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

[FlowersByIrene]

AFL argued that the "potential" to cause impact meant it should remain as "medium".

So basically they are admitting it wasn't medium impact and that they're only banning him because it looked ugly.

I love getting double standards against us as opposed to the rest of the AFL.

What a ****ing joke.

 

[OldBlueFan]

The question is: did he intend to engage in rough conduct?

That's notoriously hard to prove with rough conduct charges (but much easier with striking charges) because the game is a contact sport, and it can be hard to tell a clumsy and late tackle or bump (careless) with one that is intentionally high and rough (intentional).

With striking, as soon as you throw a punch, it's intentional. With dangerous tackles, and rough conduct it can be a lot harder to establish, so they're almost always graded careless.

The argument is that when a player lines up someone else, and leaves the ground to cannon into their head, it might be possible to classify that as intentional from the action (ditto the conduct occurring away from the ball).

The hit is intentional, obviously, but the "into the head" bit is debatable. I don't know about you, but I've not seen anything in Zac's career thus far that suggests he's an "intentional hit to the head" kinda guy. I've tried to do a google search to see if he's even been suspended before, but of course all "zac williams suspended" searches just turn up the latest story.

But yes, leaving the ground is what makes it reckless, precisely because you have reliquished control. Ascribing intent to what someone was trying to do - other than make forceful contact with their target - is firmly in the realm of mind-reading.

 

[Just Kreuzing]

Ban stands

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Hang on, so we can't use precedents in our argument, but Gleeson is able to toss in "You've all seen enough of that type of bump resulting in a concussion to conclude comfortably that it's the type of bump where it's a roll of a dice (and therefore has the potential to cause injury)."?

Is that not referring back to previous incidents to provide a direct comparison or frame of reference?

Joke of a tribunal.

Kangaroo court.

 

[OldBlueFan]

AFL argued that the "potential" to cause impact meant it should remain as "medium".

So basically they are admitting it wasn't medium impact and that they're only banning him because it looked ugly.

I love getting double standards against us as opposed to the rest of the AFL.

What a ******* joke.

The most annoying part is, this is how ALL such things should be adjudicated, but they never have been before. Why does it suddenly have to be when it's a Carlton player involved? This reeks of the Curnow umpire touching mess. Another example where incidents before AND after were ignored, but ours was the one that was highlighted.

Will be watching with interest for the next instalment of this ...

 

[Macca43]

Jury findings: "The video shows the offending player had momentum, he left the ground unnecessarily, making contact with the head and turned his back. Hunter Clark was not expecting the bump as it came late. It had the potential to cause injury. The body movement of the offending player increased the force of impact by leaving the ground. The video also shows Hunter Clark stumbled as he got up and flexed his jaw. This is also relevant in assessing the severity of the impact."

That's a little perverse. We're assessing the potential to cause injury (even if no injury was caused), rather than the actual injury.

I can see the reasoning for such a rule, but the 'impact' guidelines seem to specify actual injury as opposed to potential injury.

That what I was about to say, surely the potential to cause injury is covered by the “careless V Reckless” section, the impact covers the actual injury not the potential.

The AFL seems to have got the penalty close to right while creating a massive rod for their back going forward. Any contact to the head now has to be deemed medium or greater.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

We can appeal again can we not? Take it from the Kangaroo tribunal to the commission or something?

 

[thylacine60]

privy council

 

[I bleed Blue]

Hahaha what a ****ing circus.

Had the potential to be worse.

Basically saying "potentially it could have been medium impact so we are grading it as such"

Well almost every single contact on the footy field has the potential to be worse.

Every tackle has the potential to break someone's leg.

Every bump has the potential to hurt someone.

Every rib tickle punch has the potential to break someone's rib.

How about grade the impact on I dunno THE ACTUAL impact.

The AFL are so inconsistent it's so frustrating and off putting

 

[JustaBattler]

LOL @~ AFL.

 

[mochacinolatte]

If that was his intention, Clark would have been stretchered off.

Would you like some chips with your mayo?

okay dude

At least the standard has been set for this year

 

[JustaBattler]

Kangaroo court.

OIY - no jumping or lewapng allowed.

 

[1981]

1 week is fair. He absolutely slammed the guy.

 

[Coona Blues]

I have no problem with Zac copping a week for that on face value. Unnecessary acts with the potential to cause serious injury should be dealt with.

My issue is with the precedence in recent years where a myriad of unsavoury incidents have gone unpunished due to the lack of outcome. Similarly a number of players have been severely dealt with as a result of careless or even unintentional contact due to incongruous outcomes causing “freak” injuries. Aph and others have quoted the AFL’s guidelines on the grading of incidents, which clearly make the Williams incident “low impact”.

A completely new precedent has been set and must be adhered to throughout the season. No more “good guy” or bums on seats “star of the game“ discounts. As I said, no problem if all decisions are adjudicated the same.

Just a pity I have no faith in the AFL to do so.

 

[Blue__Balls]

okay dude

At least the standard has been set for this year

You think the AFL are going to treat this as a binding precedent? Really?

 

[katmanblue]

privy council

Last time someone convened a gathering in a privy, there were credit cards, a rolled up note and white powder involved.

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

So Dangerfield can absolutely DESTROY Vlastuin in a Grand Final with a sledgehammer forearm to the head, but this is unacceptable because it “might” have caused a more serious injury?

Lolz

 

[mochacinolatte]

You think the AFL are going to treat this as a binding precedent? Really?

Like I said, if this is the standard of getting one week moving onto 2021 then I go no issues.

 

[katmanblue]

okay dude

At least the standard has been set for this year

Going by previous performances by the MRP, I think that's wishful thinking.

The standard is whatever they want. The only consistency is the inconsistency.

 

[mochacinolatte]

Going by previous performances by the MRP, I think that's wishful thinking.

The standard is whatever they want. The only consistency is the inconsistency.

Of course it has been inconsistent over the years. The whole point I am making is that if this action gets you a one game ban from here on out then I go no issues. Its only been one game, let see how things play out before we grab the pitchforks.

 

[Arr0w]

It's a week all day long

 

[JustaBattler]

It's a week all day long

thats a very long day !

 

[ferrisb]

Actually, it's a very short week

 

[ferrisb]

I have graded the AFL's inconsistency as:

Intentional
Reckless
High impact

Any fan trying to find some integrity in the MRO's decision making is automatically sent for a concussion test....

 

[Jabba73]

Makey uppity tribunal strikes again, rinse and repeat.