MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[King Hansen]

Bonts action didn't deserve a suspension.
But the consequences and injury it caused did bases on precedence set.

MRO should wait for all the information available. At least wait till mid-week.

AFL should appeal the discussion...but won't..

 

[Samsquanch]

Bonts action didn't deserve a suspension.
But the consequences and injury it caused did bases on precedence set.

MRO should wait for all the information available. At least wait till mid-week.

AFL should appeal the discussion...but won't..

All of your points are sensible to anybody who has half a brain. But not to the AFL.

President is not considered.

MRO decision cannot be appealed.

Action or intent less important than outcome.

Unknowns cop penalties.

Stars treated favourably.

Gut punches are admired.

 

[Mav]

Tackles him in the side, doesn't pin the arms, no lifting motion = suspended for a week since Amon ends up concussed due to Nic Nats height & weight advantage.

Do you think this was worth a week?

Gleeson said Naitanui had used excessive force by propelling himself forward with his last step and driving his right shoulder into Amon's back.

Gleeson said the force Naitanui approached Amon with meant it was "an inevitable consequence" that Amon's head was going to make "vigorous contact with the turf"


The factors are inside the players control.

Try again.

 

[Mav]

Stars treated favourably.

Fyfe, Ablett and Dusty were all suspended when Brownlow favorites.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Fyfe, Ablett and Dusty were all suspended when Brownlow favorites.

Tom Mitchell wasn't.

 

[Mav]

Tom Mitchell wasn't.

but the reason wasn't "because he's a star"

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

but the reason wasn't "because he's a star"

He jumped off the ground to elbow Goldy in the head 100m off the ball.

He was treated differently.

 

[Only Forwards]

but the reason wasn't "because he's a star"

Not the official one.

The idea that Stars aren't treated differently is flawed.
The idea when something is at stake they're not treated differently is flawed also.

Look no further than Boomer of Selwood.

High, intentional, forceful enough to split Selwood open and send him to the bench for treatment.
Happened in a final
Would miss a final
Let off
Selwood helped with his testimony.

Chris Judd opened up Pavlich with his elbow as Brownlow favorite and ultimately won it, because he was let off.

In Fyfes Brownlow year he had 2 fines and a third would see him rendered ineligible. Takes out Jacobs. Not suspend able but certainly fineable. Contextually they don't want a Brownlow dropped for minor reasons, not fined.

The reason this Bont incident has struck a cord has little to do with the incident and more to do with him making comments about Lindsay being Malicious.

If we go back to that week Hodge also collected a player high with incredibly similar action. Do you think he was suspended? Of course not. Because the media portrayal of the two players is incredibly different.

Every AFL system carries bias. To think that they don't is to be wrong.

 

[Mav]

He jumped off the ground to elbow Goldy in the head 100m off the ball.

He was treated differently.

Todds own words:
It wasn't hard enough, I barely even noticed it.
It was like a fly touching me really

You're just proving my point. Outcome matters.

 

[Mav]

Not the official one.

The idea that Stars aren't treated differently is flawed.
The idea when something is at stake they're not treated differently is flawed also.

Look no further than Boomer of Selwood.

High, intentional, forceful enough to split Selwood open and send him to the bench for treatment.
Happened in a final
Would miss a final
Let off
Selwood helped with his testimony.

Chris Judd opened up Pavlich with his elbow as Brownlow favorite and ultimately won it, because he was let off.

In Fyfes Brownlow year he had 2 fines and a third would see him rendered ineligible. Takes out Jacobs. Not suspend able but certainly fineable. Contextually they don't want a Brownlow dropped for minor reasons, not fined.

The reason this Bont incident has struck a cord has little to do with the incident and more to do with him making comments about Lindsay being Malicious.

If we go back to that week Hodge also collected a player high with incredibly similar action. Do you think he was suspended? Of course not. Because the media portrayal of the two players is incredibly different.

Every AFL system carries bias. To think that they don't is to be wrong.

The fact other Brownlow medal favorites have been suspended means you are wrong. And plenty of "non stars" have gotten off at the tribunal.

In the Bont case, the MRP ****ed up, no question. And I'd bet the process will now be altered when a medical report is still forthcoming. But the reasoning he got off because he's a star is just wrong. Its more tin hat rubbish.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Todds own words:
It wasn't hard enough, I barely even noticed it.
It was like a fly touching me really

You're just proving my point. Outcome matters.

As if he's going to go full Bontempelli and say 'Yeah, he smashed me. I had headaches for weeks. I thought someone had brought an sledgehammer on the field and decided to do some demolition work on my skull.'

 

[ferball]

no mate, it's not ridiculous. I've pointed this out before, its how our judicial system operates. If I stab someone the outcome will determine my punishment. If the person was to die I would be charged with murder, but if they live the charge would be downgraded.

Likewise, do we penalise people that speed the same as people that speed, causing them to crash and kill someone?

Basing the penalty on the outcome is standard in our society.

A crime requires the intent to commit the crime whereas what Dr Z is referring to is an act without similar intent being punished more severely than an act with intent. Within the context of a contact sport that requires aggression.

 

[ferball]

Tackles him in the side, doesn't pin the arms, no lifting motion = suspended for a week since Amon ends up concussed due to Nic Nats height & weight advantage.

Do you think this was worth a week?

That tackle should have been in the back.

 

[ferball]

How can we forget Lachie Hunter's dad.....'we don't know if he's gonna be ok' - nek minit named in the side during the week and plays.

then this bit from Bont -

That moment on changed how I viewed that individual. How petty can you be when you try to get another player suspended by over exaggerating what happened. The umpires thought it was nothing more than a free kick.

