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

[Aphrodite]

 

[Jatz]

Put it this way, had Rankine knocked himself out instead and Starcevich was fine, would he have still got 4 weeks? The headclash still would've been there...

 

[BlueJet]

Put it this way, had Rankine knocked himself out instead and Starcevich was fine, would he have still got 4 weeks? The headclash still would've been there...

I don't disagree because you're viewing this similarly to how I viewed the Parker incident.
Whether right or wrong, their approach seems to be that if you bump & your opponent goes off concussed, be that via head clash or shoulder contact to the head, you will be held accountable.

 

[Stamos]

I think there's a clear difference though.

If you bump and your shoulder collides with the head, 4 weeks minimum. I get it.

If you bump and your shoulder hits them in the stomach...I get there's a headclash. He deserves the week or two. 4 weeks is excessive to me.

There's no difference though. They are the same.
Rankine chose to bump (off the ball) and concussed the player.

It's not even in the unlucky realm that Parker was.

 

[Jatz]

There's no difference though. They are the same.
Rankine chose to bump (off the ball) and concussed the player.

It's not even in the unlucky realm that Parker was.

I understand your point, I absolutely disagree though. We may as well outlaw the bump completely. He's hit him in the midriff and been unlucky with a headclash. That's miles different to a player that's bumped someone directly to the head.

What do you do with my hypothetical above - Rankine gets knocked out rather than Starcevich. You still expecting Rankine would get 4 weeks?

 

[Stamos]

I don't disagree because you're viewing this similarly to how I viewed the Parker incident.
Whether right or wrong, their approach seems to be that if you bump & your opponent goes off concussed, be that via head clash or shoulder contact to the head, you will be held accountable.

Parker was stiff.
Slowed down, was providing a block, planted his feet, whiplash caused the high contact.
That's not to say that he should necessarily have gotten off, but he was genuinely unlcuky.

Rankine has jumped, was off the ball, the top of his head connected with Starcevich's chin. Clear cut case of what not to do.

 

[Stamos]

I understand your point, I absolutely disagree though. We may as well outlaw the bump completely. He's hit him in the midriff and been unlucky with a headclash. That's miles different to a player that's bumped someone directly to the head.

What do you do with my hypothetical above - Rankine gets knocked out rather than Starcevich. You still expecting Rankine would get 4 weeks?

Outlaw the bump? He was off the ball.

And he jumped.
If he planted his feet, then he is unlikely to flush Starcevich on the chin.
It's not a head clash in terms of 2 heads unluckily bumping into each other in a shoulder-to-shoulder bump, Rankine's head went straight into the chin.

 

[blues4flag]

I understand your point, I absolutely disagree though. We may as well outlaw the bump completely. He's hit him in the midriff and been unlucky with a headclash. That's miles different to a player that's bumped someone directly to the head.

What do you do with my hypothetical above - Rankine gets knocked out rather than Starcevich. You still expecting Rankine would get 4 weeks?

Another hypothetical - if Rankine had collected Starcevich on the chest and broken his rib, would you have been okay with that?

The ball was dead, umpire moving in to bounce the ball, Starcevich moving back to position not expecting any contact. Not sure that players are fair game to be lined up in that scenario.

If it was in play, I'd agree with 2 weeks. But given the circumstances, he elected to hurt and intimidate Starcevich, and ended up confusing him when the ball was dead. Very comfortable with 4.

 

[Jatz]

Outlaw the bump? He was off the ball.

And he jumped.
If he planted his feet, then he is unlikely to flush Starcevich on the chin.
It's not a head clash in terms of 2 heads unluckily bumping into each other in a shoulder-to-shoulder bump, Rankine's head went straight into the chin.

He jumped but the contact was still at his belly button.

It's absolutely unlucky the two heads collided. That clearly wasn't the intention, even if it was the result.

I'll leave it there, we have a fundamental disagreement on this one.

 

[Jatz]

Another hypothetical - if Rankine had collected Starcevich on the chest and broken his rib, would you have been okay with that?

The ball was dead, umpire moving in to bounce the ball, Starcevich moving back to position not expecting any contact. Not sure that players are fair game to be lined up in that scenario.

If it was in play, I'd agree with 2 weeks. But given the circumstances, he elected to hurt and intimidate Starcevich, and ended up confusing him when the ball was dead. Very comfortable with 4.

