MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports

[Aphrodite]

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

Bit of a change of pace away from Toby ...

So basically, the tribunal reckon he's a good bloke, but not that good a bloke

 

[katmanblue]

It wasn’t introduced for late contact, and that’s not the rule. You’re not allowed to make front-on contact in a marking contest, late or early.
If Toby didn’t turn his body, and kept his arms out going for the mark, that’s what would have happened.

Only if he doesn't impact the ball, right?

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ajb72]

It wasn’t introduced for late contact, and that’s not the rule. You’re not allowed to make front-on contact in a marking contest, late or early.
If Toby didn’t turn his body, and kept his arms out going for the mark, that’s what would have happened.

I’m sorry but that isn’t 100% accurate.

You can make front on contact late, early or whenever as long as the ball is your SOLE focus.

In this case Boyd is 100% going for the ball, so the front on contact in a marking contest rule does not apply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RedFury]

It wasn’t introduced for late contact, and that’s not the rule. You’re not allowed to make front-on contact in a marking contest, late or early.
If Toby didn’t turn his body, and kept his arms out going for the mark, that’s what would have happened.

You seem to be assuming that Boyd doesn't hold onto the mark if Toby doesn't turn his body and smash Boyd in the head though? He already has the ball in his hands when the contact occurs. Even without the mark I am not sure front- on contact applies when Boyd already has both hands on the ball in an attempted mark. Toby turned his body because he was a fraction too late to the marking contest and he knew it.

This aside, my main point was more that it was a dumb statement from Lansberger that Boyd should not go in that situation. If there's a strong chance that you can beat your opponent to a marking contest then both your team mates and your coach would expect you to go.

 

[Blue Pulse]

It's not really that tough, it's just that the AFL insists on not defining things explicitly. That way they can control outcomes according to their own desires, and not based on the facts of any given case.

I would have thought that the wording for rule determining these suspensions is something like:

"In a contested situation where one player is likely to make forceful contact with another, once either player chooses not to contest the ball, they then have a duty of care toward the other player. If they fail in this duty of care by causing - or potentially causing - serious injury to the player contesting the ball, then they have committed a reportable offence."

What gets me about all of the debate around cases like this is that no-one will acknowledge that it's always the same players that end up in these situations. The Toby Greens, Kosi Picketts et al, are somehow always the ones who are involved. People talk about a player's "instincts" - but I would argue that for some players their instincts are toward the man, and further, they are toward hurting the other player. Whereas genuine ball players, eg, Crippa, Fyfe, Bont etc, do not find themselves in these situations.

Don't agree with that, Cripps has found himself in that position, Peter Wright, Lachie Ploughman, Liam Baker were all accidental contact when 2 players are going for the ball and this will continue to happen in a competitive contact sport.

Green is a clown, always has, always will be, Pickett has carried out his bump 3 times and each suspension should have warranted an extra week, but the AFL have removed the previous record being taken into account.

 

[Blue Pulse]

I think the AFL is just trying to stipulate that if you leave the ground (go airborne) towards another player you are legitimately going the contest. I can't fathom how some don't see Toby's action.

Go into your backyard and imagine you're in Toby's position now and think about the action you are going to take to either mark or punch the ball. Note what your arms do. As you lift off the ground your arms raise almost instantaneously in preparation for the action. Toby is all nicely safely tucked in from the onset, he was going the hip and shoulder/collision which the outcome has been on the onus of the offender for a while now.

I even did it in slow motion and only in slow motion was I able to pirouette out of Boyds way

 

[BlueJet]

Wright = didn't make a play at the ball.
Greene = didn't make a play at the ball.
Even still the AFL has consistently stated that even accidental head contact will be seen as punishable via the MRO.
That there is inconsistency just further confirms what is already known, that the existing judicial setup is flawed.

 

[ajb72]

Higgins one will be interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aphrodite]

Higgins one will be interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Revenant1965]

Just as a hypothetical, if Higgins is cited for tackle on Aliir, and Aliir is out because of concussion protocol, what would the penalty be?

 

[Revenant1965]

Answer: 3 weeks

MATCH REVIEW: Saint learns fate for Aliir tackle

The match review for round seven's Friday night game is in

www.afl.com.au

 

[Aphrodite]

Answer: 3 weeks

MATCH REVIEW: Saint learns fate for Aliir tackle

The match review for round seven's Friday night game is in

www.afl.com.au

Good

 

[manang magoos]

Good

And just in Henry cited and find for strike on Zac Williams well I’ll be stuffed Dunstalls he when to ground to easy had trying to milk free umpire corruption right there

Also Harry fined for 2 incidents of umpire contact actually did not see might have had enough and wanted them too know

 

[Graffy4242]

And just in Henry cited and find for strike on Zac Williams well I’ll be stuffed Dunstalls he when to ground to easy had trying to milk free umpire corruption right there

Also Harry fined for 2 incidents of umpire contact actually did not see might have had enough and wanted them too know

Apparently 4 umpires couldn't see the incident though and the Cats goaled immediately. Absolute joke.

