Ivan Soldo

[MD Jazz]

What was Richmond's case?

The Tigers tried to reduce Soldo's penalty from a ban to a fine, arguing his forearm jolt on Hawthorn midfielder James Worpel should have been classed as careless rather than intentional conduct.
The three-man jury took 14 minutes to decide the original intentional grading should remain. Soldo testified he put up his forearm to protect himself as he collided with Worpel.

Kermit said that the rules prescribe it as intentional because it was not in the play (play had stopped). He may be correct that they should have argued it was not a severe enough strike to warrant a match but how can it be intentional when you do not initiate the contact?

And again, he did not hit him in the head.

Not one guy at my work (Saints/Cats/Ess supporters) reckon it was worth a week.

 

[TT33]

The Tigers tried to reduce Soldo's penalty from a ban to a fine, arguing his forearm jolt on Hawthorn midfielder James Worpel should have been classed as careless rather than intentional conduct.
The three-man jury took 14 minutes to decide the original intentional grading should remain. Soldo testified he put up his forearm to protect himself as he collided with Worpel.

Kermit said that the rules prescribe it as intentional because it was not in the play (play had stopped). He may be correct that they should have argued it was not a severe enough strike to warrant a match but how can it be intentional when you do not initiate the contact?

And again, he did not hit him in the head.

Not one guy at my work (Saints/Cats/Ess supporters) reckon it was worth a week.

So from Weakleys reasoning, you can intentionally elbow a player in the head during play. But you can't protect yourself if someone unexpectedly jumps in front of you.

Seems like the rules have changed markedly this season.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

this may be a shock, but i reckon Christian decides the penalty then tick the boxes to make it fit.

No shock. I'm certain the penalties are retro-fitted. That's why the explanations are so often awkward or inconsistent.

 

[The_General]

The Tigers tried to reduce Soldo's penalty from a ban to a fine, arguing his forearm jolt on Hawthorn midfielder James Worpel should have been classed as careless rather than intentional conduct.
The three-man jury took 14 minutes to decide the original intentional grading should remain. Soldo testified he put up his forearm to protect himself as he collided with Worpel.

Kermit said that the rules prescribe it as intentional because it was not in the play (play had stopped). He may be correct that they should have argued it was not a severe enough strike to warrant a match but how can it be intentional when you do not initiate the contact?

And again, he did not hit him in the head.

Not one guy at my work (Saints/Cats/Ess supporters) reckon it was worth a week.

The HUN reported specifically that we did not try reduce the penalty to a finefine. We claimed it was self defence and there should be no charge as Soldo acted on reflex whilst trying to run back to position when Worpel came at him. Soldo said he put his hands up to protect his face.

 

[mrposhman]

The HUN reported specifically that we did not try reduce the penalty to a finefine. We claimed it was self defence and there should be no charge as Soldo acted on reflex whilst trying to run back to position when Worpel came at him. Soldo said he put his hands up to protect his face.

I don't mind the way we focused on it. Its clear to everyone but Christian and the tribunal that you brace for contact by raising arms either to protect the face or the body. If you do what they say and brace for contact by having arms by your sides then welcome to broken ribs or a broken nose. This wasn't contact to the side it was front on contact, he couldn't turn his body and go with the shoulder when you may keep your arms to the side to brace for contact.

This ruling is a complete and utter disgrace. I could live with a fine with a careless grading but intentional, no way.

 

[mrposhman]

I think the one thing the club needs to invest in is a Gary Ablett mask, wear that at every tribunal hearing and alls good.

 

[RedanTiger]

AFL appealed in 2017 against Houli MRP outcome. Are there are options for RFC to take it further, surely. They should use other form defence as new evidence in line with Geelong & Fremantle. Lack of force, no injury. Unintentional. Protecting himself

Houli got 2 weeks for a backhander hit running through the centre.
There was uproar and it was increased to 4 weeks.
Daberfield did the same backhander while standing with his man after a first hit and his initial suspension was overturned and he was fined.

Completely consistent.

 

[tigersnake]

No shock. I'm certain the penalties are retro-fitted. That's why the explanations are so often awkward or inconsistent.

X3

 

[TigerForce]

I think the one thing the club needs to invest in is a Gary Ablett mask, wear that at every tribunal hearing and alls good.

:hihi What about the shiny noggin?

