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

[GoBlues!]

Yep was a much larger decision than some gave credit for.

It attacks the very essense of the game.

How can it not be a marking contest if the ball was kicked from upfield, on the full, towards two or more players?

A contest in a contact sport equals just that on most occasions. CONTACT!!

It was a shit kick by Mitchell actually, kicking into space to no one in particular.

O’Meara running in from the side, and Plow running in line with the kick, both trying to get to the ball. If Plow was a split second earlier and O’Meara runs into him then what does JOM get suspended, ridiculous.

So players will have to judge who’s going to get to a contest first, and then somehow pull out in a split second and not make contact?

 

[Gethelred]

I really wouldn't worry too much. This is a one-off adjudication of the rules, that will more or less completely evaporate over the course of the next three weeks.

The game's being manipulated, but when hasn't it been manipulated?

 

[Gethelred]

PA a toothless tiger

... until the best paid player's salaries are on the line. Then, they're a horde of angry wombats.

 

[My Hat]

Media unsurprisingly mute over the decision, they have all been told ‘accept the decision and move on’ is the only response allowed.

If the above isn’t true, it is the first time in history every commentator agrees on the punishment handed out to a player and decided that despite the outcry from fans of all teams, there is no column inches or talkback minutes to fill with discussion of said incident.

I agree the decision stinks, but I'm not sure I buy the media conspiracy line. Kane Cornes and Riley Beveridge are two I saw earlier in the week who were pretty clear in their opinions that Plowman had no case to answer, and one of those was on the AFL's own website. It's true there hasn't been much coverage of it today, but that's hardly a surprise given the way that Covid has claimed the vast majority of today's attention.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

At the end of the day we had a red hot crack, and we didn't get over the line. Plow's papers were always stamped from the time Christian made his dog's bollocks adjudication under the auspices of the AFL alongside the Holman one. It was never going to be a case of whether it was a marking contest or not, it was always going to be a case of a player being concussed as a result of a knock....and the AFL ended up winning a case it was never going to lose.

Kudos to the club though for taking it all the way despite Plow already being ruled out this week. Credit where credit is due....which is why I love this club. **** the rest.

We now get on with smashing the Swans this week and sticking it right up the shiny arses in the halls of the AFL.

 

[Jabba73]

I agree the decision stinks, but I'm not sure I buy the media conspiracy line. Kane Cornes and Riley Beveridge are two I saw earlier in the week who were pretty clear in their opinions that Plowman had no case to answer, and one of those was on the AFL's own website. It's true there hasn't been much coverage of it today, but that's hardly a surprise given the way that Covid has claimed the vast majority of today's attention.

No outcry after our initial tribunal case. Almost without fail the media reported it as ‘wasn’t in a marking contest, player hit high, bad luck and move on’.

They were reading from the same talking points like politicians from the same party do when they know they have an issue to talk about and don’t want to go into any detail.

Where are all the ‘hard men’ that can forgive or justify punches off the ball, deliberate hits to the head in marking contests, high tackles etc? All silent on a clash in a marking contest that has never been an issue before now

 

[__Bobcat__]

This one was as laughable as the Ed Curnow umpire touch. No wonder how players don't go hard enough. When they do they get rubbed out.

What about the Umps, they keep getting ****ed over by the AFL silver tails.
Both the Tackle by Holman And Plow's attempt at Marking/Spoilng were educated perfectly by the umps.

Yet MRO man Christensen sticks his nose in. No doubt At Hockings request and make the umps looking like Gooses..

 

[Dramoth]

PA a toothless tiger

The PA does whatever the AFL tells it to do. Danger mouse is the most pathetic AFLPA president ever.

 

[Dramoth]

What about the Umps, they keep getting f’ed over by the AFL silver tails.
Both the Tackle by Holman And Plow's attempt at Marking/Spoilng were educated perfectly by the umps.

Yet MRO man Christensen sticks his nose in. No doubt At Hockings request and make the umps looking like Gooses..

It’d be funny if, come game time on the AFL blockbuster, no one comes running out onto the ground. The umpires don’t come out and the players stay in the change room. Gill would be there hosting his big name corporate and political connections.

How embarrassment for Gill the Dill In from of his rich mates.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

I really wouldn't worry too much. This is a one-off adjudication of the rules, that will more or less completely evaporate over the course of the next three weeks.

The game's being manipulated, but when hasn't it been manipulated?

Same as when we had players suspended for touching umpires. Not a thing again all of a sudden.

 

[__Bobcat__]

Surely the umpiring Staff, group Collective. would be pissed with these outcomes.

 

[My Hat]

No outcry after our initial tribunal case. Almost without fail the media reported it as ‘wasn’t in a marking contest, player hit high, bad luck and move on’.

They were reading from the same talking points like politicians from the same party do when they know they have an issue to talk about and don’t want to go into any detail.

Where are all the ‘hard men’ that can forgive or justify punches off the ball, deliberate hits to the head in marking contests, high tackles etc? All silent on a clash in a marking contest that has never been an issue before now

The thing about the media is they always want the next shiny new topic to draw clicks / views / etc. They'd already done the 'outrage at suspension' thing earlier in the week with Holman. They don't have a long enough attention span to do the same thing twice in one week. Or they assume viewers have don't have a long enough attention span, which leads to the same outcome.