Yes. Contact when the ball is dead happens a million times a game. Had he only made contact with the body, I don't see an issue with it at all.

Having a system that penalises players more based on the outcome, rather than the action, is a very slippery slope. I have never agreed with using that kind of system.

 

[Aphrodite]

Swans heading to the AFL Appeals Board to appeal Heeney's 1 match ban

 

[Stamos]

He jumped but the contact was still at his belly button.

It's absolutely unlucky the two heads collided. That clearly wasn't the intention, even if it was the result.

Initial contact was to the stomach/chest area, AND his chin.
Rankine's arm (shoulder to elbow) and head make contact at the same time.
It was part of a separate motion, or a whiplash effect.

 

[Stamos]

Having a system that penalises players more based on the outcome, rather than the action, is a very slippery slope. I have never agreed with using that kind of system.

This I absolutely agree with.
But it doesn't apply to the Rankine case, he gave Starcevich concussion off the ball, with a deliberate action.

 

[Bletch]

Swans heading to the AFL Appeals Board to appeal Heeney's 1 match ban

Wonder what grounds they're using? Hard to see how any of the the last 3 could be argued, so guessing it will be an "error of law" appeal, similar to Cripps.

 

[heardofhubris]

Watching Rankine at work makes me think twice about Hungry Jacks. Angry Jacks more like. I think Izak deserved a whopper of a suspension for what it's worth...

 

[Graffy4242]

Wonder what grounds they're using? Hard to see how any of the the last 3 could be argued, so guessing it will be an "error of law" appeal, similar to Cripps.

Maybe the Charlie Cameron "I'm a good bloke" defence????

 

[ajb72]

You concuss someone in a non-football activity, it has to be a minimum 3 week penalty.

The concussed party misses the remainder of the current game (not to mention the impacted team is now down 1 player), plus a minimum of 1 game due to mandatory concussion protocols. Since the impacted player misses the best part of 2 games - and thats based upon no longer term ramifications - there has to be a penalty on top.

So there is no way it can be a 1-2 week penalty - it just wouldnt be fair really.

You choose to bump - you make head contact - you miss a game or two.
You choose to bump - you make head contact and cause concussion - you miss 3 or 4.

 

[Neese]

Tbh I am more pissed off about Greene getting off with a fine and his lack of ****s for Kemp with that comment.

 

[Bongo Drum]

Maybe the Charlie Cameron "I'm a good bloke" defence????

they already tried that last night and it was rejected

 

[Opium]

Swans heading to the AFL Appeals Board to appeal Heeney's 1 match ban

So they should. No way was that worthy of a suspension. The AFL are incompetent

 

[Jatz]

This I absolutely agree with.
But it doesn't apply to the Rankine case, he gave Starcevich concussion off the ball, with a deliberate action.

So if there was a head clash but both players were fine to play on you'd still be giving him 4 weeks?

 

[Stamos]

So if there was a head clash but both players were fine to play on you'd still be giving him 4 weeks?

You realise that impact forms a significant part of the determination of a charge, and therefore the penalty, right?

 

[Jatz]

You realise that impact forms a significant part of the determination of a charge, and therefore the penalty, right?

Having a system that penalises players more based on the outcome, rather than the action, is a very slippery slope. I have never agreed with using that kind of system.

This I absolutely agree with.

So you said you agree that the outcome shouldn't make a difference and yet you're now saying that you'd have a different suspension because there was a concussion.

You're flip flopping on this.

 

[Jatz]

I'll be staggered if the Swans get this overturned from here.

How could anyone successfully argue that a 1 week suspension is "manifestly excessive"?

 

[Stamos]

So you said you agree that the outcome shouldn't make a difference and yet you're now saying that you'd have a different suspension because there was a concussion.

You're flip flopping on this.

No, I'm not.

The AFL has constantly had an outcome based system to punish (or try to punish) football incidents, which is wrong. The best example of this was against Cripps in 2022.
They should have had a much greater emphasis on punishing bad/dangerous actions (ie Pickett on Smith).

What Rankine did, an off the ball high bump, was worthy of a suspension without Starcevich being concussed. Precedent this year shows that since he was concussed, it is a clear 4 weeks.

 

[BigFrizz36]

I'll be staggered if the Swans get this overturned from here.

How could anyone successfully argue that a 1 week suspension is "manifestly excessive"?

Could be as much "we'll try everything to try and get you off Isaac " more than a genuine belief that they can get him off maybe.