MRP / Trib. 2023 MRP Lotto

[Mav]

I disagree that the Careless call is correct. Ben's foot stops right next to where Duryea's body was before the fumble. Ben does everything right, gets to the contest quickly but slows himself down so he stops at a point that is next to where he sees Duryea is. Duryea then fumbles knocking the ball to his left and towards the oncoming Cunnington and lunges at it. Ben had no way of stopping the contact, and the only way to avoid contact was to not go to the contest. He didn't slide, he didnt try and bump, he just got to a position where he could lay a tackle if Duryea had controlled the ball like any decent would have.

(E) ROUGH CONDUCT Rough Conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any contact which is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. It is a Reportable Offence to Intentionally or carelessly engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.

This vid gives better evidence of Duryea knocking the ball towards Ben

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2017-02-28/cunnington-accepts-ban

So under the circumstances Ben couldn't have done anything else. He's not obliged to give his opponent time to pick up the ball, and he couldn't have foreseen Duryea fumbling, and then lunging. His Conduct was not unreasonable.

It's a bullshit decision and for the integrity of the game we should be willing to risk a second week, otherwise this shit is just going to keep happening.

I have a feeling the tribunal conversation went something like

Muppet 1: Do you think we should suspend Cunnington for the knee on whats his name...

Muppet 2: Dur - yeah

Muppet 2: No need to be so condescending, ok 2 weeks.

 

[Tas]

I don't really mind if that is the call... however, it is the lack of consistency. We know there will be hundreds of these collisions which wont get a suspension.

 

[adas]

Given Cunners has accepted a one match ban and will miss Round 1, does that mean he can still play the final Ansett Cup game against GWS?

If he were to miss that, his next game will be April 2 which is about a 5 week layoff between hawks and cats game.

 

[boneofshin]

Given Cunners has accepted a one match ban and will miss Round 1, does that mean he can still play the final Ansett Cup game against GWS?

If he were to miss that, his next game will be April 2 which is about a 5 week layoff between hawks and cats game.

He is eligible to play, yes. Generally the final game is a dress rehearsal of sorts though so it will be interesting to see if he plays.

 

[Horace]

Hmm not sure about that Horace.

We will have to disagree. In my opinion there was an impossibly short amount of time for Ben to properly bend down before the collision. And as I see it, Duryea, in belting the ball away from Ben's grasping hands, actually rotates on the ground, thrusting his head into Ben's knee. He is the one who initiated contact by that motion.

 

[Horace]

Given Cunners has accepted a one match ban and will miss Round 1, does that mean he can still play the final Ansett Cup game against GWS?

If he were to miss that, his next game will be April 2 which is about a 5 week layoff between hawks and cats game.

Liked purely for reviving the Ansett name. Remember them anyone? What about TAA and the "Up, up and Away... jingle"?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Careless is the same rating Jordan Lewis got for the king hit on Goldy. Seems fair.

Lewis was Careless back when there were three levels (INTENTIONAL, Careless, Negligent) - he was also graded Medium impact despite Goldstein taking the kick and playing out the game. It should have been Intentional and Low Impact - which ultimately drew the same penalty as Careless/Medium, but there were plenty of grounds for Hawks to argue intent back to Careless which (IIRC) was only a fine or 1 week suspension, so the MRP manipulated the ratings to get the "Right" outcome to abate the Media/Public outrage.

AFAIC, the NMFC did the right thing by accepting. Not because it's the right decision or outcome (it isn't, he should be playing) - but rather because the rules are specifically designed to avoid challenge.

 

[Steamin Beamin]

AFAIC, the NMFC did the right thing by accepting. Not because it's the right decision or outcome (it isn't, he should be playing) - but rather because the rules are specifically designed to avoid challenge.

Spot on there, hence why everyone here is fuming.
I wonder if jury nullification applies in AFL tribunal lol.

 

[Zondor]

Lewis was Careless back when there were three levels (INTENTIONAL, Careless, Negligent) - he was also graded Medium impact despite Goldstein taking the kick and playing out the game. It should have been Intentional and Low Impact - which ultimately drew the same penalty as Careless/Medium, but there were plenty of grounds for Hawks to argue intent back to Careless which (IIRC) was only a fine or 1 week suspension, so the MRP manipulated the ratings to get the "Right" outcome to abate the Media/Public outrage.

