MRP / Trib. 2023 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[Aphrodite]

 

[thylacine60]

There was this bloke called Neil Sachse.

He got hit front on.

greening

 

[WalshYouLegend]

Because he's a lawyer, duh.

 

[Jabba73]

Ok - all you conspiracy theorists- it’s safe to come out and play now

You rang?

 

[Aphrodite]

Lots of navy blue glasses being worn here

 

[Stig O'Hara]

greening

That was behind the play.

There’s this bollocks that what happens on the field, (once you cross the line), stays on the field.

Anywhere else you’d be on an assault charge.

 

[Blues_1864]

The AFLs lawyer has to be the most morally corrupt bloke on the planet. How could you sit there and argue some of the bullshit he says with a straight face and not feel sick when you go to bed at night.

It's his job to argue Christian's position. You have to feel for him - there might be more futile jobs out there, but I can't think of one... I reckon he'd be one who's really hoping Chriso takes his bat and ball and goes home at the end of the year!

 

[Wickzki]

I think Docherty was spot on, and I reckon he matters.

It's not just limited to the Maynard decision. Go through the around the grounds thread and you'll find that I sided with the "football incident" side of things.

It's everything else that's going on and is getting lost in this decision that has angered the players.

At the very least I think we can all agree that it needed to be looked at by the tribunal regardless the verdict. Yet that would not have happened had it not been for the latest key hire at the AFL. Everybody else at AFL HQ was quite happy to let it go through to the keeper.

 

[jj1978]

Jack should've gone the smother of a potential handball from the lizard.

 

[Red Bull]

Lucky man Jack Martin

19

Jack Martin

Age

29

Ht

186cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.2

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.3

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.7

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

14.9

4star

K

7.9

3star

HB

7.0

4star

M

4.3

4star

T

3.6

4star

G

1.1

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.6

3star

…

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

gotta say, heaven help the next mro (cause christian's gawn) that slaps a blues player with a suspension and we can't find some sort of connection between him/her and another club, the afl board, dubious share traders or corrupt parking officers - whoever will we blame?

Well, I'm glad you asked....let me introduce you to the next MRO

 

[djw1952]

gotta say, heaven help the next mro (cause christian's gawn) that slaps a blues player with a suspension and we can't find some sort of connection between him/her and another club, the afl board, dubious share traders or corrupt parking officers - whoever will we blame?

Are you not also blaming people on here yourself who perhaps have some valid points about damn Christians`inconsistent findings as well as the AFL who have let a serial offender in Maynard completely off any suspension as they say he had no other option, when he could have put his outstretched hands in front of him as a cushion and pushed Brayshaw on the upper chest or shoulders instead of turning his body and bumping his head (deliberately in my book!), as he had a duty of care to do that as Brayshaw was "open" to being hurt as his kicking action left him with his head forward and unprotected!!! There is room for criticism with lot`s of stuff in sport, just like life, and not all of it is valid but some is, and perhaps people would be less critical of someone more independant who has not played for any club in the past. I think a lot of it is just about letting off steam actually!!!

 

[djw1952]

couldn't agree more - I defy anyone to find a carlton player guilty at the tribunal..........ever!!

Martin deserved a week for a reckless tackle but not two as Blakey played on afterwards, and Christian was shown up when he called it severe or high impact as it was eventually downgraded to moderate impact like it should have been first up.

 

[thylacine60]

Martin deserved a week for a reckless tackle but not two as Blakey played on afterwards, and Christian was shown up when he called it severe or high impact as it was eventually downgraded to moderate impact like it should have been first up.

I see

 

[thylacine60]

Are you not also blaming people on here yourself who perhaps have some valid points about damn Christians`inconsistent findings as well as the AFL who have let a serial offender in Maynard completely off any suspension as they say he had no other option, when he could have put his outstretched hands in front of him as a cushion and pushed Brayshaw on the upper chest or shoulders instead of turning his body and bumping his head (deliberately in my book!), as he had a duty of care to do that as Brayshaw was "open" to being hurt as his kicking action left him with his head forward and unprotected!!! There is room for criticism with lot`s of stuff in sport, just like life, and not all of it is valid but some is, and perhaps people would be less critical of someone more independant who has not played for any club in the past. I think a lot of it is just about letting off steam actually!!!

 

[Monty1978]

Martin didn’t deserve 2 weeks for that .. we either get weeks for the outcome or we don’t .., boyd gets 3 because of the outcome and Martin gets 2 for the potential .. it’s either one of the other … why is a clenched fist worse then an open hand , Martin can walk up to a player and punch him in the guts and get a warning .. totally doesn’t make sense to me.. felt like 1 was fair and think the tribunal is such a farce it’s embarrassing

 

[Wickzki]

Martin deserved a week for a reckless tackle but not two as Blakey played on afterwards, and Christian was shown up when he called it severe or high impact as it was eventually downgraded to moderate impact like it should have been first up.

