Rance cops 3 weeks [updated]

[RollsRoyce]

The only consistency is that the verdicts consistently go against US. Just ask Rance, Cotchin, Jackson etc.

[Hellenic Tiger]

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.

[dizza]

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.

[WilliamPowell]

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 

[Obelix]

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.

[jackstar is back again]

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

[mightytiges]

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.

[jackstar is back again]

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

[mightytiges]

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.

[RollsRoyce]

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. 

[jackstar is back again]

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

[Hellenic Tiger]

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.

[Infamy]

The footage isn't clear enough to see where contact was made
If anything Waite ran into Rance

[one-eyed]

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

[one-eyed]

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