on the AFL's site....
-
Jack G is in strife
Kam? What that high contact on Christensen? Plesse went down like hed been hit by a B-double went it was Corolla
-
Replay on AFL site now.
High forearm to the head but Zorco got up immediately.
Insufficient force for weeks IMHO. A fine at the most.
-
Free kick downfield is exactly all it deserved.
-
If he cops weeks he would have been suspended for more games in his career than games lost that he has played in.
-
Didn't notice at the ground :banghead gay
-
Here's the vision from the AFL website:
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-04-14/is-graham-in-trouble-for-this-hit
-
Well there’s a similar hit on Kennedy (WC) who Healy said fine at best should be the penalty.
So using Graham’s example it’s also a fine
-
Can't see impact being any higher than low
-
Dermatitis doing his level best to get him rubbed out.
-
Fine or one week
-
What does this do to his rising star prospects ?
Fine = eligible ?
Suspension = DQ ?
-
What does this do to his rising star prospects ?
Fine = eligible ?
Suspension = DQ ?
Reckon his best days are behind him :shh
-
What does this do to his rising star prospects ?
Fine = eligible ?
Suspension = DQ ?
Reckon his best days are behind him :shh
Days or day?
-
Rubbish.
Kid is a gun. Was better yesterday.
Gun? no. But can play. However, the most overrated player in the history of anything, ever. :shh
Not his fault, though. It's those who proclaim him to be the 2nd coming. :shh
Just enjoy a fine young man's footy without the pressure :shh
-
Offered one match. He hardly hurt him....
:gobdrop
....I don’t believe it.
-
Offered one match. He hardly hurt him....
Apparently the one match suspension was pretty much for the action, I'm pretty sure that if the player was injured he would have gotten considerably more time.
-
Offered one match. He hardly hurt him....
Apparently the one match suspension was pretty much for the action, I'm pretty sure that if the player was injured he would have gotten considerably more time.
A free and a 50m penalty is what it deserved and what it got. The umpire didn't report him and he was right there. The video should be for things that are missed on the field by the umpires. This wasn't missed. It just wasn't considered bad enough for a report.
-
Offered one match. He hardly hurt him....
Apparently the one match suspension was pretty much for the action, I'm pretty sure that if the player was injured he would have gotten considerably more time.
A free and a 50m penalty is what it deserved and what it got. The umpire didn't report him and he was right there. The video should be for things that are missed on the field by the umpires. This wasn't missed. It just wasn't considered bad enough for a report.
It’s strange because they over the telecast you could hear the ump clearly say he reported him but then none of the match reports showed any player reported.
-
Another example of the lack of consistency with the MRP
Some weeks it's a fine other weeks it's a week :huh3
No point in appealing :-\
Offered one match. He hardly hurt him....
Apparently the one match suspension was pretty much for the action, I'm pretty sure that if the player was injured he would have gotten considerably more time.
A free and a 50m penalty is what it deserved and what it got. The umpire didn't report him and he was right there. The video should be for things that are missed on the field by the umpires. This wasn't missed. It just wasn't considered bad enough for a report.
It’s strange because they over the telecast you could hear the ump clearly say he reported him but then none of the match reports showed any player reported.
Yeah heard the ump say he'd been reported
-
No point in appealing :-\
Club disagrees....
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-challenge-jack-graham-s-one-week-ban-20180417-p4za22.html
:shh
-
Richmond midfielder Jack Graham will front the AFL Tribunal tonight to to contest the striking charge laid against him in last Saturday's win.
The Tribunal will sit from 5pm AEST tonight, with live updates available on richmondfc.com.au.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Why waste $10k?
Oops silly me... clubs rolling in the $$$ these days
90k members has its rewards :rollin
But seriously, can't really see the point.
The tribunal is on par with the ICC when it comes to make tough calls
-
Why waste $10k?
Oops silly me... clubs rolling in the $$$ these days
90k members has its rewards :rollin
But seriously, can't really see the point.
The tribunal is on par with the ICC when it comes to make tough calls
All they have to prove is that it was careless rather than intentional and it's a fine....
To do that you need Graham to give evidence. Only he knows if he hit him in the head intentionally or whether he was aiming for his arm/shoulder and carelessly collected him high.....
