MRP / Trib. 2021 MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
TheKITC
Cancelled
I think if we can get Malifice to speak on how the rules are written and how impact is measured, that's probably going to be more concise than what I could provide. They seem to have a very good handle on what's what regarding the actual definitions and laws.
In terms of the "pub test" if you like, I highly doubt most would consider that force to be medium. The grading is low - medium - high - severe and this article on the "company" website goes through a few incidents and how Christian grades them.
TheKITC
Cancelled
Very interestingly from that article I posted, this bump was graded as low impact and a fine. He absolutely flushed Heeney on the cheek and technically, this still shows that he too left the ground...
I'd be very interested to know if anything is explicitly written in the laws/rules regarding 'leaving the ground' when bumping. The club could and should use this footage in Williams' defense.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #79
I posted this in the Rnd 1 thread ...
Did Clark leave the field - No
Did Clark continue to play out the game - Yes (21 disposals & 8 clearances)
Did Clark leave the field - No
Did Clark continue to play out the game - Yes (21 disposals & 8 clearances)
TheKITC
Cancelled
I posted this in the Rnd 1 thread ...
Did Clark leave the field - No
Did Clark continue to play out the game - Yes (21 disposals & 8 clearances)
Oh boy...
I actually think he has a good chance to get off now. Under the strict interpretation, if the above is still current, Williams should have a very strong case for it to be downgraded to a fine. Again, I think it should be a week but this kind of changes things for me.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #81
A look at the full picture of the bump with 4 precedents set by the MRO when classifying impact
Fantastic analysis BA... very informative and a well balanced opinion by yourself going on the past outcomes and explanations that have been given why/how Christian/“AFL” have come to these final conclusions...
- Nov 27, 2016
- 18,671
- 36,381
- AFL Club
- Carlton
TheKITC
Cancelled
I tend to agree actually, but only because of the AFL factor. Have to be one of if not the most non-transparent and dodgy organisations when it comes to getting the 'desired result'.
Strictly speaking, he should be able to have it downgraded but I am not holding my breath either.
again because something doesn’t look good it doesn’t mean you get charged with an offence...did he beak the law as it’s written ? In this case it’s a clear as day no.... if the AFL doesn’t like the rule ...rewrite the rule .... our four points don’t need to be put on the line to be made an example of
Countryblueswitnotattoos
Senior List
- Nov 26, 2019
- 235
- 1,243
- AFL Club
- Carlton
A look at the full picture of the bump with 4 precedents set by the MRO when classifying impact
Brilliant summary. Great stuff. Are you available for an appointment at 5.30pm tonight, 140 Harbour Esplanade, Docklands VIC 3008? Zoom meeting ok if still abroad
- Mar 6, 2018
- 7,378
- 19,607
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Timberwolves
I posted this in the Rnd 1 thread ...
Did Clark leave the field - No
Did Clark continue to play out the game - Yes (21 disposals & 8 clearances)
Honestly Zac Williams deserves the 1 week, like why is it necessary trying to k.o someone.
- Mar 27, 2018
- 1,100
- 4,463
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I'm on standby - and will do it for free!
- Sep 26, 2004
- 48,053
- 65,135
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #89
Are we calling Waleed Aly and Malcolm Turnbull for character references?
I posted this in the Rnd 1 thread ...
Did Clark leave the field - No
Did Clark continue to play out the game - Yes (21 disposals & 8 clearances)
Typical AFL Amateurish bullshit, he should get off if that’s the criteria.
Follow your own ****en guidelines or....rewrite them to get the desired outcome you want and stick to it.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Sep 15, 2011
- 5,623
- 9,371
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
Guessing the penalty is because the medical report has indicated he has an ongoing issue from the incident eg lingering headaches etc? Otherwise it would have been graded low impact. The concussion test after the game suggests there was some symptom present after the game finished.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #94
- Jun 27, 2018
- 1,093
- 3,822
- AFL Club
- Carlton
We had to challenge it because if that’s medium impact (the guy played out the game and was fine) then what’s low impact?
If they want to protect the head, then make a rule that clearly defines it. The media went on witch-hunt due to the recent Frawley/ Tuck tragedies.
GeoCoulthard
Debutant
- Nov 18, 2018
- 114
- 568
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Like many have said. Unnecessary. Looks bad. But, if you read the guidelines, I fail to see how it can be anything other than low impact.
If the AFL formally change the rules to make this sort of hit a 1 week suspension and are consistent with the interpretation then all will be good but at the moment the definitions clearly show this as low impact.
Indeed, I'd like to see the rules around head high hits tightened so that this sort of thing doesn't happen but there is no way Williams' hit should be classified as medium as things stand.
If the AFL formally change the rules to make this sort of hit a 1 week suspension and are consistent with the interpretation then all will be good but at the moment the definitions clearly show this as low impact.
Indeed, I'd like to see the rules around head high hits tightened so that this sort of thing doesn't happen but there is no way Williams' hit should be classified as medium as things stand.
Wickzki
Definitely Sam MacLure.
- Oct 1, 2010
- 26,501
- 63,684
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Ophidians Old Boys, Blazers, MCFC
I posted this in the Rnd 1 thread ...
Did Clark leave the field - No
Did Clark continue to play out the game - Yes (21 disposals & 8 clearances)
Saints blabbed that he required a post-game concussion test which is why it was graded as medium.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #99
Which he passed.
Typical AFL, cant even write consistent guidelines.
Low: minimal or no impact on the match
Medium: clearly some impact on the player
If he had the test because he was showing some signs, then that is the concern, not the pass or not pass of the test.
Though one does wonder if he had any of these signs before the end of the game, and if not, were there any other incidents which could cause them. This would be a better avenue for CFC to challenge.
Low: minimal or no impact on the match
Medium: clearly some impact on the player
passing the test isnt a silver bullet and to use it as such would set a dangerous precendent.
If he had the test because he was showing some signs, then that is the concern, not the pass or not pass of the test.
Though one does wonder if he had any of these signs before the end of the game, and if not, were there any other incidents which could cause them. This would be a better avenue for CFC to challenge.
Similar threads
- Locked