AFAIC, the NMFC did the right thing by accepting. Not because it's the right decision or outcome (it isn't, he should be playing) - but rather because the rules are specifically designed to avoid challenge.

Yeah hopefully with your mate Mark Evan moving on the AFL can employ someone with half a brain and sort this shit system out. :stern look

 

[rippersnipper]

I dunno, seemed clumsy. Probably worth a fine or something

 

[Frank Thring]

We will have to disagree. In my opinion there was an impossibly short amount of time for Ben to properly bend down before the collision. And as I see it, Duryea, in belting the ball away from Ben's grasping hands, actually rotates on the ground, thrusting his head into Ben's knee. He is the one who initiated contact by that motion.

So if Dureya wasnt there, Ben would have attacked the ball standing upright like he did instead of bending down to pick it up?

 

[Gotta_Bea_Hero]

It appears that if an umpire pays a free for a high tackle it is an automatic report.

 

[Horace]

So if Dureya wasnt there, Ben would have attacked the ball standing upright like he did instead of bending down to pick it up?

No he was in the process of bending down to gather the ball as Duryea knocked the ball away. Have a look at GR's post number 33, which shows the action from a different camera.

 

[Frank Thring]

No he was in the process of bending down to gather the ball as Duryea knocked the ball away. Have a look at GR's post number 33, which shows the action from a different camera.

Im just not seeing it Horace.

 

[Phillyroo]

Im just not seeing it Horace.

Well you must battle to see what's right in front of you.

 

[Frank Thring]

Well you must battle to see what's right in front of you.

No need to get narky there Phillyroo, observations can vary too.

 

[shintemaster]

Probably the biggest frustration is that this is continuing the adjudication of this sport into one based on the results - predictable, intentional or otherwise - rather than one where a player can know they are going to be in the right by acting in a certain way. When the AFL decided that if you leave the ground to bump and you get a player high that was simple and even though not every result was one I personally agreed with it was a fair process with black and white rules.

Now they have a situation where any particular action is fine or not depending on the result which is also dependent on other players. Take a players legs out - get a free against. Take a players legs out but get hurt / hit high - you get a free. I don't like situations like this in a sport that is already subject to a massive amount of random chance. I'd prefer players know that a specific action will always see them okay - I don't believe not contesting is a valid one in a contact sport. The decision made against JZ a few years back was atrocious in my opinion. If a player doesn't want to go as hard as him he should get the f out of the way.

I feel a bit like Cunnington was left in no man's land whereas previously the player on the ground would have had to take the responsibility on themselves not to put themselves in a completely stupid position and then place themselves in the way of oncoming traffic.

My 2c.

 

[Horace]

Im just not seeing it Horace.

Okay Frank. It's pretty clear to me but as I said before let's agree to disagree.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

We don't challenge we 99% of the time take the penalty.

We come out in the media and say we believe the player did nothing wrong but its too big a risk. Absolute garbage by the club, to not challenge this.

The MRP will keep on handing down bullshit suspensions to our players because they know we take it like their little bitch.

I would have no doubt that the Tribunal who is made up of ex players would throw this one out, citing it was accidental and not careless.

The MRP is made up of four ex-players, one of whom retired at the end of 2015, so why would the Tribunal be any different?

I think it's pretty clear that the MRP don't single us out and we need to drop the victim mentality. Remember Hawkins got rubbed out for essentially pushing Phil Davis in the face last year? It's not just us, it's a crap system.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the penalty but as many before me have pointed out, it's hard to prove impact was low rather than medium (the only point that we could argue) and any appeal would probably fail on that basis. Sadly, we are copping it because the AFL commission are such bumbling amateurs that they still can't implement a satisfactory incident assessment and penalty system. In a multi billion dollar industry, go figure.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Probably the biggest frustration is that this is continuing the adjudication of this sport into one based on the results - predictable, intentional or otherwise - rather than one where a player can know they are going to be in the right by acting in a certain way. When the AFL decided that if you leave the ground to bump and you get a player high that was simple and even though not every result was one I personally agreed with it was a fair process with black and white rules.