 

[Bamboo Harvester]

And just in Henry cited and find for strike on Zac Williams well I’ll be stuffed Dunstalls he when to ground to easy had trying to milk free umpire corruption right there

Also Harry fined for 2 incidents of umpire contact actually did not see might have had enough and wanted them too know

With Harry, maybe it was the one incident but contact with 2 umpires cos he'd had a gutful of them

 

[Aphrodite]

Harry fined TWICE for careless contact with an umpire in the 4th qtr WTF

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Would the umpire be that cheat that paid the 50 when Cripps was manning the mark?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Aphrodite]

Adrian Anderson fails again

 

[OldBlueFan]

Don't agree with that, Cripps has found himself in that position, Peter Wright, Lachie Ploughman, Liam Baker were all accidental contact when 2 players are going for the ball and this will continue to happen in a competitive contact sport.

Green is a clown, always has, always will be, Pickett has carried out his bump 3 times and each suspension should have warranted an extra week, but the AFL have removed the previous record being taken into account.

Have only just seen this, apologies for the late reply, but ...

Cripps was contesting the ball and never deserved any suspension, nor did Plowman. I never saw the Liam Baker incident, but Peter Wright was another example of a player who decided NOT to contest the ball, he covered up, tucked in and concussed another player.

I think your examples perfectly highlight my point. Genuine ball players would have their incidents graded as "football incidents" and not be held responsible, whilst thugs and (to give players like PW the benefit of the doubt) careless players would be cited.

And by the way, I don't think the AFL tribunal has ever used the principle of precedent. It would prevent them from manipulating their own system as and when required.

 

[Blue Pulse]

I'll agree to disagree with you, "football incidents", a tackle is a football incident, yet plenty of players have been reported and penalised for "football incidents".
In a game of inches and variables, the AFL are trying to be proactive on the concussion front, great, but there will always be collisions in a contact game.
Cripps was let off on a technicality, he was initially suspended.
There used to be precedent of other incidents and a players history, but was removed, as you say, so the AFL could manipulate their system.

We could go all day on this, but it really a pub discussion over a beer or 6

 

[Stamos]

Cripps was let off on a technicality, he was initially suspended.

No, he wasn't let off on a technicality.
He was only suspended initially due to an error of law ie, if the tribunal was conducted correctly he would have been let off in the first place.

“The finding was unreasonable and did not comply with the requirements of procedural fairness,” Kellam said, adding there was “an error of law”.

“We concluded [that the] finding of the jury was unreasonable.”
Kellam also said: “Failure to afford procedural fairness amounts to error of the law. Because we’re unable to identify the evidentiary basis of the finding, ‘the actions of Cripps were in the bumping of an opponent’, we conclude findings of the jury were unreasonable”.

Appeal won: Patrick Cripps in the clear over rough conduct charge

Patrick Cripps has sensationally been cleared to play this weekend after the AFL appeals board overturned Tuesday night’s tribunal decision to ban him for two matches on a rough conduct charge.

www.theage.com.au

The idea that he got off on a technicality was spun by media who couldn't be bothered understanding the ruling, and the AFL trying to spin the appalling conduct of the tribunal.

 

[Blue Pulse]

No, he wasn't let off on a technicality.
He was only suspended initially due to an error of law ie, if the tribunal was conducted correctly he would have been let off in the first place.

Appeal won: Patrick Cripps in the clear over rough conduct charge

Patrick Cripps has sensationally been cleared to play this weekend after the AFL appeals board overturned Tuesday night’s tribunal decision to ban him for two matches on a rough conduct charge.

www.theage.com.au

The idea that he got off on a technicality was spun by media who couldn't be bothered understanding the ruling, and the AFL trying to spin the appalling conduct of the tribunal.

Changes nothing, if it happens again, he's gone as they have now papered over the cracks, same as Maynard.

The debate is over accidental contact and collisions, who they suspend and who they won't, same debate that has been going on for years.

 

[Stamos]

Changes nothing, if it happens again, he's gone as they have now papered over the cracks, same as Maynard.

The debate is over accidental contact and collisions, who they suspend and who they won't, same debate that has been going on for years.

Again, not true.

The AFL spun that they had closed a 'loophole', but Cripps and Maynard would still not be suspended, because they didn't do anything wrong.

If Maynard did the same thing in round one as he did in the qualifying final, he would not be suspended

The AFL has attempted to ensure that in 2024, the tribunal would find a player who committed the same act Brayden Maynard did in last year’s qualifying final would be suspended. But a reading of the tribunal’s judgment from September suggests it has been unsuccessful.

www.theage.com.au

https://archive.md/pNBin

 

[Blue Pulse]

Again, not true.

The AFL spun that they had closed a 'loophole', but Cripps and Maynard would still not be suspended, because they didn't do anything wrong.

If Maynard did the same thing in round one as he did in the qualifying final, he would not be suspended

The AFL has attempted to ensure that in 2024, the tribunal would find a player who committed the same act Brayden Maynard did in last year’s qualifying final would be suspended. But a reading of the tribunal’s judgment from September suggests it has been unsuccessful.

www.theage.com.au

https://archive.md/pNBin

The AFL are on course for a lawsuit from ex AFL players, they will do what ever they can to show they are being proactive to prevent further litigation, therefore they will suspend players for these acts and stand by them for the best interest of the AFL.

 

[Stamos]

The AFL are on course for a lawsuit from ex AFL players, they will do what ever they can to show they are being proactive to prevent further litigation, therefore they will suspend players for these acts and stand by them for the best interest of the AFL.

And if players haven't done anything wrong, they will go to the tribunal and win.
You can't just legislate out all concussions. Accidents happen in a contact sport.