i. I know there's another thread praising the virtues of Kangaroos player 29. I don't want to sully this thread by mentioning that player's name.
ii. I know that Mundy has now accepted the penalty of a $1000 fine, reduced from $1500, for striking Kangaroos Player 29.
iii. From the MRP report: Based on the video evidence available and a medical report from the North Melbourne Football Club, it was the view of the panel the incident should be classified as intentional conduct with low impact to the body. This offence was classified as a $1500 sanction. The player has no applicable bad record. An early plea can reduce the penalty to a $1000 sanction.
iv. I suspect the view of Mundy and the Dockers is that it is worth forking over the $1000 rather than go through the grief of challenging the penalty. My view is that it would have been worth the possible extra $500 to drag that unspeakable opponent in front of the tribunal and argue the case.
v. A view of the video shows Kangaroos Player 29 pinging another Fremantle player immediately before coming close past Mundy. (That didn't warrant any mention by anyone.) Mundy takes a little tap at 29 who (as others have rightly noted) does his usual drama queen act and falls dramatically to ground.
vi. Surely the panel could have deemed that there was insufficient contact to constitute a strike. Had anyone argued that it was, then why did player 29 continue the game, given that the alleged offence occurred in Q2? I think Mundy would have had a strong case.
vii. It would have been worth it to call the player to defend his (minuscule) credibility and to use his blatant exaggeration (300 pinches) in the Crowley case to show that he cannot be trusted.
viii. It is truly tragic that the Kangaroos player in question besmirches the jumper number that has been so nobly worn by Fremantle's truly greatest player and team captain. Sorry Pav.
