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

[Aphrodite]

 

[Just Kreuzing]

Careless > Low > High > Fine

Yesteryear... 70’s-90’s
, what, ya kidding, , be ****ed....

 

[Just Kreuzing]

If we appeal, is that dissent?

Only with arms outspread....

 

[bigbertha5]

Just FYI in case it hasn't already been mentioned. This is why it has been graded medium impact.

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kruezing]

Just FYI in case it hasn't already been mentioned. This is why it has been graded medium impact.View attachment 1655902

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

I thought he used his hands … not his shoulder … is any contact now construed as a bump ?

 

[IronMan29]

Just FYI in case it hasn't already been mentioned. This is why it has been graded medium impact.View attachment 1655902

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

He has been charged with striking not rough conduct. Does this clause also apply?

Sent from my SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Stamos]

Just FYI in case it hasn't already been mentioned. This is why it has been graded medium impact.View attachment 1655902

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Striking.
And as if that is an action to cause serious injury.

 

[BlueBelle]

Are we contesting? I thought we had until today to make a decision?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Are we contesting? I thought we had until today to make a decision?

Tomorrow. Public holiday today

 

[BlueBelle]

Tomorrow. Public holiday today

Thanks. Talk about cutting it fine

 

[bigbertha5]

He has been charged with striking not rough conduct. Does this clause also apply?

Sent from my SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Yes same applies for striking:

Impact: Notwithstanding any other part of these Guidelines, any Careless
or Intentional strike which is of an inherently dangerous kind and/or where
there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised
elbow or forearm) will usually not be classified as Low Impact even though
the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually
be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of
the risk of serious injury involved. Strong consideration will also be given to
the distance the incident occurs from the ball and the expectation of contact
of the Victim Player.


On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[thylacine60]

If we appeal, is that dissent?

That's Gold!!

 

[SurreyBlue]

If we appeal, is that dissent?

With carry over points from previous appeals.
In other words - as per on field - shUt your mouth and get on with the ruling.

 

[katmanblue]

Just FYI in case it hasn't already been mentioned. This is why it has been graded medium impact.View attachment 1655902

On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

Wasn't a bump.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[katmanblue]

Yes same applies for striking:

Impact: Notwithstanding any other part of these Guidelines, any Careless
or Intentional strike which is of an inherently dangerous kind and/or where
there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised
elbow or forearm) will usually not be classified as Low Impact even though
the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually
be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of
the risk of serious injury involved. Strong consideration will also be given to
the distance the incident occurs from the ball and the expectation of contact
of the Victim Player.


On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

So every time a defender tries to spoil and hit a forwards head, that's medium impact.

Bonar should have been sited multiple times. Zurhaar should be sited at least twice too. I'm sure Weitering probably would have been sited at some stage too.

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RedFury]

Thanks. Talk about cutting it fine

I can't imagine why you'd notify the AFL that you are challenging the decision a moment before you have to.

While the AFL would no doubt be expecting an appeal, they may have processes around this that don't kick off until the appeal becomes official. No reason to give their side extra time to prepare.

Now you could very easily argue that the AFL already know precisely what they are arguing, but we gain nothing by going early.

We've probably been preparing our defence since Saturday and will announce it in the last hour before deadline. At least that's what I would do.

(I realized the cutting it fine comment is probably referring to our next game - I agree. Tribunal would need to sit Tuesday night and appeals board Wednesday night.)

 

[lukep_86]

If the week stands because the AFL are trying to protect the head, then I can understand. What makes no sense to me is that Ballard got off after elbowing Guelfi in the head, and Zurhar makes contact with 2 of our boy's heads and doesn't even get cited. Let alone the fact that has been a range of other inconsistencies over the years.

The matrix is a joke, and the fact that there's 1 person making all the decisions is ridiculous.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

Yes same applies for striking:

Impact: Notwithstanding any other part of these Guidelines, any Careless
or Intentional strike which is of an inherently dangerous kind and/or where
there is a potential to cause serious injury (such as a strike with a raised
elbow or forearm) will usually not be classified as Low Impact even though
the extent of the actual physical impact may be low. Such strikes will usually
be classified at a higher level commensurate with the nature and extent of
the risk of serious injury involved. Strong consideration will also be given to
the distance the incident occurs from the ball and the expectation of contact
of the Victim Player.


On Pixel 2 using BigFooty.com mobile app

but it wasn't inherently dangerous or likely to cause serious injury.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Love the optimism but I dont think he’ll get off. The problem is that it was premeditated and he had plenty of time to pull out. However minor the outcome, it’s exactly the kind of thing they want to stamp out.

 

[JustaBattler]

but it wasn't inherently dangerous or likely to cause serious injury.

irrelevant

his stupid clumsy forearm hit which was totally unnecessary slid up and made contact with the kid;s head- that is a no no...

 

[Jeremias]

 

[The Dochs in]

Will be heard at 5 tonight

 

[T2B_]

Surely he gets Good Bloke points

 

[Ald Gardiner]

irrelevant

his stupid clumsy forearm hit which was totally unnecessary slid up and made contact with the kid;s head- that is a no no...

Didn’t see the Ballard hit, is there an inconsistency though? Maybe Ballard lucky?

 

[JustaBattler]

Didn’t see the Ballard hit, is there an inconsistency though? Maybe Ballard lucky?

I don't think the AFL could care less about consistent application or precedents or anything ...part drama, part signalling, part backside covering

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

irrelevant

his stupid clumsy forearm hit which was totally unnecessary slid up and made contact with the kid;s head- that is a no no...

i quote from the 'guideline' and you say it's irrelevant.....

odd.