If Holman hadn't happened and Plowman was the centre of attention right from the start then it would probably have been different. Or if the Cornes defence of Plowman had attracted a lot of attention and signalled to the media there were more clicks to be farmed by sticking with the topic, that might also have made a difference. But that's not the way it played out.

So yes, they reported the final outcome in a straight, non-opinion 'this is what happened' style because they didn't want to spend time on it. But that doesn't mean there had to have been an AFL directive behind it. I don't think you need to reach for a conspiracy when boring old self-interest gives a sufficient explanation.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Plow was always gonna pay the price for the AFL’s idiocy.

Holman’s report was significantly more ridiculous, but the AFL can’t let 2 incidents go, so... here we are.

Still not convinced either saw the other coming. Spatial awareness never really been a feature for either of them.

 

[jezzajay]

Plow gets suspended. So be it.
I don’t agree with the decision, but I rarely do when it comes to tribunal/suspensions.
What gets me fired up is this gets 2 weeks whilst a real thug in Pickett gets 1 for what was clearly a worse act.
The mind boggles.

Glad the club confronted the tribunal on this...highlighted to the AFL supporters just how inept and dirty the league is.

 

[Arr0w]

Until the next time it happens and nothing happens to the "infringing" player. Then we should take it to court. The AFL has set a precedence now for OHS and duty of care to the head. If they don't automatically give the offending player 2 weeks... then they are open to a lawsuit by said injured player and by the workplace OHS commission themselves.

"Your honour, I was injured in a marking contest after the AFL changed the rule 18.5.1 by penalising another player despite 18.5.1 being the standing rule for trying to spoil another player in a marking contest. The AFL set the precedence and have failed to enforce their new ruling set at the tribunal. I am wishing compensation from the AFL to the tune of 1 billion dollars for pain and suffering and potential life long side effects of being concussed like that!".

The AFL would sh*t itself because they put themselves on the spot now. Any incidental contact during a marking contest which doesn't result in the player getting suspended will result in a lawsuit.

From the start I believed/stated that it was a 50/50 act/decision, but believed we had grounds to appeal and I am glad we did. It showed a position of strength, not only to one of our players, but to the integrity of the game

As for future incidents, the AFL will lean on the word "unduly" as well as a resulting concussion

My concerns have always stemmed from punishment of the act, rather than the outcome, until then, we will continue to have inconsistencies

I am not going to linger, nor would the club

 

[Gethelred]

From the start I believed/stated that it was a 50/50 act/decision, but believed we had grounds to appeal and I am glad we did. It showed a position of strength, not only to one of our players, but to the integrity of the game

As for future incidents, the AFL will lean on the word "unduly" as well as a resulting concussion

My concerns have always stemmed from punishment of the act, rather than the outcome, until then, we will continue to have inconsistencies

I am not going to linger, nor would the club

The AFL will do as they always do; arrive at the interpretation that suits them. They will be letter of the law in some instances and spirit in others, based entirely on the result they want to reach.

The AFL will only use 'unduly' in this way if it suits them to do so. Watch what happens if McCluggage is reported just before a GF for a similar act.

 

[ferrisb]

I am so angry, I have decided not to watch any footy since Saturday.

And I don't intend to resume watching afl until Sunday.

Take that, AFL!

 

[thylacine60]

I agree the decision stinks, but I'm not sure I buy the media conspiracy line. Kane Cornes and Riley Beveridge are two I saw earlier in the week who were pretty clear in their opinions that Plowman had no case to answer, and one of those was on the AFL's own website. It's true there hasn't been much coverage of it today, but that's hardly a surprise given the way that Covid has claimed the vast majority of today's attention.

No-one better mistake this sort of brutal clarity for a hat.

 

[thylacine60]

I am so angry, I have decided not to watch any footy since Saturday.

And I don't intend to resume watching afl until Sunday.

Take that, AFL!

More principals than an EIS sports day.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Can you get me some of those giant chocolate frogs? They're awesome!

 

[Lace_Out]

Alcoholic frogs, yum.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[ferrisb]

Alcoholic frogs, yum.

The trick is you can't just get frogs to drink straight shots.

You have to give them slightly alcoholic drinks, which get progressively stronger.

That way the frog doesn't realise what's going on until it's completely drunk.

Pretty sure.

 

[ajb72]

I am so angry, I have decided not to watch any footy since Saturday.

And I don't intend to resume watching afl until Sunday.

Take that, AFL!

I cant believe you dont watch all those games mon-thurs that all those full-time umpires are running around officiating in.

 

[thylacine60]

The trick is you can't just get frogs to drink straight shots.

You have to give them slightly alcoholic drinks, which get progressively stronger.

That way the frog doesn't realise what's going on until it's completely drunk.

Pretty sure.

fmd

 

[ferrisb]

fmd

I was REALLY happy with that one.

Which is good, because at least ONE person found it funny!