Monday, September 10, 2012

When is incidental not?

AussieRulesBlog has been getting an early start on the off-season by watching replays of all the matches from week one of the finals. We’re just watching the final quarter of the Swans-Adelaide game and noticed Crow Patrick Dangerfield reeling from a blow to the head after an attempted smother by Swan Jude Bolton.

 

In commentary, Premiership Captain Tom Harley says Bolton has nothing to worry about because the high contact to Dangerfield wasn’t malicious. The MRP agrees, noting on the AFL’s MRP results web page:

 

“It was the view of the panel that Bolton’s action to brace for contact was not a striking motion [and therefore] no further action was taken.”

 

We have one serious question for the MRP. Is the head sacrosanct or not?

 

Pretty much everyone who follows AFL footy agreed that Jack Ziebell’s contact with Aaron Joseph wasn’t malicious and had occurred incidentally to both players attempting to take possession of the ball. Nevertheless, the MRP saw fit to charge and suspend Ziebell for that incidental contact. The justification for this nonsense decision was, among other things, the AFL canard that the player’s head must be protected.

 

And yet Jude Bolton’s contact that left Dangerfield dazed is apparently OK because it didn’t look like a strike.

 

We are dazed too. Dazed and confused. Once again, the MRP’s logic emanates from a parallel universe.

No comments:

When is incidental not?

AussieRulesBlog has been getting an early start on the off-season by watching replays of all the matches from week one of the finals. We’re just watching the final quarter of the Swans-Adelaide game and noticed Crow Patrick Dangerfield reeling from a blow to the head after an attempted smother by Swan Jude Bolton.

 

In commentary, Premiership Captain Tom Harley says Bolton has nothing to worry about because the high contact to Dangerfield wasn’t malicious. The MRP agrees, noting on the AFL’s MRP results web page:

 

“It was the view of the panel that Bolton’s action to brace for contact was not a striking motion [and therefore] no further action was taken.”

 

We have one serious question for the MRP. Is the head sacrosanct or not?

 

Pretty much everyone who follows AFL footy agreed that Jack Ziebell’s contact with Aaron Joseph wasn’t malicious and had occurred incidentally to both players attempting to take possession of the ball. Nevertheless, the MRP saw fit to charge and suspend Ziebell for that incidental contact. The justification for this nonsense decision was, among other things, the AFL canard that the player’s head must be protected.

 

And yet Jude Bolton’s contact that left Dangerfield dazed is apparently OK because it didn’t look like a strike.

 

We are dazed too. Dazed and confused. Once again, the MRP’s logic emanates from a parallel universe.

0 comments: