Its always funny when dipshit anonytrolls with their blatant perth-hating bias accuse others of pro-perth bias. (in the game thread, not here, yet)

First, has anybody actually bothered looking at the vision?
As you can CLEARLY see, Mitchell is holding Hire's arm, and Hire has to shrug out of his grip.
Then of course Mitchell has to go the whole head throw, and wobble around.

So can we assume that Mitchell isn't playing??? Hmm?
No, because unlike Knight who was genuinely concussed and is STILL in doubt, Mitchell is a cheating faker.

Well if there was no contact and Mitchell is just a faker, then the Cats will appeal and Hire will be free to play. No harm done.

The early plea has been implemented and works well in the afl.

Guess Dazz you just need something to whinge about besides the actual incident which you can't straight faced say wasn't suspension worthy.

I'd feel like saying "I think you mean WRITE me up" but would probably keep it to myself, especially since there would be no audible difference to me in that situation.
Quite the conundrum.

Well if there was no contact

and Mitchell is just a faker

then the Cats will appeal and Hire will be free to play

I don't know if I'm illiterate exactly, but your flagrant abuse of the html quote tags has certainly rendered me unable to read your post.

Looks like database corruption and a few posts lost again?

Luuuc as you learned tonight you must be concussed for it to be suspension worthy. Thanks Dazz for clearing that up.

Its always funny when dipshit anonytrolls with their blatant perth-hating bias accuse others of pro-perth bias. (in the game thread, not here, yet)

Doesn't look like much and I think Wildcats fans have a right to be annoyed that it started off as a two game suspension to start with, especially considering what has been both let go and had lesser charges in the past...

Inconsistent and ignoring precedent, legally and logically it is a ridiculous decision that is embarrassing for the league.

Maybe if they showed more consistency in their decision making people wouldn't feel they were unfairly treated.

Yeah, bit cheeky but you see similar or worse in most games. It's not the call as much as the inconsistency that's the problem. I'd love to see the refs come down harder on the grubby niggly stuff that a lot of teams (and certain players in particular) have made a big part of their game but it has to be applied consistently.

I don't mind Dazz, many of its posts just remind me of the old joke about " if you are amazed about how pig-ignorant the average person can be, then think about the fact that as they are the average , then by definition, 50% of the population is even more cringe worthy."

"Conklin's behaviour was far worse, as was the impact, and he got nothing."

The tribunal system was changed after the Conklin incident, so that isn't considered as a precedent.

No issue with suspension for this type of conduct.....but how about we start next season.....too late in the year to save the shit show our officials have put on thus far.....just keep it as is and then have an off season review which will see the introduction of graded flagrant fouls

Sounds rigged.

Sitting Greg Hire out for 1 or 2 games will help the Wildcats

^^^ LOL

+1

Surely he won't be wearing Red next season. Horrible year.

"Surely he won't be wearing Red next season. Horrible year."

Seriously? He leads them in 3P% at 41%, leads them in +/- (Perth are 118 points better off with him on the floor) and has been rock solid on the defensive end.

He'll get a pay rise if he's out of contract.

‏@PerthWildcats
Trevor Gleeson has told media that the club will be appealing Greg Hire's striking charge.

Does that mean if the appeal is dismissed it is a 2 game ban?

"@PerthWildcats
Trevor Gleeson has told media that the club will be appealing Greg Hire's striking charge."

I would be more surprised if Gleeson didn't appeal a decision....

Does that mean if the appeal is dismissed it is a 2 game ban?

I just get shivers when i see the words 'appealing' and 'Gleeson' in the same sentence, regardless of the context...

Appeal will be heard tomorrow at noon.
That's really poor!

Putting aside the incident itself, there's no way the process should be still occurring on game day of the following round.

+/- is a useless statistic when used in isolation.

"+/- is a useless statistic when used in isolation."

It's not being used in isolation, it's being compared against the rest of his teammates across almost a full season.

"+/- is a flog!"

LOL!

Hire was careless. Fine him but not suspend him.

It is not ethical at this stage to suspend if it is not intentional. I guess that is what Wildcats' appeal will be.

According to Gleeson's presser, they are going to challenge it. Seems risky.
Unless maybe Knight won't be up for tomorrow night, but they think he can make Melbourne?
Just seems the smart money would have been to face Sydney without Hire, and be certain of having him back for Melbourne.

The only thing I can think of, is that according to the Cats' article, the NBL assessed the contact as "INTENTIONAL." Say what you want, but that's a difficult assertion to prove.
"Careless"? Sure. Negligent or even Reckless maybe, but I can't see how they could possibly argue it was intentional.

"Seems risky."

By definition it is risky because he could have taken the known outcome but he's opted for the unknown one.
I thought you'd be all for this appeal given your comments about the incident in question.

What I'm wondering is whether a 1 game suspension is still a possibility. Hire undoubtedly whacked Mitchell with a raised elbow, so all we can argue is severity & intent. I could see them arguing it down from a 2 week punishment to 1 week. I'll be surprised if they can get it to the point where he doesn't miss a game, but if the reckon they've got a solid case then why not.
Perth really do need to win this Kings game and as much as some people take the piss, Hire has been an important part of our rotation this season. With an ageing and beaten-up team, and one that has to play in Melbourne 2 days after this crucial clash here in Perth, having those extra minutes to distribute could be a significant factor in both games.

Perth no longer favoured and the East coast rules... Joey on notice, Hire suspended, next up will be ????

Yeah, if they'd charged him with low/negligent, he'd be up for a fine with a guilty plea but a 1-week suspension if an appeal failed. So if they manage to get it brought down...do they get the fine option? Or is it still a week anyway? If the latter, it's utterly pointless challenging it given that the best case changes nothing.

Live, I thought even the USF was a bit stiff. Looks entirely accidental to me.

My problem is that I don't know exactly what the criteria are.

As I've said all along, my biggest beef is with the inconsistency.

Now, if what I read is true and "The NBL has stated that Hire made intentional, medium-impact high contact with the Taipans forward", and by arguing it down to something less than intentional he can avoid suspension, then that's potentially a good move. I'd still be nervous because I don't trust the NBL to be rational. How did they look at it to begin with and decide "intentional"?

This hasn't been handled well by the league. Has dragged out far too long with a hearing five days after the incident.

He raised his elbows as he was going to the key in an effort to get a team mate to pass the ball to him (raised elbows to catch the ball). Not Hire's fault the other player was too busy sniffing his armpits.

Case dimissed.

The contact in last night's game was even worse than Hire.

Greg Hire has had his penalty reduced to a 1-game suspended sentence till the end of next season.

This means, he's free to play tonight!

That's from the Cats twitter account

Penalty has been reduced to a 1 game suspended sentence as per Wildcats twitter. Further details not given at this stage.

This seems a fair outcome given what we've seen at various points this season.

Great news for the Cats. We need all hands on deck this weekend.

(I reckon he's lucky though)

I don't understand why this wasn't handed down in the first place.

The attempt at tightening up unsportsmanlike play is a positive from the league. The timing and the way it was handled and the timing was completely unprofessional.

Like many things this year, good intentions even if a bit misguided, I mean this in a positive way.

The league really needs to further review it's tribunal procedures they were a long way off with their original charge. When you think of it in AFL teams the final penalty was a reprimand, the original charge was 2 weeks.There is a large discrepancy in actions that incur those penalties. Most would probably agree that, with the intention of consistently penalising undue "rough" contact 1 week with an early plea down to a suspended sentence would have made more sense from the get go. Especially if the team found out Tuesday morning.

It's all very strange. I don't know the details, but how did the NBL ever come up with the original finding of "intentional"?
End of the day, I think its a reasonable outcome.

Nope.

He should have gotten a week off for that. To my reckoning it was intentional and low/medium impact.

There was no reason for his elbow to be that high in the air. He knew what he was doing. He was clearly frustrated and retaliating to being denied his cuts.

It doesn't have to be either Mr Anonytroll.

The tribunal got it wrong AND ROFLcopter is a flog!