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

[Gethelred]

Toby could have chosen to avoid contact, and whilst I believe the contact was accidental, he had too much blood rushing to his head, and let his temper over rule his common sense.

How can you possibly believe that he did not mean to bump straight into him?

He was looking at him, berating him, and deliberately bumped him to get past him. He knew exactly where he was. He wasn't looking at anything else; he wasn't distracted.

That was as deliberate as any act ever done on a football field.

There are plenty of players who come from broken homes or terrible circumstances, Elmer. They don't feel the need to rant at an umpire whilst shoulder checking them on the way past.

Why should an umpire (or, indeed, the many, many people he's deliberately injured over the course of his career) be our sacrifice for Greene's father's alcoholism? How many others need be sacrificed before his upbringing ceases to be a valid excuse for deliberately injurous behaviour?

 

[Gethelred]

Say what!

So they should. Inadequate sentence for the conduct.

 

[Gethelred]

This might have already been covered but fu** what an awful decision. People carrying on about kids copying Toby Greene is a load of sh*te. You've got fu**in thugs like the Richmond forwards that throw punches and illegal shoulder blocks and nothing happens, why kids could just as easily copy them. I know my points aint that strong or convincing but it was hardly aggressive. This rant is more ******* aggressive tbh. I feel sorry for him and for the game. He just has that arrogant walk and strut but nothing aggressive in my opinion. Matt didn't feel threatened and could have easily moved out of the way as well?

Here's an idea: the rules say, pretty ****ing clearly, do not touch an umpire. That rule is in there for a wide variety of reasons; how is an umpire expected to be considered neutral when they can be physically threatened or intimidated when on the field?

So, how about we follow the rules, hmm?

 

[thylacine60]

for mine it's about refusing to play within the rules and thumbing a nose at them - wonder what sort of driver greene is? if he's shithouse I'm not surprised - if he's good I'm not surprised - a shit driver doesn't believe the rules are for them - a good driver stays good because the penalties are such they abide by them - and there's ****all consideration given to a driver's personal situation - yeah, sorry your honour, I just get white-line fever every time I get in the car.....

 

[RPCB]

So they should. Inadequate sentence for the conduct.

I hope it’s that and not appealing to see if they can get a reduced sentence.

 

[azlou]

I hope it’s that and not appealing to see if they can get a reduced sentence.

AFL want 6 weeks

 

[RPCB]

AFL want 6 weeks

I hope they give him between 6 and 9 weeks. Give him something to really think about.

 

[agro]

Lachie Plowman isn’t a moron so he’d never bump into an umpire.

He’d be struggling to win a one on one contest with an umpire.

 

[GoBlues!]

I hope they give him between 6 and 9 weeks. Give him something to really think about.

Him and any other dickhead who gets the same idea. In a final no less.

 

[DangerousD]

Toby has got to be, one of the most polarising players I can remember, a sensational player, tough as nails, but geez he is a bellen, that said, 3 weeks is probably on the lite side, but I thought the AFL asking for 6 was excessive. I only say this because, only this year, we had Lachie Neale

9

Lachie Neale

Age

31

Ht

178cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

27.0

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

15.5

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.7

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

28.3

5star

K

13.9

5star

HB

14.4

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

5.9

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

4.6

2star

HB

7.4

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.0

3star

CL

0.4

3star

frustrated at not receiving a free kick, reaching out in frustration to grab/smack/slap an umpire, remonstrating that he didn’t get a free.

There is no doubt that Neale deliberately made contact with the umpire, he is verbally complaining to the umpire, he is frustrated, whilst the contact isn’t forceful, Greene’s contact wasn’t overly forceful either.

The part I struggle with is, the AFL with Neale, set a standard, this is a fine, so I struggle to see how Greene would receive a penalty 6 times greater.

The AFL MRO and tribunal need to really sort out their crap, set a standard and stick to it.

 

[Blue Pulse]

So they should. Inadequate sentence for the conduct.

I would agree with this however, Gil the Dil has been pretty silent about the other poor decisions made by the MRO, why wait until now to stick his nose in? The inconsistencies of the MRO is what most fans are frustrated about and it is exactly as the thread title suggests, it's chook lotto.

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[ferrisb]

The part I struggle with is, the AFL with Neale, set a standard, this is a fine, so I struggle to see how Greene would receive a penalty 6 times greater.

I raised this on the main board. Neale's contact was deliberate, which I think should mean an auto-suspension.

Although it was pointed out to me that Neale was alerting umpire to blood pouring out from his head and needed to go off for blood rule*. I think you could argue that is a reasonable exception to the rule. He does try to get umpire's attention prior to touching him, too.





