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

[Aphrodite]

 

[Aphrodite]

Let’s start a pool.. which Carlton player will get suspended next week.

 

[Arr0w]

Cop it and move on, poor execution by Newman

 

[Aphrodite]

Would be interesting to see how many of ours Mr No Idea MRO has sanctioned and how many have been before the Tribunal.

Seems to be nearly every week JJ.



ferrisb are you up to researching the above

*Bump

ferrisb

 

[ferrisb]

*Bump

This bump was graded intentional, high impact, high contact.

Straight to the tribunal...

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

Neale milked every ounce of it too. campaigner.

what about Andrews' shoulder to Big H's eye - how does that escape scrutiny?

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[jj1978]

Funny.. almost as though the club knows we're getting some dubious and inconsistent MRO decisions this year and will seek to continue challenging when it smells a bit off... it's like an "up yours" ping pong game between us and the AFL...

"Cripps free to play" => up yours by Carlton
"Acres sighted and enforced by tribunal" => up yours x 2 by the AFL
"McKay sighted" => up yours again by AFL
"McKay off" => take that up yours AFL and multiply it (Carlton)
"Motlop sighted" => multiply this Blues....
"Newman sighted" => you wanna keep playing Blues???

 

[ajb72]

Odds of getting off this are pretty damn low.

 

[jj1978]

Odds of getting off this are pretty damn low.

True... I think this is more of the club making a statement.... surprised we've been so nice and have not made comments how clubs have been targeting Harry this season with late whacks to the head consistently in attempts to "spoil the ball because he's so tall".

 

[ferrisb]

Odds of getting off this are pretty damn low.

AFL precedent might prop up the odds somewhat.

I don't think Newman should get off. This is the exact kind of thing the AFL should be stamping out; deliberate, pre-meditated off-the-ball contact. Maybe Newman wasn't trying to get him on the chin, but that shouldn't matter.

It's so weird, off-the-ball a player can argue that they were trying to hit their opponent in the chest and accidentally hit them in the head. AFL says OK. But if you're going for the ball/tackle and you make high contact you're suspended for weeks. Such a stupid dichotomy.

Having said that, the AFL set themselves up for an appeal here based on Charlie Ballard getting off for something similar early this year. If anything, Ballard's was worse as he was looking at his opponent, whereas Neale is possibly out of Newman's eyeline. I think Tom Lynch got off for an errant, similar-ish high elbow last year too (one of about ~6,472 dirty acts Lynch has been given a hall pass for over his career).

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

AFL precedent might prop up the odds somewhat.

I don't think Newman should get off. This is the exact kind of thing the AFL should be stamping out; deliberate, pre-meditated off-the-ball contact. Maybe Newman wasn't trying to get him on the chin, but that shouldn't matter.

It's so weird, off-the-ball a player can argue that they were trying to hit their opponent in the chest and accidentally hit them in the head. AFL says OK. But if you're going for the ball/tackle and you make high contact you're suspended for weeks. Such a stupid dichotomy.

Having said that, the AFL set themselves up for an appeal here based on Charlie Ballard getting off for something similar early this year. If anything, Ballard's was worse as he was looking at his opponent, whereas Neale is possibly out of Newman's eyeline. I think Tom Lynch got off for an errant, similar-ish high elbow last year too (one of about ~6,472 dirty acts Lynch has been given a hall pass for over his career).

And Andrews' shoulder to Big H's eye that saw Big H bloodied and off the field for some time, with stitches?

 

[Blue4Life]

Didn’t the initial contact hit neale in the chest? If so exactly the same as Harris hit on cheezles with initial contact to the shoulder

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

Having said that, the AFL set themselves up for an appeal here based on Charlie Ballard getting off for something similar early this year. If anything, Ballard's was worse as he was looking at his opponent, whereas Neale is possibly out of Newman's eyeline.

What are the chances the tribunal members will come out up front at the hearing, and state something along the lines of "we will not be accepting any recent incidents as evidence to determine precedence for this case."

 

[jj1978]

Further to my point on McKay.. Jacob Van Rooyen got offered 2 match suspension for something that Harry's opponent does on him weekly (and draws blood, slap to the face or poke in the eye)...

 

[ferrisb]

Would be interesting to see how many of ours Mr No Idea MRO has sanctioned and how many have been before the Tribunal.

Seems to be nearly every week JJ.

ferrisb are you up to researching the above

This is everything I could find



14 cases heard by the tribunal league-wide, 3 from Carlton...

 

[jj1978]

This is everything I could find

View attachment 1682020

14 cases heard by the tribunal league-wide, 3 from Carlton...

Thank you Ferris.

We do seem mighty interested moreso than ever to standing up to the AFL. In the past only for our big guns we'd tend to roll the dice and challenge.

 

[skadoosh]

Newman's hearing was supposed to be at 6.30pm. MRO are worse than a Metro train.

 

[Aphrodite]

Newman's hearing was supposed to be at 6.30pm. MRO are worse than a Metro train.

2 others up before Newman, Brad Close, Jacob van Rooyen

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Wrong thread I know but AFL is officially f****d with the Van Rooyen verdict.

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[FRUMPY]

Wrong thread I know but AFL is officially f****d with the Van Rooyen verdict.

Yep, ridiculous

But that's the outcome from ex-players suing the AFL for head knocks. Only going to get worse I'm afraid

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[Aphrodite]

 

[SurreyBlue]

The game is ****ed

 

[Sam The Doc]

Ummmm…. Alright ….. what?
No?