MRP / Trib. 2021 MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[slashin_velvet]

This is my biggest issue in all of this.

We (well a lot of us) have been banging on for years about how the penalties should be based on the potential outcome, not the actual outcome. But the AFL decided that it's going to be a grading system and included the "impact" in that grading system. This is now the second Carlton player for whom they've decided that the actual impact is NOT the criteria upon which they'll adjudicate, but rather the potential impact.

2 players have been tested, and found negative, for concussion resulting from actions of Carlton players, and yet both incidents have been adjudged "medium" impact.

Let's see how many other players are treated the same way this season, and what their names are ...

Yep - we've been banging on about "the act not the outcome" for ages. Now we just need consistency in application.....I wont be holding my breath.

 

[FRUMPY]

The whole 'medium' thing is meh to me, i watch it and think 'that deserves a week' - im tipping the AFL think that as well and the only way under their tribunal legislation would be to have it as medium impact as id say low impact he gets off.

Deserves a week, i dont care how they got there, hopefully the club accepts it and moves on

 

[forever blue 1]

Sadly Williams didn't have superstar power like Garry Ablett, still an extremely silly campaigner thing to do.

Could have used him for round 1, but we'll see what happens.

I hope Levi gets up or we might be in trouble, Big H as the KPF can only do so much.

Playing for GWS didn’t help. He can now become a superstar in the fishbowl fingers crossed

 

[Gavstar]

No sympathy from me left his feet and made contact with the head. The act had the potential to cause a serious injury. This is the reason why the shoulder charge is banned from games like rugby.

Hip and shoulder should be banned from the AFL if we are serious at all about eliminating sub-concussive and concussive impacts from the game.

Luckily the player wasn't knocked out.

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[teknodeejay]

Reckon the week will stand. Probably should. It was a silly thing to do. If you’re going to do that, do it in round 1 when there’s something on the line.

 

[koutaaa]

If we can get it down from medium to low, will he only get a fine and be free to play?

 

[I bleed Blue]

If we can get it down from medium to low, will he only get a fine and be free to play?

Yep

 

[JustaBattler]

No sympathy from me left his feet and made contact with the head. The act had the potential to cause a serious injury. This is the reason why the shoulder charge is banned from games like rugby.

Hip and shoulder should be banned from the AFL if we are serious at all about eliminating sub-concussive and concussive impacts from the game.

Luckily the player wasn't knocked out.

OK : i'll play devil's advocate for this particular incident...

Players 'leave their feet' all the time happens in every marking contest - every ruckman contest and every time a player has to reach for a ball - there was no malicious intent and there was no medium level contact either - the player got to his feet and played out the game- Saints didnt even deem the so called hit bad enough to have him taken off the field and tested and he played out the game.

I agree that AFl should consider taking out hip and shoulder tackles 100% rugby codes eliminated this years ago for the right reasons ...

However the AFL HAS NOT taken out the hip and shoulder - so the onus is on the AFL to show why it was a medium or higher grade of impact - which it clearly wasn't based on players own actions and the results of late testing.

All that said he is gone for the Richmond game - just like Ed was gone for 'making contact with an ump' and we never hear about it again - depite numerous incidents being highlighted...

 

[Gethelred]

Has Williams been suspended before?

On one hand, if the AFL is supposed to treat concussion seriously they need to suspend based on action not result, and that's what they've done here.

But I kind of object to the notion that it was 'stupid' and 'he deserves a week for stupidity', when people on this forum have been crying out for a bit of mongrel, a bit of that 'I'll make you earn it', because that's ostensibly what he's done. I remember a bump from Cyril Rioli a few years back that was more than a little similar, and he didn't get weeks for it and was celebrated within football circles alongside the rest of the unsociable Hawks. Sure, he shouldn't have left the ground, and I don't think the above excuses him.

Just, I don't know if it's a fair thing to have people wholesale referring to Murphy and SPS as soft or shunning contact whilst calling Williams stupid for this. Bit of a double standard.

 

[Love the Drake]

So happy the club appealed. It shows we won’t rollover and accept borderline decisions. It also lets Williams know we are right behind him.
Yes. We will most likely be unsuccessful but we have nothing to lose.
Fingers crossed because he’s a top quality player b

 

[KnaveyBlue]

No way he'll get off.

That being said though, did he even connect with his arm/shoulder? It looked like he got him with his back.

edit: Just saw another angle, definitely got him with his arm.

