Dylan Grimes JDM | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Dylan Grimes JDM

leon said:
So what determines the outcome and weeks penalty is the "media hype"; not the AFL's own constituted panels, policies and processes? I fully agree with you, and also that the first decision on Houli was right. Three down to two because of his impeccable record, and it was in play, with Lamb illegally holding him, which was ignored by the umpires!

But here exactly is the downfall of your case, and the reasons for so many objecting and complaining.

So Membrey got half as much as Houli did in the end, and in effect probably the same penalty as Grimes who was taken out of this match leaving the team a man down plus will most likely miss this week, because it's all run by the media? Who, in their non-reaction to Membrey's brutal smash of Dylan's head, behaved altogether differently over Houli?

I think it leaves some interesting conclusions to be logically drawn.

Well I don't think it's the downfall of my case. I agree with you Houli should have received 2. the same as Membrey received. I can't fathom why Houli gets 4 and Membrey gets 2 other than the media pressure. The mitigating factor for Membrey was that his was in play going for a mark with a player courageously and maybe originally unexpectedly backing into the pack whereas Houli's was off the ball. But I believe both incidents were careless, not intentional. Bugg's on the other hand, that is the sort of incident that goes straight to the tribunal.
 
tigerlove said:
Well I don't think it's the downfall of my case. I agree with you Houli should have received 2. the same as Membrey received. I can't fathom why Houli gets 4 and Membrey gets 2 other than the media pressure. The mitigating factor for Membrey was that his was in play going for a mark with a player courageously and maybe originally unexpectedly backing into the pack whereas Houli's was off the ball. But I believe both incidents were careless, not intentional. Bugg's on the other hand, that is the sort of incident that goes straight to the tribunal.
The location is probably right but the outcome is more of a factor, one goes down and struggles to get walked off the other gets up and refuses help. The AFL system is an arse to say the least. The media definately costs certain players and clubs extra.
 
tigerlove said:
AFL then appealed their AFL body's decision to be reviewed by another AFL body because of media-hyped public condemnation possibly due to being a Muslim and/or politicians getting nvolved (Bugg received nowhere near the same amount of media attraction even though it was much worse incident).

Caro suggesting the performance of the person at the centre of the HQ affair scandal could be compromised. Would be interesting if the person involved turned out to be Lethlean The Appealer. Just sayin'.
 
tigerlove said:
Well I don't think it's the downfall of my case. I agree with you Houli should have received 2. the same as Membrey received. I can't fathom why Houli gets 4 and Membrey gets 2 other than the media pressure. The mitigating factor for Membrey was that his was in play going for a mark with a player courageously and maybe originally unexpectedly backing into the pack whereas Houli's was off the ball. But I believe both incidents were careless, not intentional. Bugg's on the other hand, that is the sort of incident that goes straight to the tribunal.

You are still missing it. By your own admission, repeatedly, it is the MEDIA controlling the verdicts, penalties and the system. Not the AFL.

That's what has everyone so disgusted.
 
leon said:
You are still missing it. By your own admission, repeatedly, it is the MEDIA controlling the verdicts, penalties and the system. Not the AFL.

That's what has everyone so disgusted.

So what am I missing? I indicated that as my opinion after the Houli saga.
 
YinnarTiger said:
You told us it would be 2. Wrong. MRP handed out 3 which is the maximum they are allowed to hand out. Reduced to 2 based on early plea.
I said he'd get 2, he got 2.
 
tigerlove said:
So what am I missing? I indicated that as my opinion after the Houli saga.

So we all agree that the AFL and its administration of the MRP is a mess. Meanwhile Houli serves double time compared to Membrey, but IYO they got the Membrey decision right?
 
leon said:
So we all agree that the AFL and its administration of the MRP is a mess. Meanwhile Houli serves double time compared to Membrey, but IYO they got the Membrey decision right?

Correct. Membrey decision was right, Houli's was right originally but AFL overturned it after media and Eddie pressure.
 
tigerlove said:
Correct. Membrey decision was right, Houli's was right originally but AFL overturned it after media and Eddie pressure.

Imagine if Benny Gale was carrying on about a Collingwood player
 
I'm in the minority on this one, I think 2 weeks is fair, impossible to avoid contact after launching for a pack mark, the arm to me was just clumsy so a suspension becomes fair. Game has too many suspensions caused by footy collisions , it's still a tough game , players will always get hurt.

Be interested on opinions on length of suspension if it was a Tiger who did it
 
3 down to 2 was about right for Membrey. Still a dog act. Could have braced and hip and shouldered rather than a deliberate forearm.

Houli should have initially gotten 4 down to 3. No-one would have said boo.


Houli was screwed by the initial incompetence of the decision. You cant knock a bloke out (even accidentally) and get 2 weeks for being a good bloke who knows Malcolm and Whaleed. That was always going to rile the masses
 
wigglyworm said:
3 down to 2 was about right for Membrey. Still a dog act. Could have braced and hip and shouldered rather than a deliberate forearm.

Houli should have initially gotten 4 down to 3. No-one would have said boo.

Except 4 down to 3 is not an option for the MRP. The maximum penalty from the MRP is 3. If the tribunal hands out 4 AFAIK there is no reduction for a guilty plea.
 
French Tiger said:
Imagine if Benny Gale was carrying on about a Collingwood player

Benny and other club presidents, along with those of integrity in the media, need to stand up and challenge Eddie. He's a bully with far too much influence.

He quickly backed down and meekly apologised on the Caro drowning and Adam Goodes 'King Kong' calls when challenged. Of course, anyone else in the AFL admin structure would have been forced to resign!
 
YinnarTiger said:
Except 4 down to 3 is not an option for the MRP. The maximum penalty from the MRP is 3. If the tribunal hands out 4 AFAIK there is no reduction for a guilty plea.

There is a reduction of one week for a guilty plea. Houli rejected this option because he did not want to plead guilty to a charge of deliberately striking an opponent. He wanted the charge downgraded to careless.

The problem was that the tribunal could not offer a reduction of 4 down to 3 due to his good record, they could only offer it for a guilty plea. He did not want to plead guilty to that charge, which is his right. Houli tries to be a good citizen. Words hurt too.

4 weeks was the only possible outcome under the rules. Somehow, the tribunal reduced it to two weeks based on character witnesses, which was dumb.
 
UKTiger said:
Grimes may well have taken a brutal knock last week but I will be surprised if he doesn't play on Sunday. A hard nut and committed Tiger

Both us and Membrey are lucky because of that fact. Tough nut he is