Croad's elbow/ Croad cited pg 3

tap in 79 · **Joined:** Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am **Posts:** 2148

Hird is also allowed to wrestle/ throw punches in that match yesterday... but Fev. wouldn't be allowed to.

re- croad

So low contact... that is what they deem low contact. ok guys ... i think a few swinging elbows should be used this weekend against the tigers. the precedent is there. ... you will get a stern talking to after the match. big deal...

SOS · **Joined:** Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:00 am **Posts:** 294

They must mean that it was low contact as far as the head is concerned - jaw being the lowest :roll:

What a crock.

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

bondiblue wrote:

Just perusing over the suspensions we have been served over the last 3 years and it's obvious Carlton are screened, scrutinised and penalised harsher moreso than any other team. It has been a fact of life that I can't do anything about. I would love to lead a Carlton army to AFL House to protest with vigour, but then we'd look like whingers.

Prenders charge, Fevola's inconclusive hit on Brown, Campo's love tap, Stevens retaliation, Scotland's pie in the face, Fev's charge....

If Lovett-Murray doesn't get called up to face the tribunal, it wont surprise me, just confirms my premise.

Move forward.

You're being far too mature, Bondi, but I agree 100%.

You could almost run a direct video comparison between the Fev hit and the Lovett-Murray one. I think it needs to be explained why one was citeable and the other not. The review committee should be able to justify their decisions.

By the way, what was the decision on Lovett-Murray?

The Vet · **Posted:** Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:49 am

fevolaaaa wrote:

The Vet wrote:

where is the tribunal listed on the web - ie how many points are what?

anyone know?

It used to be on the AFL website. I saved a PDF of last years but its already out of date because they removed the point for 'in play' etc

I agree, I looked and couldn't find it there.

Anyone else?

camel · **Posted:** Thu Apr 27, 2006 8:51 am

Deano Supremo wrote:

buzzaaaah wrote:

camelboy wrote:

I saw the incident again on WLF and really it is a bit of a farce that Croad didn't get at least one week for that.

I can see merit in the points system, if people understand it more it can work. But when an incident like that, a clear raised elbow to the head, is not deemed worthy of suspension then they either need to revise the points system, or remove the head of the match review panel from cases involving Hawthorn players.

Its probably not the points sustem thats at fault. ots the interpretation of reckless v intentional v whatever and low impact v medium etc etc
It is open to abuse and mistakes. The whole idea of haveing the match review panel would be to have consistency if the same 3 people are judging.
Maybe they need to get professionals ie lawyers or ex-magistrates

I think the points system is a farce. It's way too open to interpretation.

It's time to perhaps admit that this isn't working and get rid of it.

All valid points lads. Fact is a raised elbow to the back of a player's head should be worth a 1 week suspension. Minimum.

If the current system in place can let a player off for an incident like that, then it is clearly not working.

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

Kaptain Kouta wrote:

Josh Kaplan wrote:

Schwab quit the Match Review Panel at the endof last year.

Did he? Thanks for the update.

He's still a tool.

Josh, you're wrong.

The Age wrote:

Match review chairman Peter Schwab

Kouta · **Posted:** Thu Apr 27, 2006 3:54 pm

Kaptain Kouta wrote:

Josh Kaplan wrote:

Schwab quit the Match Review Panel at the endof last year.

Did he? Thanks for the update.

He's still a tool.

Josh, you're wrong.

The Age wrote:

Match review chairman Peter Schwab

The incident and Schwab's explanation is shown in this link and Croad was just clumsy when he lifted the elbow after Russell had marked the ball. :garthp:

Croad elbowed Jordan in the back head late and he was nowhere near the ball!

Piss weak responses from a dud coach and a dud match review chairman.

*PM Juzz if you want to know what was linked here*

Why was Holland only asked to answer a charge of attempting to strike when Hird looked like he had a broken nose?

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

And why was Holland cited, but not Hird, who clearly landed a few punches - even if they were ineffectual.

It's a shit system.

Like I said, Fev in rd3, compare to Lovett-Murray in rd4. What's the diff?

Cypher · **Joined:** Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:13 pm **Posts:** 54

Well, well, well. :evil:

Wrong charge by review panel frees up Croad

nightcrawler · **Joined:** Sun Apr 03, 2005 11:48 am **Posts:** 2891

Quote:

"If we knew he was concussed and spent time in hospital, it would have affected how we rated it," Schwab said. "We worked on the fact that he got up and kept playing."

And yet Kirk got up and kept playing, but Fev's was rated medium impact. :roll:

Ponkstar · **Posted:** Sun Apr 30, 2006 4:19 pm

nightcrawler wrote:

Quote:

"If we knew he was concussed and spent time in hospital, it would have affected how we rated it," Schwab said. "We worked on the fact that he got up and kept playing."

And yet Kirk got up and kept playing, but Fev's was rated medium impact. :roll:

This is not a professional organisation we're talking about here.

It's the fu$%ing Love Boat.

Makes me want to vomit.

bluechampion · **Joined:** Fri May 06, 2005 1:40 pm **Posts:** 3470

2 Questions that must be asked:

1) Did the AFL even investigate the incident? At all?

2) Did no-one at Carlton think to tell the Panel that one of the players they were investigating went to hospital?

This is a clear flaw of the new Tribunal system - apparently they assess the points, do some sums, have a chat and a coffee and ask about each other's kids, invent a penalty and move on. Are they lazy or just incompetent?

And what sort of a club doesn't stick up for it's players? Croad put Russell in the hospital and we don't even kick up a stink and make sure he gets rubbed out! Surely this sends a message to the other clubs - "feel free to whack our blokes, because we won't say anything, promise".

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

And what possible justification could that dud failure of a coach have to not revisit the decision on Croad?

F*cking joke that he's making decisions on players who he coached and is expected to be impartial. Give me a f*cking break.

AGRO · **Posted:** Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:58 pm

Cypher wrote:

Well, well, well. :evil:

Wrong charge by review panel frees up Croad

Can't throw, Can't Bowl, Can't Coach, Can't sit on a Match Review Panel, Crys a lot. :roll:

camel · **Posted:** Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:25 pm

Cypher wrote:

Well, well, well. :evil:

Wrong charge by review panel frees up Croad

What a bunch of @#$%&! amateurs! :garthp:

BlueWorld · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:28 pm **Posts:** 3768

Kaptain Kouta wrote:

And what possible justification could that dud failure of a coach have to not revisit the decision on Croad?

F*cking joke that he's making decisions on players who he coached and is expected to be impartial. Give me a f*cking break.

They're both Hawthorn people. If it had been a Carlton player it would have been re-opened. :roll:

thehalford · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:52 am **Posts:** 12809

They worked on the fact he got up, did they?

*Rants about Fev's suspension again*

Ponkstar · **Posted:** Mon May 01, 2006 9:48 pm

You'd think the Bummers could do a Freo and appeal the result on that basis.

Corad kicked at least one goal when he shouldn't have been playing. The Bummers lost by a point. :garthp:

Croad's elbow/ Croad cited pg 3

Who is online