MRO for Saturday. Logue, Acres, Pedlar one-match bans
twitter.com/cleary_mitch/status/1642452400261...
twitter.comPosted Apr 2, 2023, 9:17 AM UTC
1352
twitter.comReckon Newcombe is extremely lucky. This footage shows him pulling the arm back further after the tackle was completed, and Switta copped a week for that last season
37
Fuck that is beyond grubbery and actively attempting to cause serious injury.
Like fuck just thinking in a footy context, he could genuinely affect <insert north players name>‘s quality of life going forward if he does serious damage. Shoulders are an everyday use joint.
9
Putrid he gets away with that. Still makes me feel sick thinking about judds chicken wing on adams
6
*Switta got two weeks. Can't tell me that's not at least 50% as bad. All that was different is Switkowski's was on Ginnivan when Ginnivan was top of the news cycle.
2
Yeah that was a poor call for dangerous tackle and we need to appeal the suspension.
Edit: if this is a one match ban the Tackle on Jones and the Tackle on wines should also be one week. But all three are not one match ban's and arguably none of them were even free kicks.
28
The one by drew in the first couple of minutes of the last quarter where he sling Jones and then dumped him on his head was easily worse than the pedlar one
14
just rewatched it. Definitely worse.
10
I just don’t understand how pedlars was graded medium impact, Houston got up and took his kick didn’t get a HIA or nothing like on what planet is that medium impact
13
Arm out and was chest first … couldn’t see a big name getting a week for that
2
Call me biased, but I didn't think Pedlar deserved the suspension...
He originally tackled the player around the body, then adjusted to grab an arm to prevent him from getting the hand ball away. It wasn't a pin the arm and slam to the ground type tackle.
23
Agree. The bloke getting tackled has the arm under his body free, too. Bit firm absolutely, a fine wouldn't be out of place, but already you have to say with the bans they've given this year, that one doesn't at all stack up.
5
I think the second motion was there. I don’t have a problem with it. It is an avoidable action, but was borderline for force.
2
Logue was sprinting at the ball, was first to it and soccered it. The collision was inevitable.
The AFL is teaching players to not protect themselves in collisions.
Meanwhile, Newcombe intentionally trips Logue and uses an armbar to drive his head into the ground and twists his arm afterwards. All after the whistle. Thats only a fine.
18
It wasn't just a fine, he also got paid a holding the ball free too him despite a clear in thr back in the mix of all the above. Some genuinely baffling work from the officials
8
a clear in thr back
Lol no it wasn't
Argue the fine or lack of weeks all you want, but that was definitely HTB.
Was this before or after Logue cleaned up Day? Perhaps that explains the over aggression from Newcombe?
I would be challenging the Logue suspension btw, medium impact is a ludicrous call, Day was fine
1
How was it not in the back, two players tackled him face first into the turf landing on his back. It'd have been clear HTB had they tackled properly, but if the safety rules didn't come first, most high or in the back frees would probably be HTB instead. Safety comes first, except for speckies I guess, but certainly when it comes to tackles.
0
used to this shit supporting north
5
Logue seemed put off by the fact that the Hawks bloke took his eye off the ball too, so Logue braced for impact expecting a bump. Yeah he sort of over runs the ball, but only because the other bloke completely takes his eye off the ball. I think he has every right to brace for impact when he sees in the corner of his eye a bloke lining him up.
1
We should challenge this, ridiculous decision
15
we should try to challenge Newcombe's while we're at it
14
Can it be medium impact if Day literally got right up?
14
The old "Potential to cause injury":
Any high bump which constitutes Rough Conduct that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as Medium Impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.
3
Should challenge the Acres suspension
12
It happened with 40 seconds left in the game, not in the second quarter as it says on the MRO report, so get him off on a technicality /s
8
Pedlars tackle wasn't even a free kick let alone a suspension. Get all the way fucked.
11
It was definitely a free kick.... for holding the ball. Textbook tackle, Houston even had his arm free to brace the ground.
8
Yeah fair play MRO, the bump is a non-football action and has no place in the modern game. Double teaming a bloke, tripping him over and chicken winging his arm? That's tackle craft big boy
8
Acres suspension looks very soft but I don't think we need to push our luck with tribunal decisions. Plus he could probably do with a rest for his shoulder
5
I think all 3 challenge jeez
5
Farcical decision but I guess that’s what you come to expect from the MRO roulette
3
Logues is the only one worth a week I reckon
1†
Good bump play on. Games dead
3†
Wasn't a good bump. He ran over the ball and got him high.
Marshall's bump on Michalhanney last night is a perfect example of a hard but fair bump that is still perfectly accepted in the game
-8
Ran over the ball? Are you sure about that?
3†
Thats a perfect photo showing he's not even competing for the ball.. as it's on the ground..
Good work Nancy drew 👏
-2†
[deleted]
1
Didnt see Parish strike Clark ?? Anyone got any footage?
0
Tut tut Logue and Acres what happened to you? You were good boys at Freo.
/J
0
Acres done absolutely nothing wrong. Hardly even touched the bloke. We always cop the short end of the stick with suspensions. Blues need to challenge and stand up to the MRO.
-1
Patrick Cripps Brownlow disagrees
5
Logue lucky it is only a week and not two. Day immediately getting back up probably saved him.
-3†
Absolute joke that Peds is getting a ban for that. Great tackle HTB every day of the week.
3 dangerous tackle free kicks paid and only one caught the attention of the MRO?
Sack Christian.