- Moderator
- #1
-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
MRP / Trib. 2023 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #2,851
No they are not appealing.
Posted earlier ...
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #2,852
What a croc of 
www.afl.com.au
AFL ponders rule change after Maynard Tribunal call
The Brayden Maynard saga is officially over after the AFL opted not to appeal the Tribunal's decision
www.afl.com.au
4flagsin5yrs
Premiership Player
It all reeks of contrivance frankly.
Apparently it was a football act, whatever tf that means. More like a football act from the 70’s.How the * can the head be sacrosanct for one and not the other who was concussed and had to be stretchered from the ground.
Twitter page must have mixed it up. My apologies.No they are not appealing.
Posted earlier ...
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,354
- 20,251
- AFL Club
- Carlton
precedent, common sense just got removed from consideration.
Boyd got three weeks for failing to exert sufficient care in executing a tackle. The obvious conclusion to draw is that an attempted smother is preferable to tackling. Had Boyd left the ground and put his shoulder through the oppo's head while attempting to 'smother' - well that's a 'footy act'.
We either have a standard of care applicable to incidents that leave someone concussed or we do not.
As to your other criterion in relation to player history, I'm of the view that history can have an effect on the amelioration of a penalty (or an increase in severity) but does not serve to render something an offence or not. There still needs to be a grading system.
Geoff Gleason was in the Pies legal defence team and the prosecutor showed how incompetent he is yet again.
Hopefully at the end of the year they will clarify that running at a player jumping and knocking them out is no longer a football act
The vast majority, do they?
You've polled millions of people?
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #2,859
No he wasn't.
He was on the Tribunal:-
Jeff Gleeson (Chair), Scott Stevens, Darren Gaspar
Legal reps:
Andrew Woods (AFL)
Ben Ihle (Collingwood)
ferrisb
Brownlow Medallist
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #2,861
Michael Christian was part of a panel of at least 3 originally, didn’t work then and he was chosen to do it on his own
I think they just need to choose a person that isn’t biased and has more than a quarter of a brain
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Jun 2, 2019
- 626
- 1,771
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Let’s face it
Carlton player 3 weeks
G Williams 5 weeks
D R Jones 8 weeks
Hawthorn player no case to answer
Absolute joke
Carlton player 3 weeks
G Williams 5 weeks
D R Jones 8 weeks
Hawthorn player no case to answer
Absolute joke
Maynard getting off is good for us. There is absolutely no way Martin gets weeks when Maynard does not.
Maynard's was Careless high contact either severe or High. It has to be, he hit him in the head and knocked him out badly.
Going by that logic. Martin was most definitely careless high contact and low impact.
0 chance Martin gets any weeks IF the tribunal is to be CONSISTENT.
Again this is a good thing for us, there is absolutely no way they can uphold Martin's suspension with any weeks now.
Martin's contact was significantly less and is also very much a football act by that definition.
This is a great weapon to have up our sleeve come our appeal time.
Maynard's was Careless high contact either severe or High. It has to be, he hit him in the head and knocked him out badly.
Going by that logic. Martin was most definitely careless high contact and low impact.
0 chance Martin gets any weeks IF the tribunal is to be CONSISTENT.
Again this is a good thing for us, there is absolutely no way they can uphold Martin's suspension with any weeks now.
Martin's contact was significantly less and is also very much a football act by that definition.
This is a great weapon to have up our sleeve come our appeal time.
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,354
- 20,251
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Am I missing something? When does an appeal have to be lodged?
What ?
Bletch
Premium Platinum
- Dec 8, 2020
- 3,546
- 11,287
- AFL Club
- Carlton
You realise Martin's case has already been heard, yes? He had his sentence reduced from 2 to 1 week.
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,354
- 20,251
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Reading Gleeson comments I,m a little perplexed.
suspension now goes to “reasonable foreseeability“ when previous decisions have rested on careless conduct and been at least implicitly influenced by the severity of the outcome.
suspension now goes to “reasonable foreseeability“ when previous decisions have rested on careless conduct and been at least implicitly influenced by the severity of the outcome.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #2,869
On Ch7 news just before.
Wait for it …
Chrisso MR NO ****ING IDEA MRO will continue next year as the MRO
Wait for it …
Chrisso MR NO ****ING IDEA MRO will continue next year as the MRO
- Jun 25, 2011
- 2,738
- 4,944
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Pretty sure you can’t appeal your own victory.
Tbh I think the whole system needs a rethink. Way back when the pre-tribunal assessment was introduced it was sold as a kind of time saver. Simple / obvious cases that didn't need full tribunal attention got assessed early, with the incentive of a discount if the club 'accepted' the decision. Anything contentious or anything the club didn't agree with went to the tribunal. The tribunal remained the default approach and the benchmark, and the pre-tribunal assessment was just a shortcut for a subset of cases.
Now the perception is the other way around: the MRO is the default, and it is the exceptional cases that go to the tribunal. The good part of this is that many assessments are quicker and there are now far fewer tribunal cases than there would have been otherwise. The bad part is that the MRO judgement is now a long way from the original notion of just handling the obvious cases. MRO assessments are often now just as contentious as tribunal assessments, with the net result being that we now have one more point of contention than we used to have, and three levels overall (MRO, tribunal, appeal), which seems a lot.
I don't know what the solution is. A good starting point might be to look at the better systems in other sports and see if there's something the AFL can use. I suspect any meaningful attempt to tackle the problem will involve more change than some will be comfortable with, but the alternative is just more of the same.
4flagsin5yrs
Premiership Player
Rightly or wrongly, this is the genesis (see page 12, https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...885835edcaf1/2023-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf):
(though that doesn't make sense either tbh as the Tribunal said it wasn't a bump (for reasons best known to themselves), noting they didn't say what it was!
Can only assume they are treating the high hit as part of the smothering action and nothing more - again, odd)
It’s rubbish. Watch some union, league or NFL and you we will see how players try to avoid contact with the kicker after they have attempted to block the kick. It can be done and they are penalised if they don’t. The reason why Aussie rules players do it today is because they aren’t penalized for it. Guarantee that if the AFL applied a suspension that the hit would be out of the game but the attempted smother would remain in it.
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,354
- 20,251
- AFL Club
- Carlton
thanks for that…appreciate it.
I still see this as inconstently applied with an emphasis on reasonably foreseeable, a subservient clause to outside his control. My view is that by leaving the ground, and more particularly by tucking his shoulder the level of force was entirely within his control.
4flagsin5yrs
Premiership Player
100% agreed.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