It just highlights the massive inconsistencies with the MRO. On one hand they want to go all outcome based - which Jack's wasn't - and on the other they want to try and base it on the action.

The tribunal got there in the end as they did (I believe) for Maynard. But it's every step before the tribunal and the appeals board that is undeniably broken.

The tribunal isn't infallible (Boyd, Plowman as our examples but it's much better than the MRO). I don't think we can expect perfection but by and large they do a good job of correcting the failures of the MRO (but that shouldn't be their primary job which it has become).

The success rate of clubs appealing decisions is far too high for it to be considered an acceptable standard.

 

[Monty1978]

It just highlights the massive inconsistencies with the MRO. On one hand they want to go all outcome based - which Jack's wasn't - and on the other they want to try and base it on the action.

The tribunal got there in the end as they did (I believe) for Maynard. But it's every step before the tribunal and the appeals board that is undeniably broken.

The tribunal isn't infallible (Boyd, Plowman as our examples but it's much better than the MRO). I don't think we can expect perfection but by and large they do a good job of correcting the failures of the MRO (but that shouldn't be their primary job which it has become).

The success rate of clubs appealing decisions is far too high for it to be considered an acceptable standard.

My point exactly , your just more articulate than me …I think boyd is so unlucky , he was playing decent and probably stays in the 22 if not suspended and that is outcome based .. the lizard plays on and Martin gets 2 how ?? I would be a bit dirty if I was boyd and martin

 

[WalshYouLegend]

It just highlights the massive inconsistencies with the MRO. On one hand they want to go all outcome based - which Jack's wasn't - and on the other they want to try and base it on the action.

The tribunal got there in the end as they did (I believe) for Maynard. But it's every step before the tribunal and the appeals board that is undeniably broken.

The tribunal isn't infallible (Boyd, Plowman as our examples but it's much better than the MRO). I don't think we can expect perfection but by and large they do a good job of correcting the failures of the MRO (but that shouldn't be their primary job which it has become).

The success rate of clubs appealing decisions is far too high for it to be considered an acceptable standard.

Well it’s pretty clear what MRO actually stands for now:

Makingitupaswegoalong
Reprehensible
Olivehead

 

[Juddrockz]

Were they also not gonna come down hard on staging with fines etc?
Mitchell blatant staging,laughable in fact and wasn't even mentioned.

 

[Revenant1965]

Lots of navy blue glasses being worn here

For those who don't have a pair yet...

Carlton Blues Sunglasses and Case

Discover the latest AFL gear at our online shop! Find your favorite AFL footy store items. Shop now for exclusive deals and merchandise.

footyplusmore.com.au

 

[Gethelred]

Over 100 current or recent players including 6 captains have so far liked the posts containing Hamish Brayshaw's comments

That tells you what those who matter most think about what's happened.

That tells you the degree of boy's club 'protect our own' that goes on behind the scenes, that was - frankly - in full view all week anyway.

The interesting thing for me is who gets the benefit of the protection and when they get it. Maynard is a much more interesting case than your Cotchins or Goodes; he's not the quality of either player, and I rather don't think he'd begrudge me saying so. Plowman didn't get the benefit of this protection and neither did Gibbs when it happened to them, so it isn't merely the good players that get the discount. Jack Martin's offense was not cleared fully, but what I question is if we made it to a prelim and won - ie, that sanction would've seen him sit out a Grand Final - would he have received a clip at all?

Brayden Maynard 'accidentally' concussed one of his opposition's best players, and his team won the match. One wonders where the justice in that is.

 

[zeggie]

The AFLs lawyer has to be the most morally corrupt bloke on the planet. How could you sit there and argue some of the bullshit he says with a straight face and not feel sick when you go to bed at night.

Same as a doctor saving the life of a murderer in an emergency room unfortunately.

 

[manang magoos]

Well, I'm glad you asked....let me introduce you to the next MRO

View attachment 1801532

I did think of the unbiased option in Sellers myself with the Dominator on any tribunal hearing involving a blues player

 

[RAPPA]

The AFLs lawyer has to be the most morally corrupt bloke on the planet. How could you sit there and argue some of the bullshit he says with a straight face and not feel sick when you go to bed at night.

He's not defending a murderer, rapist or any other such heinous offence. He'll sleep very well, probably on a bed of notes from the AFL's briefcase of money to pay for his substandard service.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

Thre whole thing reeks of an orchestrated AFL PR exercise...

1. Christian allegedly threatened to resign when the AFL hierarchy demands it goes to the tribunal;
2. a lengthy 4 hour hearing which frankly could have been done inside one - only two issues - whether the action was careless and whether it was a bump (the second part was determined in 15 seconds flat - that it wasn't).
3. Plenty of facile, rather lame arguments from both sides - padding.
4. Loads of media focus.
5. Pies' player cleared to play, Dees' player (the victim) won't play again this year, if at all.