AFL Tribunal - Paddy Ryder Decision A Joke - SB Cuts Loose
June 9, 2009 by Stewart Brown
I’ve been following AFL football ever since I can remember and have never been so disillusioned by a group of wankers in my life. The AFL Match Review Panel/Tribunal should all be sacked for pure incompetence, inconsistency and totally ruining the great game of football. I sat down Sunday afternoon to watch my beloved Bombers in action against the Crows at the Dome. Bomber ruckman Patrick Ryder has been in stellar form since taking over the ruck post after David Hille went down on Anzac Day. He is one of the more placid individuals in the league from all reports and I can’t remember ever seeing him involved in any on-field fracas or incidents. However, he is set to watch from the stands next week due to the disgraceful decision made by the Match Review Panel.
They assessed the incident in the video below as: A Level Two engaging in rough conduct offence against Patrick Dangerfield, Adelaide, during the third quarter of the Round 11 match between Essendon and Adelaide, played at Docklands on Sunday June 7, 2009.
In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of five activation points, resulting in a classification of a Level Two offence, drawing 225 demerit points and a two-match sanction. He has no existing good or bad record. An early plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent to 168.75 points and a one-match sanction.
Looks like a free kick at the very most to me (the umpire on the day didn’t even see fit to pay one) but to receive a suspension is just absurd. Take into account that Dangerfield whilst a bit dazed after the incident went off the ground for a moment but later returned and finished the game.
You can also generally get an idea of how bad the players think the bump is as not one Adelaide player came into remonstrate with Ryder at the time of the incident. The commentators also had nothing of serious nature to say about the bump; even one of them complemented Ryder on the bump from memory.
There is no doubt the Bombers will appeal this decision as I think there can be a good argument mounted from the vision that he didn’t get him high and the fact that Dangerfield came back on the ground could be basis to argue that the impact was low rather than medium. Having said all that, this incident should not have even come to this.
It has been said plenty of times over the past couple of seasons but if Ryder is rubbed out for this incident then the death of the bump is getting closer and closer.
Looks head high to me. This is clearly a biased opinion.
Yes have to agree that this post is very biased. It was hed high contact and warrented a look at.
I agree a week suspension is a bit harsh for a slight and low impact bump but when you look at Kerr getting a week for another low impact punch and Gardiner only getting a week as well for an elbow and King who just bumped someone its obvious the tribunal is a joke.
You should have commented on just more than just Paddy with your red and black stained glasses to get your point across.
Kick 2 Kick you are struggling there mate. Whether this guy is a Bomber supporter or not it is clear he is right Paddy shouldn’t have gotten anything.
Look at the history, check out this hit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf-qADsO3E
This was in the preseason and got nothing despite the fact that poor little McGinnity’s jaw was smashed into next week.
Based on this Paddy gets nothing as far as I am concerned.
Kerr’s was a joke as well.
Not sure how you can say my post is biased K2K yet agree that the week is harsh?
The Kerr incident was completley different, it has no relevance to the Ryder one.
King deserved the weeks for sure. It was a low act what he did and Power was a cheap shot.
Why didnt the umpires pay a free kick on the day? Why didnt the Adelaide players remonstrate with Ryder over it? Why didnt the commentators mention anything about it being reportable?
“The umpires didn’t pay a free kick on the day” isn’t much, the umpires miss a lot of reportable offences and they miss a lot of free kicks. Similarly you rarely see the players get into things like that much anymore. King hits yes, but most of them wouldn’t have even seen the bump, let alone been sure there was anything in it. And as for commentators…
It’s a bit touch and go, and the Bombers are appealing it at the risk of losing Paddy the extra game so obviously they believe in their cause, but the post is dripping with bias.
And kick2kick, King well and truly got that bloke one. It was not “just a bump”, and he’s taken his 4 weeks without complaint. St Kilda fan?
Maybe the AFL should stop trying to work out how to stop robbing the game of its players by rubbing them out each week.
Just suspend the blokes who come in with the cheap shots and the clearly negligent.
Give us a break from picking off blokes involved in soft/accidental situations.
PS - SB think you’ve been buried a bit here. Being an Essendon supporter and letting rip with a fearful spray doesn’t make you biased if you can support your argument.
That said, you’re still wrong about Kerr last week!
Oh BTW - as much as I don’t think Ryder should get suspended, they’ve rolled the dice in taking it to the tribunal. They could have taken one week and only missed him for a ‘gimme’ against the Dees.
But seeing I don’t like the Bombers - I hope he doesn’t get off and misses a couple. Wooo
Good to see sanity has prevailed and Ryder is free to play against Melbourne next week.
its a good hit to me
It was a biased article because you only focused on the Paddy bump, for it to be more balanced you should have focused on more than just your golden boy to prove your point. ie: Using Kings, Gardiners, Kerr & Maxwell.
The reason Adelaide did not remonstrate is because the AFL will then fine them for wrestling.
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying Paddy’s initial suspension was warrented, it was not and its good to see him get off. All I am saying is your biased crying foul over only Paddy getting suspended.
btw Im an eagles man and I raised the King bump because it was not much different between Maxwell’s BUT the only difference being the Pies bank account.
K2K - Maxwell’s hit was a shepherd, King’s was about 50m off the ball.
So not similar at all.
K2K,
I thought Kings suspension was warranted as it was miles of the ball and totally uneccessary was a thugish act and a cheap shot.
The Maxwell and King incidents were totally different aswell. Maxwell’s was in the play, Kings was not. Maxwell also got 4 weeks for his before beating it on appeal. Surely you can see the difference between those two incidents.
Since when have teams worried about fines for wrestling, do you honestly think Adelaide were going to remonstrate about the bump but then in the heat of the moment thought actually better not cause we will get fined. Turn it up.
There has been several comments recently by players/ coaches etc who have said in defense why they do not remonstrate. I do not agree with it personally but its always the remonstrator that gets pinged/ fined/ free kicked against etc (ie: Kerr against Carlton).
I take your point about the difference between King & Maxwell and thats fair enough. Both where imo cowardly attacks and Maxwell should have got the 4 weeks but thats an old argument!
i watch union now AFL is so shit