MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[Festerz]

I'm going by what was reported on SEN last week.

Well they are wrong.

The revised directions says that 'the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year'. This is not the same as not allowing precedence to be considered.

But what the amended directions does do though is expressly state that the tribunal is free to make subjective assessments based on 'evolving community standards'

 

[SC_Power]

Well they are wrong.

The revised directions says that 'the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year'. This is not the same as not allowing precedence to be considered.

But what the amended directions does do though is expressly state that the tribunal is free to make subjective assessments based on 'evolving community standards'

So the evolving community standard might be that 8 weeks is now too harsh, so they adjust downwards this week compared to last week? So Webster is the new benchmark for 4, and a repeat of SPP might now only be worth 2 or 3 weeks, even though the community standard said 4 last week.

 

[Tibbs]

Yep.

As I said just 4 days ago:



And my view today is this.

Had the Webster hit happened last week - the week after the retirement of Brayshaw from the game due to concussion complications - then the AFL would have argued for a 5 week penalty and the Tribunal would have agreed and everyone would have said 'geez that's harsh compared to last year but fair enough given the intent and the severe impact'.

And had the SPP bump happened this week - then the AFL would have argued for a 3 week penalty and the Tribunal maybe would have agreed and everyone would have said 'fair enough - it was careless and SPP had other options but a concussion resulted - but it was clear that SPP did not intend to harm Keane, unlike the Webster hit'

But the AFL have backed themselves into a corner now - they chose to use the SPP careless bump as the line in the sand and benchmark for future concussion incidents when anyone but a fool would have known a far more severe and intentional bump would happen sooner or later. As it turned out it took just over a week for that more severe and intentional bump to occur.

Webster getting anything less than 6+ weeks is simply unacceptable given what was dished out to SPP.

We haven't even started playing for keeps yet and yet another 'line in the sand' is going to be set by the AFL. How many weeks before that line is crossed and new line is drawn?

And how will the AFL and its Tribunal react if that player who crosses the new line is a revered high profile star of a top Victorian team in the lead up to a final/Grand Final?

SPP was buggered from the get-go! At any given time, his should have been a two match suspension, but the timing of his incident was bad luck timing-wise. I think there is absolutely no doubt that he was disproportionately "taxed" by the tribunal. It was so soon after Brayshaw's forced retirement, the first case for the AFL to use as their line-in-the-hand, test-case. He has heavily tried by media, with the hue & cry reaching fever-pitch here in Melbourne, plus being a non-victorian, and from a club with no real influence.

I thought he might get away with 3 matches, but they were merciless!

I reckon there is a good chance that now that the AFL have flexed their muscles & shown how "serious and committed" they are to the cause, that Webster will get less than he should, less than what is being thrown out there ... An everyone will just go quiet on it.

I hope I am wrong for Pep's sake, I really do.

 

[GremioPower]

And so it begins ...

"He's obviously shown some remorse there and I guess our thoughts are with the North Melbourne player in Simpkin," Enright said.


"Hopefully he's going to be OK and you never want to see anyone go down. We'll deal with whatever comes out of it from there.


"(Webster) is a great person and he's had a long time in the game.


"As we know with football, it's one step here or one step there.


"It's a really fast game, faster than ever. These things happen really quickly.

Saints back Webster as MRO scrutiny looms for brutal bump

St Kilda's Jimmy Webster is set to come under scrutiny for a hit on Jy Simpkin that ruled the North Melbourne skipper out of the game

www.afl.com.au

THIS IS NAUSEATING!

All those Vic-centric R4C1575 in the AFL can go f**k themselves for all I care.

 

[GremioPower]

10 weeks is a ridiculous call from king. Sensationalist dick head.

8 is minimum. Ten is just a stretch to get to 8.

 

[Festerz]

SPP was buggered from the get-go! At any given time, his should have been a two match suspension, but the timing of his incident was bad luck timing-wise. I think there is absolutely no doubt that he was disproportionately "taxed" by the tribunal. It was so soon after Brayshaw's forced retirement, the first case for the AFL to use as their line-in-the-hand, test-case. He has heavily tried by media, with the hue & cry reaching fever-pitch here in Melbourne, plus being a non-victorian, and from a club with no real influence.