Now they have a situation where any particular action is fine or not depending on the result which is also dependent on other players. Take a players legs out - get a free against. Take a players legs out but get hurt / hit high - you get a free. I don't like situations like this in a sport that is already subject to a massive amount of random chance. I'd prefer players know that a specific action will always see them okay - I don't believe not contesting is a valid one in a contact sport. The decision made against JZ a few years back was atrocious in my opinion. If a player doesn't want to go as hard as him he should get the f out of the way.

I feel a bit like Cunnington was left in no man's land whereas previously the player on the ground would have had to take the responsibility on themselves not to put themselves in a completely stupid position and then place themselves in the way of oncoming traffic.

My 2c.

This, SO much this.

In the Gaelic games, there was a brawl purely because of the different game rules - the AFL players run with hips high, head bent down over the ball (which lets face it is pretty stupid and unnatural and also extremely dangerous exposing the base of the neck to compression injuries) - the Gaelic players slid feet first into the pack - trying to get the ball into space. The Australian's tackled hard into the ground after disposal, then ran away; the Irish pinched/kicked shins/etc off the ball. Again reflective of the different interpretations of what is "ok" in the physical intimidation aspect of the game.

Both were playing their "natural" game, and saw the other team's actions as cowardly/inflammatory/etc.

There are now so many rules that go either way. Didn't Duryea dive into Cunnington's legs? I have certainly seen that paid as a free the other way.

 

[Mav]

Probably the biggest frustration is that this is continuing the adjudication of this sport into one based on the results - predictable, intentional or otherwise - rather than one where a player can know they are going to be in the right by acting in a certain way. When the AFL decided that if you leave the ground to bump and you get a player high that was simple and even though not every result was one I personally agreed with it was a fair process with black and white rules.

Now they have a situation where any particular action is fine or not depending on the result which is also dependent on other players. Take a players legs out - get a free against. Take a players legs out but get hurt / hit high - you get a free. I don't like situations like this in a sport that is already subject to a massive amount of random chance. I'd prefer players know that a specific action will always see them okay - I don't believe not contesting is a valid one in a contact sport. The decision made against JZ a few years back was atrocious in my opinion. If a player doesn't want to go as hard as him he should get the f out of the way.

I feel a bit like Cunnington was left in no man's land whereas previously the player on the ground would have had to take the responsibility on themselves not to put themselves in a completely stupid position and then place themselves in the way of oncoming traffic.

My 2c.

It's funny because under the old rules Dur-yeah would have been able to pull the ball in towards him but he's not allowed to do that so he tried to smother it with one hand, causing it to bounce sideways.

The game is going to get like rugby where you can't play the ball on the ground. Once tackled you have to release the ball and the tackler has to release the tackle and you both need to get on your feet to play the ball!

 

[Zondor]

Weak by the club. Would it have really mattered if Ben10 missed 2 weeks as opposed to 1? The silver lining was that we could've pumped an additional game into one of the young mids if Cunnington got done. Didn't we move on 4 established players for a reason? So yeah I don't get it. Scotts and Joyces are coming across as indecisive and soft. :stern look

 

[tazaa]

Weak by the club. Would it have really mattered if Ben10 missed 2 weeks as opposed to 1? The silver lining was that we could've pumped an additional game into one of the young mids if Cunnington got done. Didn't we move on 4 established players for a reason? So yeah I don't get it. Scotts and Joyces are coming across as indecisive and soft. :stern look

As soon as Cunnington was charged you said the club would accept as we were too gutless to challenge.

If this Joyce's tutelage or credentials within leadership, then I'm not a fan also and backing you in.

 

[Passmore]

As soon as Cunnington was charged you said the club would accept as we were too gutless to challenge.

If this Joyce's tutelage or credentials within leadership, then I'm not a fan also and backing you in.

I'm not really understanding the gutless call. To actively seek to have a player miss 2 rather than 1 would seem the height of stupidity. By challenging without basis that's exactly what we eould be doing.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[tazaa]

I'm not really understanding the gutless call. To actively seek to have a player miss 2 rather than 1 would seem the height of stupidity. By challenging without basis that's exactly what we eould be doing.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Pretty much everyone except the club said it would get thrown out and we didn't want to challenge the decision because of little to no hope of getting it over turned.
If we had a decent lawyer who we backed in then I'm sure we'd get a result.
Yeh taking one is better than two but that seems to be instilled off our past lessons of challenging and losing not on each cases merit.