-
Why waste $10k?
Oops silly me... clubs rolling in the $$$ these days
90k members has its rewards :rollin
But seriously, can't really see the point.
The tribunal is on par with the ICC when it comes to make tough calls
All they have to prove is that it was careless rather than intentional and it's a fine....
To do that you need Graham to give evidence. Only he knows if he hit him in the head intentionally or whether he was aiming for his arm/shoulder and carelessly collected him high.....
Good point.
Hope it goes well. Will get a week though.
-
Graham is also on the seventh line of betting at Sportsbet for the Rising Star award, and will be ineligible for the award if the ban is upheld.
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/tigers-challenge-jack-graham-s-one-week-ban-20180417-p4za22.html
-
And he has been earmarked to tag some bum in the red and blue next Tuesday
-
(https://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/image/201804/phpdodfhpscreen_shot_2018-04-17_at_5.png)
Ross Howie will be Tribunal chairman tonight, the jury members are Wayne Henwood, Jason Johnson and Richard Loveridge.
Jeff Gleeson QC is appearing for the AFL, Sam Tovey for Jack Graham.
Richmond coach Damien Hardwick is at the Tribunal to support Jack Graham.
We're just getting underway now.
Graham pleading not guilty to striking charge. Challenging on basis that strike was not intentional
Gleeson for AFL now taking the Tribunal through vision of Graham's clash with Zorko.
Medical report by Dr Andrew Smith for Lions tabled. Says Zorko wasn't treated and didn't required ongoing treatment. Not expected to miss any training or games.
Jack Graham now giving evidence.
Graham says it was not his intent to strike Zorko. Says trying to apply pressure, bump and push him over.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Graham says his role in midfield is to apply as much pressure as he can. Says those instructions come from Hardwick. Says he's trying to force opponent to make an error by tackling, smothering.
Says pressure is something the club values very highly and is why he gets a game.
Graham says club has a pressure rating system - he ranks No.1 on that and is top 3 in the AFL.
He ranks No.1 at Richmond for tackles, maybe top 10 for AFL.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
It was Dimma's fault :snidegrin
-
Graham on Zorko collision, says he was in the contest. Zorko intercepted handball. Went to apply pressure and bump him with a view to putting him off balance.
Graham: came towards him with forearms, hit Zorko on upper arm. Felt he was too late to tackle, felt he could force an error, possible force him to kick it out on full, with his challenge.
Was trying to make contact with his upper arm to put him off balance. Knew if he got him higher he would be giving away a free kick.
Said he was keeping his arms still so he could push him over and get him off balance.
Accepts he made high contact BUT was trying with his forearms to push him on his upper arm and follow through with his body. Hoped that would force kick out of bounds on the ball or force a clanger.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Graham says high contact occurred when his forearm slipped up and got him high. Was raining at the time. Initially hit his upper arm and the rain caused his arm to slip up and hit Zorko on the jaw.
Also says Zorko slumped down when he kicked the ball. Had expected him to rise up as he was kicking the ball.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Graham now being cross-examined by Gleeson for the AFL.
Gleeson says first point of contact occurred some time after Zorko kicked the ball. Says impossible for him to have forced an error.
Graham concedes that is the case. But when asked whether he wants to change his evidence re: his intention, Graham sticks to his version of events, i.e. his intent was to apply pressure.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Graham says he was trying to push Zorko off balance after he got his kick away. Concedes he wasn't trying to smother or tackle.
Gleeson puts it to Graham that there was nothing usual about the way Zorko kicks the ball. Graham agrees.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Tovey now re-examining Graham. Graham concedes in retrospect he had no chance to effect the disposal - was too late - but maintains at the time he thought he had a chance to.
Says he wasn't expecting Zorko to execute a stab pass and that when he did so his body slumped.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Damien Hardwick now giving evidence.
Hardwick says the centre of the game plan at Richmond is defensive intent.
Chairman Howie asks how this is relevant.
Tovey for Graham says it goes to the player's intent.
Gleeson doesn't object to evidence.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Hardwick says:
- Graham's role is to win the ball but that he has some elite qualities to work from contest to contest and close down space for the opposition.
- Graham rates "very high" for his defensive pressure.