 

[Hayfever]

If you have a good Anglo-Saxon surname like Ablett, Fyfe or Mumford you won’t have too much to worry about. If not, watch out.... and appealing does not work.

 

[WesternTiger]

If you have a good Anglo-Saxon surname like Ablett, Fyfe or Mumford you won’t have too much to worry about. If not, watch out.... and appealing does not work.

*smile* even I think that’s a long bow... :hihi

Martin seems to fit your bill and he’s crucified every time!

 

[SpaceAce]

If you have a good Anglo-Saxon surname like Ablett, Fyfe or Mumford you won’t have too much to worry about. If not, watch out.... and appealing does not work.

Daisy Thomas?? That’s as English as it gets.

 

[Dont Argue]

Daisy Thomas?? That’s as English as it gets.

Anthony Kouda-mida-fides not so much

 

[TigerMasochist]

Just when Mitch Robinson thought it might be time to sharpen the elbows after the Yablett n Fyfe freebies, reality hits. The Soldo's, Dusty's, Grimes n Robinson's get their nuts tweaked every time they step out of line, but the polished turds like Yablett, Fyfe, Judd, USA, Danger simply get kissed on the *smile* n move on nothing to see here.

 

[James]

For the reasons set out above he should appeal.

 

[frickenel]

Gerard Whteley makes me want to vomit.

He was the first to be the hanging judge for Dustin Martin, and demanding a suspension for Ivan Soldo, but when it wa Ablett's turn, both times he went in to bat for the side of innocent. I don't think Gerard wants the Tigers anywhere near his beloved cats when finals time comes around.

As for the AFL, it isn't enough to have a massive free kick discrepancy against Richmond. Thy also have to change a swag of rules which ALL directly impacted unique aspects of the way we play and set up. Even that isn't enough however, after all despite fielding a second string line up, we're still nipping at thhe heels of the leading teams, despite the umpiring and MRO advantages they are getting. They need to also take every single opportunity to rub our players out as well.

Thr fact that Mumford, with his consistent record of trying to hurt opposition players, can do what he does, putting an opponent in hospital and out for 3 games, and they have to actually deliberate on whether it was accidental or not, just shows their level of corruption. Suddenly "duty of care" to your opponent is conveniently forgotten. Durden, get's rubbed out for a legitimate bump where the whiplash of his opponent's head ends up causing a mild concussion. What can you call Mumford's action other than a very suspicious bump or a different sort, driving his thigh into his opponent who had no chance at all to protect himself. But of course, we want a Sydney team up there when the whips are cracking.

One only has to look at the draw, and the fact that the team with the largest following in the competition has limited exposure to a stadium where they have dominated the opposition over the last 24 months. Don't tell me that Mc Laughlan wasn't hoping to get us off to the worst start possible. I can only imagine for him, seeing Rance going down clutching a knee would have been as enjoyable as foreplay. Watching Cotchin and Riewoldt then join him on the sidelines likely induced an orgasm.

We need to start painting messages on bed sheets and covering all the signage on the G with anti corruption slogans.

 

[gutfull]

Frick 100%.

 

[yandb]

If you have a good Anglo-Saxon surname like Ablett, Fyfe or Mumford you won’t have too much to worry about. If not, watch out.... and appealing does not work.

When you play the race card you have lost the argument.

 

[Sir]

When you play the race card you have lost the argument.

Huh????

What card is being played Saturday night???

You can't (shouldn't?) have it both ways!

Will Rioli be selected on form - or something else?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Thr fact that Mumford, with his consistent record of trying to hurt opposition players, can do what he does, putting an opponent in hospital and out for 3 games, and they have to actually deliberate on whether it was accidental or not, just shows their level of corruption. Suddenly "duty of care" to your opponent is conveniently forgotten. Durden, get's rubbed out for a legitimate bump where the whiplash of his opponent's head ends up causing a mild concussion. What can you call Mumford's action other than a very suspicious bump or a different sort, driving his thigh into his opponent who had no chance at all to protect himself. But of course, we want a Sydney team up there when the whips are cracking.

Was a charge, pure and simple. If Murphy kicks the ball downfield and is flattened after the ball has gone it's a charge. If he's on hands and knees in congestion it's fair play. Makes no sense.

IMO Parker's was the worst of all the weekend's incidents, but the media is fed the MRO narrative and ignored it.

Hocking talks about "making the game safe" and defends suspension of players where there is no injury at the same time.

Where do I register my 'no confidence' vote?