* and perhaps whingeing about not getting a free kick

 

[Bryce Bubbles]

Here's an idea: the rules say, pretty ******* clearly, do not touch an umpire. That rule is in there for a wide variety of reasons; how is an umpire expected to be considered neutral when they can be physically threatened or intimidated when on the field?

So, how about we follow the rules, hmm?

Ok then everytime a player swears at the umpire and they feel "threatened" then suspend them. Also thenumlire did not feel threatened

 

[Gethelred]

Ok then everytime a player swears at the umpire and they feel "threatened" then suspend them. Also thenumlire did not feel threatened

You're saying this because you think it's absurd, or because you think I'll agree.

Right now, an umpire can certainly pay a free kick whenever a player swears at them, and they can suspend a player who shows disrespect towards them; these are the rules as they currently stand. That they go largely unenforced does not make them any less valid; most people do not try to physically intimidate or threaten an umpire, because - and I can't believe I have to say this on an AFL forum - most people were taught when they played or as they grew up that you leave umpires alone.

These rules are in place for very good reasons. Ask yourself, why would you umpire a game of football? You don't get paid much, and you lose your weekend; you don't get the satisfaction of winning or tackling or getting the ball when others are trying to stop you or get it first, you don't get to kick goals. Why would you umpire a game ahead of playing it? Then, you have the steady (torrential) abuse that umpires cop each and every single time they walk out to do their task, one which is necessary to the game.

My brother was an umpire for about six years, from his teens into his low twenties. My father started to ask me to go watch him, because he got dead sick of listening to people harass and threaten his son. In my competition, a fifteen year old received a life ban because he and his mates threatened an umpire during a game and then proceeded to corner him afterwards; the umpire was able to escape, thankfully. This is not hypothetical; these are things that happen every week, on parks across Australia.

And as for your original nonsensical argument concerning the supposed other behaviours that kids don't learn from...

People carrying on about kids copying Toby Greene is a load of sh*te.

... when was the last time you actually watched a game of juniors footy? Kids tried fendoffs because Dusty did it; they tried speckies because of Jesaulenko, now because of Howe, Heeney, Ryan. Kids watch their parents screaming at the umpires, they see the abuse that happens each and every week; kids model their behaviour on what happens in front of them. As ****ing if Toby Greene's deliberate shoulder checking of an umpire isn't something that will be replicated. You're arguing with decades of behavioural psychology.

He can and should be suspended, and should've gotten the 6 weeks originally. I manifestly do not care who it is that is suspended. If you want to argue that the tribunal/MRO is inconsistent, that is a separate argument to whether or not Toby Greene should get off from this.

 

[Pixelshooter]

I raised this on the main board. Neale's contact was deliberate, which I think should mean an auto-suspension.

Agreed. It should be made clear to players, if you deliberately make contact with an umpire, for any reason, it is an automatic suspension. The severity and nature of contact determines the length of suspension.

 

[Blue Doormat]

Agreed. It should be made clear to players, if you deliberately make contact with an umpire, for any reason, it is an automatic suspension. The severity and nature of contact determines the length of suspension.

How did this possibly become unclear? Don't worry.... I know the answer

Mindboggling

 

[Gavstar]

I raised this on the main board. Neale's contact was deliberate, which I think should mean an auto-suspension.

Although it was pointed out to me that Neale was alerting umpire to blood pouring out from his head and needed to go off for blood rule*. I think you could argue that is a reasonable exception to the rule. He does try to get umpire's attention prior to touching him, too.





* and perhaps whingeing about not getting a free kick

While I agree that it could be argued that there was a need to alert the umpire about the blood but the manner in which he did was not respectful to the umpire.

IMO Neale certainly was way more demonstrative, aggressive and disrespectful than Greene being visibly angry about the lack of a free kick.

However, Greene's contact would have been more forceful if Stevic hadn't turned.

 

[Gethelred]

I would agree with this however, Gil the Dil has been pretty silent about the other poor decisions made by the MRO, why wait until now to stick his nose in? The inconsistencies of the MRO is what most fans are frustrated about and it is exactly as the thread title suggests, it's chook lotto.

... and?

The inconsistencies of the tribunal/MRO are a separate argument to make than whether or not the 3 week penalty for Greene is inadequate; the method by which he is pinged correctly is not something that matters to me as long as the appropriate consequence for doing something he should not be doing is reached.