 

[RedFury]

Mark Robinson getting totally and disproportionately outraged over this on 360. It actually took Dermott of all people to bring it back down to earth and say "hang on a second Mark, is there really any malice in that? Yes, he's done the wrong thing and will be in trouble but c'mon".

He already was, but Robinson is a disgrace and a gronk. There is 0% chance he carries on like that if it's Zach Merrett as the offender. He is so obvious in his intentions and so utterly sh*t at his job.

I lasted 5 minutes into the new afl 360 season last night before I had to switch it off. Honestly watching that show is no different than overhearing a footy conversation from two half drunk guys down the pub..

Absolutely no idea who would be tuning into those guys often enough to keep them getting paid for it. Baffles me.

Hope Zac gets off on the appeal but can't see it happening - the court of public opinion will have its way.

 

[Sector 7G]

Clearly the Sts doctors and Clark himself thought it was low impact as he didn't come from the field.

It will be interesting to see if any contact to the head is now deeded medium impact.

 

[Jeremias]

Doubt he gets off, but glad the club is challenging regardless.

Nothing to lose. Let's see what happens.

 

[james Dean]

Is there any risk of it going to two weeks if he loses the early plea discount?

 

[Brezsa]

This will be interesting, the AFL needs to stamp this out, so happy for him to get a week, but based on the last couple of years, the club can clearly make an argument that he should get low impact & not miss a game.

This is where the AFL annoys me, the AFL needs to stop this, they had 3 years over the preseasons, to make a clear statement, publicly and in the rules that you hit someone in the head from a bump you are gone. But they don’t.

So Williams is being used are the precedent for 2021, like I said I think it should be a week, if it stands though, can we trust them not to change it again in 2 weeks?

 

[Bokan]

Is there any risk of it going to two weeks if he loses the early plea discount?

Nope

On CPH1877 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Aphrodite]

Is there any risk of it going to two weeks if he loses the early plea discount?

$10K

 

[TheKITC]

I am +1 on the doubt he gets off. As I've said, he probably deserves a week and there is a fair bit at stake here for the AFL moving forward in this space. If he gets off under technicality or by way of how the rules are written, that would be a pandoras box and probably triggers a reword or revisit from the AFL regarding how these are adjudicated and what the laws are around this.

There would be a fair case here on the impact side of things with all things being equal, but really get the feeling the AFL will want to see these types of incidents receive weeks.

 

[iAsbestos]

Thank god they appealed. Clark played out the game with no issues had 21 disposals 15 contested at 85%

 

[blueblooded]

I am +1 on the doubt he gets off. As I've said, he probably deserves a week and there is a fair bit at stake here for the AFL moving forward in this space. If he gets off under technicality or by way of how the rules are written, that would be a pandoras box and probably triggers a reword or revisit from the AFL regarding how these are adjudicated and what the laws are around this.

There would be a fair case here on the impact side of things with all things being equal, but really get the feeling the AFL will want to see these types of incidents receive weeks.

Is that how the rules are currently written though? I get the AFL want to stamp this out but under their system if it’s low impact it’s a fine. The guy got up and played the game out, played the game out well and passed his concussion test after . They’re the facts. Correct me if I’m wrong but is there anywhere in the rule book that says you can’t leave the ground and bump a guy in the head and if you do it’s a week off. The way it’s written is medium impact to the head week off. What constitutes medium impact ? Because slobbo and the AFL wants it to be medium impact is not a good enough excuse.

glad the club has challenged it, why do we have to always be the example ?

 

[Aphrodite]

Thank god they appealed. Clark played out the game with no issues had 21 disposals 15 contested at 85% & 8 clearances.

 

[ForYouBlue]

Agree with sentiment of intent. Intuitively a lot of us may agree that it deserves a week however, if Williams is to be the sacrificial scape goat then it has to be accompanied by policy and procedural change. 2020 showed that on a whim its painful to make such changes, but not impossible.

The bump discussion is interesting to me, as a spectacle I would find it a shame to rid the game of it but I can see how there is moral incentive to minimise potential long-term damage. It is an ethical dilemma in my mind as it is in a trade off with dignity of risk among many individuals. Should be an ongoing discussion with the players association.

 

[BlueAbroad]

A look at the full picture of the bump with 4 precedents set by the MRO when classifying impact