I thought he might get away with 3 matches, but they were merciless!

I reckon there is a good chance that now that the AFL have flexed their muscles & shown how "serious and committed" they are to the cause, that Webster will get less than he should, less than what is being thrown out there ... An everyone will just go quiet on it.

I hope I am wrong for Pep's sake, I really do.

The AFL went a week too early with their “let’s make an example of someone” call. And now they're backed into a corner. It's that simple really.

But they've given themselves a little Get out of Gaol FREE card in the revised guidance to the Tribunal released on 3 February this year enabling them to use 'evolving community standards' to make sentence calls that no longer have to rely on precedent and consistency from one month or week to another.

They're not going to use that card for a mid tier player from St Kilda for an action that is demonstrably worse than the SPP bump and just a week later.

But watch what happens later down the track when a high status 'icon' and 'excellent character' of the game is charged. Put all your chips on black that when that happens the AFL will invoke that 'evolving community standards' card, referencing their own media partners on social media and talk shows and freely admit that they went too hard too early and highlight how 'uncharacteristic' the action was for iconic adornment of the game player X and hand him the 2-3 week ban they should have given SPP in the first place.

Nothing more certain.

 

[PowerBaz]

You watch St Kilda appeal too.

 

[PortPortPort]

10 weeks is a ridiculous call from king. Sensationalist dick head.

David King is taking notes from Kane Cornes, it's a shock jock piece of commentary, so replies and views on social media go nuts.

Personally I like the 10 weeks call so the AFL will downgrade it from 10 instead of 6 but seems the Vic media are already protecting Webster so likely 4.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

10 is actually pretty reasonable if Pep's was 4. It was at least 2.5 times as bad. Anything less than 8 would be a joke.

Also people on this forum often talk about Vic-bias and Vic-centric stuff, but the reality is to the AFL there is no difference between St Kilda and Port Adelaide and he'll probably get smashed in the same way Pep did. The question mark comes when Patrick Cripps

9

Patrick Cripps

Age

29

Ht

195cm

Wt

93kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.9

5star

K

9.8

4star

HB

16.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

5.8

5star

CL

7.4

5star

D

21.0

5star

K

10.1

4star

HB

10.9

5star

M

2.5

3star

T

3.8

4star

CL

6.3

5star

D

12.6

4star

K

4.8

2star

HB

7.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.4

4star

, Sam Walsh

18

Sam Walsh

Age

24

Ht

184cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

25.1

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

5.1

5star

T

3.2

5star

CL

3.4

5star

No current season stats available

D

26.2

5star

K

15.4

5star

HB

10.8

5star

M

6.0

5star

T

3.2

5star

CL

4.8

5star

, Steele Sidebottom

22

Steele Sidebottom

Age

34

Ht

184cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.4

5star

K

14.1

5star

HB

13.3

5star

M

5.5

5star

T

3.7

5star

CL

3.2

5star

D

24.0

5star

K

12.0

5star

HB

12.0

5star

M

4.5

4star

T

4.3

5star

CL

2.3

4star

D

31.6

5star

K

14.4

5star

HB

17.2

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

6.0

5star

etc get caught up in one before a big game - that will be the test.

The one difference is that the mouthbreathing scumbag racists like James Dampney aren't going to run attack lines in the media like they did for Pep but I doubt that will change the outcome on this one from the AFL.

 

[VineValerian]

Well they are wrong.

The revised directions says that 'the tribunal is not bound by any decision of the tribunal or MRO in a previous year'. This is not the same as not allowing precedence to be considered.

But what the amended directions does do though is expressly state that the tribunal is free to make subjective assessments based on 'evolving community standards'

Good to see community standards could well evolve in just one week.
Geez we are a fickle bunch us humans - can't stick to anything for any length of time.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Whately predictably says 4-6.
Opening up the conversation for a lesser penalty than it should be. Whereas he did thr exact opposite for Pep.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[proman_x]

Has someone posted the footage of this bump ? I can not seem to find it.