Piece of s**t.

I never had a sig line before that.

 

[ferball]

HOW CAN YOU MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT ALL THE ******* INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO YOU?!?!?

THESE campaignerS AREN'T EVEN AMATEURS.

THEY'RE INEPT NOVICES.

He did have enough info available to him according to the afl dot com article i read. He used the medical report to determine that the contact was high but then ignored elements of it that showed Haynes needed over 20 minutes of treatment during half time (and may also have noted Haynes had breathing issues after the game.) Which should indicate the impact was other than "Low" shouldn't it?

It seems he used the info he wanted from the medical report to get the decision he wanted, not that he did a proper assessment of the incident using all the info in the medical report.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

He did have enough info available to him according to the afl dot com article i read. He used the medical report to determine that the contact was high but then ignored elements of it that showed Haynes needed over 20 minutes of treatment during half time (and may also have noted Haynes had breathing issues after the game.) Which should indicate the impact was other than "Low" shouldn't it?

It seems he used the info he wanted from the medical report to get the decision he wanted, not that he did a proper assessment of the incident using all the info in the medical report.

Yep, here's a pic of Michael Christian just before he left the AFL Briefing Room to explain his decision to the media:

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

A crime requires the intent to commit the crime whereas what Dr Z is referring to is an act without similar intent being punished more severely than an act with intent. Within the context of a contact sport that requires aggression.

Correct.

If you stab someone, but have no intent to kill them, you can't be charged with murder.

 

[DrZaius]

Gleeson said Naitanui had used excessive force by propelling himself forward with his last step and driving his right shoulder into Amon's back.

Gleeson said the force Naitanui approached Amon with meant it was "an inevitable consequence" that Amon's head was going to make "vigorous contact with the turf"


The factors are inside the players control.

Try again.

Lol are you serious? So when you tackle somebody you're supposed to somehow defy physics and mitigate your momentum so that it isn't "excessive" (of which the definition also seems to be entirely subjective) but still somehow with enough force for the tackle to be effective? I know you love to tow the party line but that explanation is almost as ridiculous as the actual suspension mate, everything he said is open to interpretation. "An inevitable consequence"? Spare me.

Ferbs is right that it could possibly be in the back, but apart from that it was textbook. The fact that we are even debating this shows how much of a cluster**** the whole system has become.

 

[ferball]

Correct.

If you stab someone, but have no intent to kill them, you can't be charged with murder.

You can if you kill them. Cos you intended to stab them which is a potentially life threatening thing to do to someone.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

You can if you kill them. Cos you intended to stab them which is a potentially life threatening thing to do to someone.

It has to be proven that you intended to kill them at the time of stabbing them, otherwise it's manslaughter.

 

[Mav]

As if he's going to go full Bontempelli and say 'Yeah, he smashed me. I had headaches for weeks. I thought someone had brought an sledgehammer on the field and decided to do some demolition work on my skull.'

now you're just being silly. Show me the proof the contact was anything more than what Goldy said.

A crime requires the intent to commit the crime whereas what Dr Z is referring to is an act without similar intent being punished more severely than an act with intent. Within the context of a contact sport that requires aggression.

Sure, but the argument is that penalty based on outcome is ridiculous. The rules of the AFL state that the onus on the bumper/tackler. And after that outcome matters, just like our judicial system.

Correct.

If you stab someone, but have no intent to kill them, you can't be charged with murder.

But you'll still be charged and the penalty will depend on the extent of the injury caused. Its not that hard to understand.

 

[Mav]

Lol are you serious? So when you tackle somebody you're supposed to somehow defy physics and mitigate your momentum so that it isn't "excessive" (of which the definition also seems to be entirely subjective) but still somehow with enough force for the tackle to be effective? I know you love to tow the party line but that explanation is almost as ridiculous as the actual suspension mate, everything he said is open to interpretation. "An inevitable consequence"? Spare me.

Ferbs is right that it could possibly be in the back, but apart from that it was textbook. The fact that we are even debating this shows how much of a clusterfu** the whole system has become.

I don't tow the party line, I'm just rational enough to see where the AFL are coming from. I stated above that MRP got the Bont one wrong.

This entire discussion came about because I pointed out that deciding a penalty based on the outcome is not ridiculous, and you guys all put on your Tin Hats.

 

[ferball]

It has to be proven that you intended to kill them at the time of stabbing them, otherwise it's manslaughter.

I think in NSW if you intend to cause someone serious injury and they die that can be considered murder not manslaughter.

So you stab someone, not want them to die but want them badly ****ed up and if they die then it should be murder not manslaughter.

If you stab them in the hand and they die of an infection then maybe not.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I don't tow the party line, I'm just rational enough to see where the AFL are coming from. I stated above that MRP got the Bont one wrong.

This entire discussion came about because I pointed out that deciding a penalty based on the outcome is not ridiculous, and you guys all put on your Tin Hats.

It is ridiculous when they trot out the 'potential to cause injury' when it suits them.

Or my personal favorite 'alternative way to contest the ball'.

 

[Rooboys Rool]

Gleeson said Naitanui had used excessive force by propelling himself forward with his last step and driving his right shoulder into Amon's back.

Gleeson said the force Naitanui approached Amon with meant it was "an inevitable consequence" that Amon's head was going to make "vigorous contact with the turf"


The factors are inside the players control.

Try again.

Isn’t Gleeson the prosecutor?