- Provides a great contest, is incredible for closing down opposition space.
Hardwick says he expects his players to apply pressure fairly and within the rules.
Of Zorko incident:
- Graham expected to put physical pressure on
- Graham's pressure forced Zorko not to kick long down the line.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
A light moment.
Only one question for Hardwick on cross-examination - Gleeson asked him: 'Players don't always follow instructions, do they?'
Hardwick conceded this point with a laugh.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Tovey now running through video examples of careless strikes:
- Jeff Garlett on Phil Davis
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
- Neil Balme on Geoff Southby :snidegrin.
-
Gleeson says only issue is whether strike is intentional or careless.
Refers to AFL guidelines - says an intention may be formed on the spur of the moment.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Gleeson says Graham's raised forearm is relevant to his intent. Was he realistically trying to force an error or was he trying to strike?
Open to Tribunal to find the unlikelihood he was trying to force an error, initial point contact and end point of contact consistent with a strike.
The lateness of contact is a factor. Says Graham's body positioning shows he knew he would be too late to force an error.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Tovey says Graham's action was not the same as a strike. Having a prolonged debate with Chairman Howie on this point.
Say initial contact not made with intent to strike BUT caused a subsequent strike to the head, which was careless.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Tovey concedes Graham intended to make contact, but not to strike.
Says no swinging arm motion. Arm slipped up after initial contact, but this was not intended.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Tovey again emphasises the expectation on Graham to apply pressure.
Tovey concedes Graham's action was clumsy but still didn't intend to strike
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Chairman Howie instructs jury that relevant time for determining intent is the moment when Graham's forearm struck Zorko in the head.
Chairman Howie: Graham doesn't have to have intention to strike Zorko in the head, just an intention to strike him
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
is Howie the guy from channel 10?
-
The jury is now deliberating. We should have a verdict soon.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
is Howie the guy from channel 10?
:laugh:
-
I hope I'm wrong but my gut feel is they won't be overturning the original penalty. However, the SEN guy watching live at the tribunal reckons it might be overturned.
From afl.com.au's Nick Bowen...
The consensus outside the Tribunal room is that Graham's lawyer put up a reasonable case. Some chance of having his charge downgraded to a careless strike, which would see his one-match suspension replaced with a fine.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Graham charge upheld. One-match suspension stands.
Jury deliberated for six minutes.
Richmond will be levied $10,000 for unsuccessful challenge.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
-
Boo!
Thanks for the updates.
-
Graham charge upheld. One-match suspension stands.
Jury deliberated for six minutes.
Richmond will be levied $10,000 for unsuccessful challenge.
http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2018-04-17/jack-graham-tribunal-live
Tribunal is just stuffen revenue raising by Gilligan and Hockless these days. Corrupt flogs
-
May as well just level someone if it’s going to be a week regardless.
-
At a guess it appears the direction by Chairman Howie to the jury that Graham doesn't have to have an intention to strike Zorko in the head, just an intention to strike him was influential.
-
At a guess it appears the direction by Chairman Howie to the jury that Graham doesn't have to have an intention to strike Zorko in the head, just an intention to strike him was influential.
What exactly constitutes a strike?
-
At a guess it appears the direction by Chairman Howie to the jury that Graham doesn't have to have an intention to strike Zorko in the head, just an intention to strike him was influential.
What exactly constitutes a strike?
At a guess suspect strike is given its everyday meaning and does not attract a specific legal definition in this context. However I stand to be corrected.
-
Pretty silly challenge after what Christian said whilst explaining the penalty.
Also, Rance extremely lucky week before it must be said.
-
After the hearing, Graham said he was disappointed with the decision but suggested it was unlikely he would appeal.
"We just accept the decision and we move on," Graham said.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-17/ban-upheld-tigers-stuff-whack
-
Also, Rance extremely lucky week before it must be said.
Bloody oath.
The inconsistencies of the system highlighted again.
-
Fyfe's appeal has been rejected and his one week suspension stands.
The MRP/tribunal was actually consistent for once :gobdrop given Graham was rubbed out earlier in the year for the same thing.
-
And yet Tom Mitchell got off jumping and throwing a forearm into goldsteins head behind play.