The first appeal to a tribunal sentence was Bachar Houli's strike on Jed Lamb; he received one week for breaking his jaw, on the basis of his first offense and sterling character references. It was unorthodox, but the appropriate length sanction was reached at the end.

I do not particularly care how they arrive at their sentence, as long as justice is done.

 

[Blue Pulse]

... and?

The inconsistencies of the tribunal/MRO are a separate argument to make than whether or not the 3 week penalty for Greene is inadequate; the method by which he is pinged correctly is not something that matters to me as long as the appropriate consequence for doing something he should not be doing is reached.

The first appeal to a tribunal sentence was Bachar Houli's strike on Jed Lamb; he received one week for breaking his jaw, on the basis of his first offense and sterling character references. It was unorthodox, but the appropriate length sanction was reached at the end.

I do not particularly care how they arrive at their sentence, as long as justice is done.

But that's the problem, they don't know how to achieve justice. Why was Lachie Neale let off for touching the umpire? Where was Gil then? Put things in black and white and keep them there so they know, if they touch an umpire with any sort of intent, they will spend time on the sidelines and I'm not talking accidental contact.

Same as punching and elbowing someone, 1 week minimum and then go from there, no fines, a week minimum and then see how quick these illegal acts are taken out of the game.

I feel the AFL called for 6 weeks, but gave 3 to avoid an appeal, if they gave 6, GWS would definitely appeal and they don't want that at this time of year as it detracts from the finals.

 

[Gethelred]

But that's the problem, they don't know how to achieve justice. Why was Lachie Neale let off for touching the umpire? Where was Gil then? Put things in black and white and keep them there so they know, if they touch an umpire with any sort of intent, they will spend time on the sidelines and I'm not talking accidental contact.

That's essentially why I'm objecting to your argument; because I absolutely agree with you that Neale should've gotten done, but Toby Greene is not Lachie Neale. This is not that incident.

6 weeks is about right for Greene.

The reason I followed up your post asking for more information is because I want to know where you're going with your argument before I agree with it. "Neale should've gotten weeks" is something I agree with; "Neale got off so Greene should as well" is not something I agree with at all.

Same as punching and elbowing someone, 1 week minimum and then go from there, no fines, a week minimum and then see how quick these illegal acts are taken out of the game.

Yep.

I feel the AFL called for 6 weeks, but gave 3 to avoid an appeal, if they gave 6, GWS would definitely appeal and they don't want that at this time of year as it detracts from the finals.

Given the fact that the search for Carlton's next head coach has monopolized the airwaves, I genuinely do not think the AFL care overmuch about the optics of Greene's tribunal to go to that much effort.

 

[Blue Pulse]

That's essentially why I'm objecting to your argument; because I absolutely agree with you that Neale should've gotten done, but Toby Greene is not Lachie Neale. This is not that incident.

6 weeks is about right for Greene.

The reason I followed up your post asking for more information is because I want to know where you're going with your argument before I agree with it. "Neale should've gotten weeks" is something I agree with; "Neale got off so Greene should as well" is not something I agree with at all.


Yep.


Given the fact that the search for Carlton's next head coach has monopolized the airwaves, I genuinely do not think the AFL care overmuch about the optics of Greene's tribunal to go to that much effort.

I agree with all you are saying and it sometimes gets misconstrued on here with the back and forth, they need to get rid of the grey areas and apply the rules to everyone and not play favourites with the Hodges, Selwoods and Dangerfields of the game. If they had hit Neale with 2-3 weeks, maybe (with doubt) Greene wouldn't have done this and if he did, 6 would not have battered an eyelid to anyone as we would know that the AFL are serious about umpire contact.

With regards to the optics, you are right, as the AFL has appealed the decision. I will stay off the airwaves until our coach and staffing problems are fixed for fear listening to a broken record

 

[forever blue 1]

I would agree with this however, Gil the Dil has been pretty silent about the other poor decisions made by the MRO, why wait until now to stick his nose in? The inconsistencies of the MRO is what most fans are frustrated about and it is exactly as the thread title suggests, it's chook lotto.

What I’m very confused at is GWS said oh no let’s do it after the GF
Like darcy
“Say that again”

 

[Blue Pulse]

What I’m very confused at is GWS said oh no let’s do it after the GF
Like darcy
“Say that again”

Yes I can understand that, they don't want it interfering with their finals campaign and if the afl are appealing it won't be to reduce the suspension it is to increase it so it can wait

 

[Navy Blues 73]

In no surprise to anyone..

Key Cats duo learn MRO fate ahead of tall Preliminary Final task

Key Cats duo learn MRO fate ahead of tall Preliminary Final task

www.foxsports.com.au