Has to have head down over the ball according to this wording. This rule is to eliminate spinal cord injuries, has nothing to do with Young's perfect bump. We better ****ing fight it.
MRP / Trib. 2022 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
How is it high impact when Zuhaar played out the match? He didn't seem impacted by the bump at all.
found object
Team Captain
- Apr 1, 2010
- 458
- 1,269
- AFL Club
- Carlton
“
Jack Ziebell, North Melbourne, has been charged with Tripping (Fixed Financial Sanction) Adam Saad, Carlton, during the first quarter of the Round Seven match between Carlton and North Melbourne played at Marvel Stadium on Saturday, April 30, 2022.
In summary, the player can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Tripping (Fixed Financial Sanction). The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.”
Jack Ziebell, North Melbourne, has been charged with Tripping (Fixed Financial Sanction) Adam Saad, Carlton, during the first quarter of the Round Seven match between Carlton and North Melbourne played at Marvel Stadium on Saturday, April 30, 2022.
In summary, the player can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available evidence, the incident was assessed as Tripping (Fixed Financial Sanction). The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction as a first offence. The player can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.”
- Oct 4, 2018
- 10,173
- 25,841
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal & NY Knicks
Fine
That Young one is bullshit
Stand your ground bump opponent he goes off plays out rest of game 1 week, Bump someone in side with a tackle/bump hurt your own shoulder 1 week, Whistles gone guy in front of you flys you take his legs on purpose could've landed wrong and done a knee/flip do neck 1 week.
That incompetent campaigner at the MRO has lost the plot and just keeps showing how biased and out of touch he is with the game. Must be sacked ASAP.
That incompetent campaigner at the MRO has lost the plot and just keeps showing how biased and out of touch he is with the game. Must be sacked ASAP.
Whateley will turn both into 2 weeksLet’s wait for Gerard Whatley’s & David King’s unbiased and considered interpretation
- May 1, 2002
- 12,112
- 20,643
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Irrelevant challenging - we need to raise this with the commission. Total bloody disgraceful how a football incident is worth the same as a intentional blatant dog act.
- May 1, 2002
- 12,112
- 20,643
- AFL Club
- Carlton
You can deliberately trip with a hand, as long as you aren’t wearing a Navy Blue jumper, else you would get 4 weeks.
We’ve been told that if you choose to bump you need to accept the consequences.
Ok. Well. Young bumped, didn’t hit Zurhar’s head, didn’t even injure the bloke (he played on). So… on what basis has he gotten a week?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Ok. Well. Young bumped, didn’t hit Zurhar’s head, didn’t even injure the bloke (he played on). So… on what basis has he gotten a week?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
They've done him on the Byron Pickett rule.
Micheal Christian is a complete and utter muppet.
Bith Ziebell and Larkin were reported, with pathetically low sanctions.
BringFevBack2021
Norm Smith Medallist
- May 9, 2021
- 7,709
- 17,039
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I didn’t know that “Forceful front-on contact” was enforceable.
It’s been graded as careless, high impact and body contact.
I thought it was an exceptionally well executed shirtfront and I thought it was good for the game and totally legal.
It’s been graded as careless, high impact and body contact.
I thought it was an exceptionally well executed shirtfront and I thought it was good for the game and totally legal.
It's the Byron Pickett Rule. To ensure players with their head over the ball aren't put into a wheelchair. Christian has just tried to apply it to a completely different situation.
We have to appeal, it should be thrown out before we even get to the tribunal.
They said there wasn’t high contact though, it was ‘body contact’. It’s ‘high impact’, as in he hit him hard.
That is how I saw it.
- Jun 20, 2019
- 4,203
- 14,000
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I have no confidence in MRO, or in AFL hierarchy, to do the right thing... sad...
- Aug 22, 2014
- 14,017
- 51,135
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Or more accurately, there was potential for serious injury.
AFL makey-uppey bullshit. Sometimes a player gets off because the injury is negligible. Other times the injury is negligible but the player gets reamed because "it might have been worse".
I'm all for penalising the act, not the outcome, but they pick and choose when they want to apply that interpretation.
toddkurnski
Debutant
- Aug 16, 2009
- 139
- 714
- AFL Club
- Carlton
High impact that resulted in… Zurhaar being fine to play out the game. I don’t think they know what high impact is. Surely it should result in some significant damage? Or it’s just a vibe situation. Felt like it could have hurt?
If they want to penalise potential for severe injury then Larkey should have been offered much more than 1 week.
Surely it’s an easy one to contest though… otherwise any legal bump/tackle/contest that’s hard would receive the same scrutiny. Plus no high contact and Zurhar didn’t have his head down over the ball or anything like that.
Similar threads
- Locked