 

[Grave Danger]

Whately predictably says 4-6.
Opening up the conversation for a lesser penalty than it should be. Whereas he did thr exact opposite for Pep.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

campaigner

 

[bomberclifford]

Whately predictably says 4-6.
Opening up the conversation for a lesser penalty than it should be. Whereas he did thr exact opposite for Pep.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

If you've been watching closely over the past decade, Whateley's commentary is very closely aligned with the AFL agenda.
So much so that it's almost like he's been given a briefing.

 

[yepits2020]

There are two points which open to letting Webster get less than the 10 weeks he deserves:
1. The whately argument that increasing weeks is exponential increase in penalty (ie 8 weeks is not double, but 10 to the power of 4 increase), so 5 is a heck of a lot worse than 4.
2. The argument that Pep’s was unfair and excessive (should have been 2 or 3), which I am taking to mean that Webster should get proportional to that 2 or 3.

Webster should definitely get 8 to 10 or the AFL is a joke.

Edit: webster’s was not a split second decision like Pep’s. He blatantly lined Simpkin up and hit him to do the most damage. Can not be more clear cut. Hence 8-10 weeks.

 

[simba_]

shouldn't it be 0 weeks considering its the same as Maynards? I don't get why it's being compared to Pepper's when it's literally the same as Maynards

 

[jac147]

If you've been watching closely over the past decade, Whateley's commentary is very closely aligned with the AFL agenda.
So much so that it's almost like he's been given a briefing.

I’m sure he has!

 

[El_Scorcho]

We should be absolutely losing our shit if this gets 4.

 

[snozulu]

Has someone posted the footage of this bump ? I can not seem to find it.

 

[Rising Power]

Has the AFL requested their preferred number of weeks yet? They were quick to publicly call for 4 last week. Anyone home, AFL House?

 

[MrMeaner]

Has the AFL requested their preferred number of weeks yet? They were quick to publicly call for 4 last week. Anyone home, AFL House?

As someone mentioned above, Whateley has called for 4-6.

Amongst everything, the way the Victorian-based AFL media behave WRT reports and the Tribunal is amongst the most galling things about the game.

 

[Festerz]

Whately predictably says 4-6.
Opening up the conversation for a lesser penalty than it should be. Whereas he did thr exact opposite for Pep.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think we can all agree that Whateley is an AFL Sop.

As has been pointed out several times - Webster launched himself shoulder first into the head of a player (Simpkin) who was kicking the ball and therefore utterly defenceless and unable to brace himself for impact.

There are zero mitigating circumstances for Webster and the act is as far removed from the SPP bump as you can get.

The ball wasn't even in the vicinity when Websters elbow collects the side of Simpkin's head:






It's a cowardly act that has been illegal in the AFL for decades and a penalty of more than 6 matches would seem appropriate given what was dished out to Pep.

 

[melanChronic]

Whately predictably says 4-6.
Opening up the conversation for a lesser penalty than it should be. Whereas he did thr exact opposite for Pep.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

How about him trying to use the Richter scale to somehow justify this argument lol

 

[PortWTF]

I thought David Kings comments on the Whately show were pretty reasonable given how many SPP got - which he acknowledged.

In my opinion he did raise an interesting point. In years past Simpkin perhaps might have been expecting a late hit and so would have not left himself so open, but the AFL has said we will protect you from illegal bumps so he assumes he doesn't have to worry about getting hit like that. I don't know if that is what really goes through players heads these days, would be interesting if that was an argument that was raised at the tribunal asking for a harsher penalty.

 

[Alberton Proud]

I thought David Kings comments on the Whately show were pretty reasonable given how many SPP got - which he acknowledged.

In my opinion he did raise an interesting point. In years past Simpkin perhaps might have been expecting a late hit and so would have not left himself so open, but the AFL has said we will protect you from illegal bumps so he assumes he doesn't have to worry about getting hit like that. I don't know if that is what really goes through players heads these days, would be interesting if that was an argument that was raised at the tribunal asking for a harsher penalty.

Victim blaming to get a suspension reduced
Only in Victoria eh