MRP / Trib. Tribunal Thread - rules and offences discombobulation

[PortWTF]

I still contend that we need to argue that the contact was 100% legal. Not above the shoulder, not on the neck. They are simply saying that to justify the suspension. The vision is much more in favour of it being a legal bump than an illegal bump.

As such, the suspension would then be based purely on outcome. Which is simply outrageous. You can't suspend someone for 5 matches for a legal action for that long. And as I mentioned somewhere before, if outcomes can be the sole determinant of a suspension for a bump, then all bumps that result in injury should have to result in a suspension if you want to be consistent. Josh Sinn was bumped and broke his collarbone and missed 4 weeks. The Hawthorn player was not even cited. Of course he wasn't, because it's ridiculous that in a full contact sport, with rules about where you can bump someone on the body, that the outcome should determine if you get suspended.

Make a rule which says you cannot bump someone forcefully with your shoulder front-on. If you do, it's a free kick. If it's excessive, then you get suspended.

 

[scotty13]

Maybe the club needs to role out a montage of Houston bumping players, the players not hitting their head and not being concussed. Then argue it was not foreseeable, as for the last 125 bumps Houston has laid there has not been a head knock or concussion, so why would it be foreseeable in this case.

Then extent it to the 1000 bumps this year that haven't resulted in a head knock and continue the argument.

 

[PowerBaz]

Just show Rankine cutting hair on Insta, shoulders look fine.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Appeals Board hearing starts at 6pm AEST / 5.30pm ACST/ 4pm AWST

Can follow it "live" - well David Zita's comments at following Fox Sports page. Scroll down a few sceens.

Fiery ‘paint can’ dispute as last-ditch bump ban appeal fails, ending Port star’s season

Fiery ‘paint can’ dispute as last-ditch bump ban appeal fails, ending Port star’s season

www.foxsports.com.au

The Power can argue on four grounds at the Appeal Board:

1. An error of law that had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal has occurred;

2. The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;

3. The classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate; or

4. The sanction imposed by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Crows fans have been insisting that the impact of Houston's bump was so terrible that Rankine was stuffering an extended period with concussion symptoms.

Yet on Wednesday, 4 days after the impact the Crows are posting Rankine jogging around at training. 4 days, the minimum period that the AFL Concussion Protocols set before a player can start training activities like walking and jogging again.

 

[FishingRick04]

Crows fans have been insisting that the impact of Houston's bump was so terrible that Rankine was stuffering an extended period with concussion symptoms.

Yet on Wednesday, 4 days after the impact the Crows are posting Rankine jogging around at training. 4 days, the minimum period that the AFL Concussion Protocols set before a player can start training activities like walking and jogging again.

Minimum is 4 days, he waited 4 days, so you’re saying he was concussed? Or it wasn’t that bad because he’s back after minimum time?

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

 

[Ant Bear]

Getting this reduced to 4 games is pointless. It just incentivises us to lose the Qualifying Final to allow Dan to play again in a Grand Final that we won't make in that scenario.

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

 

[It Just Is]

Sounds like what we should have argued the first time

 

[Drunk_off_R0zee]

Getting this reduced to 4 games is pointless. It just incentivises us to lose the Qualifying Final to allow Dan to play again in a Grand Final that we won't make in that scenario.

Could we get it to three?

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

 

[Ant Bear]

Hallelujah!

 

[Ant Bear]

 

[agmsy]

I've commented this elsewhere, but footage from the broadcast side appears to show Rankine's head casting a shadow on Houston's back (consistent with shadows cast by the light tower in the right forward pocket at the Riverbank end). If that is what the footage shows, then it may be helpful for demonstrating that Houston could not have made contact with Rankine's neck.

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

Not looking good….

 

[Palpatine_Power]

AFL are eventually going to have to justify why the bump is allowed but the repercussions aren't. It's a ridiculous situation.

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

Not looking good….

This is what happens when you are a submissive weak football club

 

[Ant Bear]

 

[agmsy]

This is rubbish. Houston maintained that he did not make direct high contact with Rankine. You can plead guilty to a charge of careless/high/severe without accepting the AFL's version of the case.

 

[JohnHinckleyJr]

Imagine being that ****ing ******ed you get shown photos and still in your dumb ******ed mind you say it's high ..

****ing speccy campaigner

 

[JakeNeadeFan]

This is rubbish. Houston maintained that he did not make direct high contact with Rankine. You can plead guilty to a charge of careless/high/severe without accepting the AFL's version of the case.

What exactly was he pleading guilty to? If there was a genuine belief that he made no high contact he should of plead not guilty because the charge was specifically for high contact.

It was an outstandingly dumb defence.

 

[Jello_B]

Shouldn’t have pleaded guilty in the first place.

 

[Flash of power]

I still contend that we need to argue that the contact was 100% legal. Not above the shoulder, not on the neck. They are simply saying that to justify the suspension. The vision is much more in favour of it being a legal bump than an illegal bump.

As such, the suspension would then be based purely on outcome. Which is simply outrageous. You can't suspend someone for 5 matches for a legal action for that long. And as I mentioned somewhere before, if outcomes can be the sole determinant of a suspension for a bump, then all bumps that result in injury should have to result in a suspension if you want to be consistent. Josh Sinn was bumped and broke his collarbone and missed 4 weeks. The Hawthorn player was not even cited. Of course he wasn't, because it's ridiculous that in a full contact sport, with rules about where you can bump someone on the body, that the outcome should determine if you get suspended.

Make a rule which says you cannot bump someone forcefully with your shoulder front-on. If you do, it's a free kick. If it's excessive, then you get suspended.

That all just sounds way too logical

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]