AFL Rd 5 2023 Pre Game Prognostications Carlton vs Adelaide in Adelaide

[Lods]

Take off the navy glasses and look at the incident.

A 200cm+ 100kg+ player hit a player in the head with 2 forearms after running at him.
There was no ducking from the player, he should not have been expecting that type of contact and was unprotected at the time.

1 week every day of the week.

No i don't like it, i'd prefer Harry be out there this week, but i definitely understand it and think it is just.

Yep
Tend to agree.
I'll be surprised if he gets it reduced.
He's crossed his arms and contacted him high.
A week is sad, but fair.

[shawny]

Take off the navy glasses and look at the incident.

A 200cm+ 100kg+ player hit a player in the head with 2 forearms after running at him.
There was no ducking from the player, he should not have been expecting that type of contact and was unprotected at the time.

1 week every day of the week.

No i don't like it, i'd prefer Harry be out there this week, but i definitely understand it and think it is just.

The MC rated it as medium impact which it is clearly not. Look at the Charlie Ballard case - More severe than Harry's and it was downgraded to low impact as it didnt cause damage.

If you have a process that is what all cases are rated by you cant chop and change them to suit your inconsistency.

Based on the fact Sheezel jumped straight up the hit must be graded at low. Simple as that. 

Harry was clumsy and 'could' have caused major damage but the reality is thankfully he didnt. Has to be given a fine based on that.

If we are going to suspend players based on the damage they could potentially cause with and action there will be lot of playing missing most weeks. Zurhaar's deliberate push to the head of Cerra could cause a serious eys injury or a little lower and you end up with what happened to Ed Curnow. Can't start rubbing blokes out based on the action - has to be graded on both what the action was and also the result of the action. 

[DJC]

Our case relies on the fact that Harry pushed Sheezel and did not strike him.  That’s how I saw the incident and it will be a travesty if Harry doesn’t get off.

[cookie2]

Our case relies on the fact that Harry pushed Sheezel and did not strike him.  That’s how I saw the incident and it will be a travesty if Harry doesn’t get off.

Just seen it replayed on tv and I agree with you 100%!

[rocky]

Think we used up all our MRP luck last year with Cripps. Can't see us getting another let off like that again for many moons

[dodge]

So the two sling tackles have suspensions attached - good.  The knee in the ruck was the same result as TDK - good (at least being consistent)

Jeremy Cameron - nothing for smashing an umpire? Not good (or I just can't find it).

[pinot]

McKay incident was nothing in it. These collisions happen 100x in the coal face in a match. Hit him on the shoulder first anyway

[shawny]

McKay incident was nothing in it. These collisions happen 100x in the coal face in a match. Hit him on the shoulder first anyway

Spot on. And there was no damage so if they are consistent it has to be graded as low impact. Blues defence has called up previous cases to highlight how Harrys charge has to be downgraded to low.

[Lods]

Reduced to a fine...so there you go.
Free to play.

[shawny]

Reduced to a fine...so there you go.
Free to play.

They had no option but to downgrade it. Correct Decision.