Morris cops a week from MRP [updated]

[Penelope]

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?

[JVT]

Stiff to get any weeks for that one, I reckon Elliot as much to blame as Morris.

[big tone]

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 

Maybe you were just horribly wrong WP? Is there any chance of that? 

Clearly I was wrong as were a few others  . 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

[WilliamPowell]

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  when it comes to the MRP

[dwaino]

But they are consistently inconsistent 

[Smokey]

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  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.

[WilliamPowell]

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  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 

[one-eyed]

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.

[Yeahright]

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  . Put it simply he didn't mean to get him high and did IMO, so that deserves a week or two.

[Yeahright]

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  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

[Penelope]

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  . 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

[Penelope]

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?

[tigs2011]

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. 

[tony_montana]

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. 

 

[dwaino]

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.