- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #3
-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2025 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
MRP / Trib. 2024 - MRO Chook Lotto - Carlton Tribunal News & Reports
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
4flagsin5yrs
Premiership Player
it's not a precedent...it's just random AFL BS....
they all well know it should never have been a charge....
Just trying to make sure that Christian bonehead doesn't look completely like a f'n idiot.
(though everyone knows he is...)
- Jun 20, 2019
- 4,218
- 14,063
- AFL Club
- Carlton
After reading Blue and Silver's explanation of the phrase "We do not make that finding", it would seem the Tribunal was trying to find a way to say:
Personally, I think Mansell ducked, the MRO was wrong, and Boyd should never have been there. But I can also see how the umpire from his perspective on the ground, in the high speed of the game, thought Boyd got Mansell high. And, in the end, the Tribunal has done the best in a difficult situation.
- we don't want to talk about what Mansell did
- we don't want to throw the MRO (and AFL house) under the bus
- we don't think Boyd should miss a week for that
Personally, I think Mansell ducked, the MRO was wrong, and Boyd should never have been there. But I can also see how the umpire from his perspective on the ground, in the high speed of the game, thought Boyd got Mansell high. And, in the end, the Tribunal has done the best in a difficult situation.
If he had hit Mansell with more force, it would have looked pretty bad. The duck isn’t black and white (even though my cynical self suspects he did). Clearly it was a hard one for Tribunal.
- Aug 22, 2014
- 14,020
- 51,150
- AFL Club
- Carlton
You think the AFL gives two shits about precedent? They change their rules week to week.
In the deliberation rooms, MC has a chat with the panel;
"Group, we've been tasked with helping the umpires out a bit this week, but that doesn't mean we can't have a bit of fun ourselves. Firstly wanna drag this obvious decision out as long as possible. Either Boyd will give up and plead guilty out of a state of boredom of which we then will slap him with 2 weeks, or the extra $2000 an hour in legal costs blow out making clubs think twice about future challenges. I know you've already decided to throw the charges but we're short on cash for our MRO junkett can we tweak that to a fine at least? And whilst we wait, I brought nachos and DVD box set of Friends season 1 for us to watch."
"Group, we've been tasked with helping the umpires out a bit this week, but that doesn't mean we can't have a bit of fun ourselves. Firstly wanna drag this obvious decision out as long as possible. Either Boyd will give up and plead guilty out of a state of boredom of which we then will slap him with 2 weeks, or the extra $2000 an hour in legal costs blow out making clubs think twice about future challenges. I know you've already decided to throw the charges but we're short on cash for our MRO junkett can we tweak that to a fine at least? And whilst we wait, I brought nachos and DVD box set of Friends season 1 for us to watch."
ferrisb
Brownlow Medallist
The result was a compromise, led by optics.
They didn't want to let Boyd off and look like they were OK'ing head-high contact.
But I think they realised that Boyd probably didn't deserve to be suspended either.
Lowering the impact means they can say Boyd did the wrong thing but he doesn't really get punished for it.
Reads like the AFL is covering their arses for future litigation.
They know it's not a reportable offence, but don't want to set a precedent here. Even if the player acts erratically (ducking into an oncoming player), the onus is on the player who elects to bump, not on the player who was bumped.
Queue 3 hours of Laura Kane and her lawyer dummies debating whether they uphold the charge or work out a way to let Boyd off without opening themselves up to litigation.
They probably surmised, reasonably, that the charge would be thrown out on appeal if we went down that path, so they were left with no choice but to change the impact grading to low, despite it flying in the face of their own guidelines and us never contesting that part of the charge.
Happy he's off but there's one hell of a stench coming out of AFL house atm, and this is yet another example.
They know it's not a reportable offence, but don't want to set a precedent here. Even if the player acts erratically (ducking into an oncoming player), the onus is on the player who elects to bump, not on the player who was bumped.
Queue 3 hours of Laura Kane and her lawyer dummies debating whether they uphold the charge or work out a way to let Boyd off without opening themselves up to litigation.
They probably surmised, reasonably, that the charge would be thrown out on appeal if we went down that path, so they were left with no choice but to change the impact grading to low, despite it flying in the face of their own guidelines and us never contesting that part of the charge.
Happy he's off but there's one hell of a stench coming out of AFL house atm, and this is yet another example.
This
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,704
- 23,125
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
Think this was the only outcome. Was never getting off the charge, but the grading of medium impact was erroneous.
You can't have a system that automatically grades head contact as medium based on the potential for injury. It leaves you open to a boat load of appeals and makes you look bad when they inevitably get downgraded.
Regardless of whether Mansell contributed to the vulnerability of his position (he did), Boyd came in with a poor technique and was looking to bump instead of tackle.
A fine is the right outcome.
You can't have a system that automatically grades head contact as medium based on the potential for injury. It leaves you open to a boat load of appeals and makes you look bad when they inevitably get downgraded.
Regardless of whether Mansell contributed to the vulnerability of his position (he did), Boyd came in with a poor technique and was looking to bump instead of tackle.
A fine is the right outcome.
Geez, this system is a mess at the moment. A lot of things getting dropped/downgraded at Tribunal.
I'm glad Boyd got off, but the whole thing is a huge mess.
I'm glad Boyd got off, but the whole thing is a huge mess.
He came in front-on, and had his arms down and in front of him.
Since when is that a position to bump?
Jatz
Jatzosaurus Rex
- Sep 7, 2008
- 58,454
- 41,852
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Philadelphia Eagles
The MRO needs a review.
Surely if they're getting that many charges dropped, they don't have a great handle on what they're actually doing.
Beyond Blue
Premiership Player
- Jun 25, 2021
- 3,181
- 10,143
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Just another football commentator who lets his bias compromise his analysis. He will
say he has always been very strong in the head high contact…except of course the time
when 2 metre Peter knocked Harry Cunningham into the Ladies pavilion of the SCG…and then we got the “what else could he do” defense.
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,704
- 23,125
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melb Tigers, Bendigo Braves, Aussie NBA
Looked like he was shaping to bump to me.
No he wasn’t looking to bump, that’s rubbish. You don’t bump someone yourself when you are front on and completely open to injury yourself.
If, as Boyd expected, Mansell continued to stand up instead of going back down Boyd most likely would have tackled him or pushed him out of bounds.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #991
4flagsin5yrs
Premiership Player
it was never medium impact.
Couldn't agree more with all of that
If you break the whole thing down, the one incident lead to a perfect cluster**** of outcomes.
It's no wonder that the deliberation took so long trying to unravel the whole thing. We can safely assume that there was an open line to AFL House, and the 3 hours deliberating wasn't just about the action of Boyd. The AFL are way more concerned about potential litigation down the track rather than whether justice has been served.
And when you throw in that there was no injury or concussion as an outcome, no bump or head knock....and there was contributory negligence when other player ducked his head - which the AFL of course are trying to outlaw - it all just became a dog's breakfast.
Either way, stick it up your blurter Slobbo...although I'm sure you'll be ranting and raving and throwing your arms around on 360 tonight about the decision in your usual drunken nuffery.
I reckon Mansell ducked but also Boyd got caught in no man’s land and shaped to bump. Probably got confused and thought wtf is he doing leading with his head.. I feel like the onus should be on the ball carrier a little to not lead with their head..it’s apparent players are doing it more now for a free kick
Think this is a good summary of why the tribunal handed down its finding … with an exception.
I’d argue there’s no way tribunal members would be consulting with Kane - or any other AFL employee - during a deliberation. The lack of an independent relationship gives rise to this suggestion, but clubs would not stand for that kind of incursion into the process.
Because it wasn’t the AFL who gave the penalty, it was the “Independent” tribunal.
The AFL will just say we wanted it to be a suspension, it wasn’t us. Find someone else to sue, it’s not the AFL who’s negligent
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
- Nov 27, 2016
- 18,684
- 36,401
- AFL Club
- Carlton
It's the next one. Not the Mansell/Boyd case. If this one gets thrown out, then the next time there is a similar incident, the injured player could sue, stating the AFL didn't do enough to stop it happening, i.e. suspend Boyd on the previous occasion.
On SM-F946B using BigFooty.com mobile app
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #999
Yeah, not a bump as such. More like a closing down of space so he goes out of bounds. Sort of a physical imposition if you like. It turned into awkward contact because Mansell tried to extricate himself from the position he was in and continue to attack, which is absolutely his right and job to do so. So the tribunal have said that Boyd should have reasonably foreseen every possible action Mansell might have taken. That's more of an onus on the defender type situation.
I can see why they don't want to set a precedent either way, but it kinds of still does allow for both players' actions to continue into the future.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #1,000
Similar threads
- Locked
