MRP / Trib. 2024 MRP Lotto thread II

[leighlee13]

They pinged may for staging

Good. Not a great look for May or the game in general.

 

[Carlos Herrrnandez]

God what I would give to hear the umpire audio when May staged. The call was just so late, imagine if it was because the ump on the field thought there was nothing in it but the guy giving 'encouragement' from the sidelines said it was a dangerous tackle.

I feel this is 1000000000000% what happened.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

God what I would give to hear the umpire audio when May staged. The call was just so late, imagine if it was because the ump on the field thought there was nothing in it but the guy giving 'encouragement' from the sidelines said it was a dangerous tackle.

That's a very good point. No doubt the recordings have already been erased.

 

[muttley45]

Just like Butters, i reckon Dangerfield is an absolute monty to get off at the tribunal tomorrow, because reasons.........

 

[Samsquanch]

Just like Butters, i reckon Dangerfield is an absolute monty to get off at the tribunal tomorrow, because reasons.........

Seriously, you wouldn't want an ornament to the game to be suspended for that would you? It's not as though he piledrove a decent player or anything bad like that.

 

[Devington]

One of the articles covering the May incident, about Lethal and Tom Morris arguing over it, said the umpire quickly blew the whistle.

????

 

[giantroo]

Dangerfield has been cleared.

Tribunal reasons:

Dangerfield pinned both of Walsh's arms and the forward momentum of both players contributed to Walsh's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Dangerfield conceded that he did not release either arm throughout the tackle, and that he could’ve done so.

The pinned arms placed Walsh in a vulnerable position with little, if any, opportunity to protect himself from having his head hit the ground.

It will be a rare, even exceptional case where a player who tackles with significant forward motion, who pins both arms and who could have but does not release one or both arms will not have engaged in rough conduct. This is such a case.

Although not immediately apparent and not truly apparent until all angles and vision and still shots had been carefully considered, the evidence is clear here Dangerfield immediately swung his legs beside and forward of Walsh, and pulled back with considerable force to attempt to prevent Walsh being driven into the ground.

Vision shows Dangerfield managed to pull him back so that at one point Walsh's torso was almost vertical.

Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.

The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so.

From the considerable care that Dangerfield went to in a short space of time in a fast moving piece of play to do what he could to avoid or minimise injury to his fellow player, we find that this was not rough conduct.

 

[Merlin007]

One of the articles covering the May incident, about Lethal and Tom Morris arguing over it, said the umpire quickly blew the whistle.

????

quickly blew the whistle after May feigned a brain injury

 

[Hojuman]

Of course Danger gets off. Joe Bloggs from Freo gets 2 weeks.
One rule for some, one for another.
( see Cotchin, Cripps etc. )

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Dangerfield has been cleared.

Tribunal reasons:

Dangerfield pinned both of Walsh's arms and the forward momentum of both players contributed to Walsh's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Dangerfield conceded that he did not release either arm throughout the tackle, and that he could’ve done so.

The pinned arms placed Walsh in a vulnerable position with little, if any, opportunity to protect himself from having his head hit the ground.

It will be a rare, even exceptional case where a player who tackles with significant forward motion, who pins both arms and who could have but does not release one or both arms will not have engaged in rough conduct. This is such a case.

Although not immediately apparent and not truly apparent until all angles and vision and still shots had been carefully considered, the evidence is clear here Dangerfield immediately swung his legs beside and forward of Walsh, and pulled back with considerable force to attempt to prevent Walsh being driven into the ground.

Vision shows Dangerfield managed to pull him back so that at one point Walsh's torso was almost vertical.

Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.

The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so.

From the considerable care that Dangerfield went to in a short space of time in a fast moving piece of play to do what he could to avoid or minimise injury to his fellow player, we find that this was not rough conduct.

I'm comfortable with that, although I'm assuming many will be screaming 'special treatment for Danger'.

 

[Samsquanch]

Dangerfield has been cleared.

Tribunal reasons:

Dangerfield pinned both of Walsh's arms and the forward momentum of both players contributed to Walsh's head making forceful contact with the ground.

Dangerfield conceded that he did not release either arm throughout the tackle, and that he could’ve done so.

The pinned arms placed Walsh in a vulnerable position with little, if any, opportunity to protect himself from having his head hit the ground.

It will be a rare, even exceptional case where a player who tackles with significant forward motion, who pins both arms and who could have but does not release one or both arms will not have engaged in rough conduct. This is such a case.

Although not immediately apparent and not truly apparent until all angles and vision and still shots had been carefully considered, the evidence is clear here Dangerfield immediately swung his legs beside and forward of Walsh, and pulled back with considerable force to attempt to prevent Walsh being driven into the ground.

Vision shows Dangerfield managed to pull him back so that at one point Walsh's torso was almost vertical.

Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.

The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so.

From the considerable care that Dangerfield went to in a short space of time in a fast moving piece of play to do what he could to avoid or minimise injury to his fellow player, we find that this was not rough conduct.

Champions like Mr Dangerfield should not be subjugated to the scurrilous treatment of having to defend himself from suspension. He is an ornament to the game and ought to be above the need for MRO or tribunal imposed penalties, especially when tackling or striking ordinary players such as Sam Walsh or others who've not been elevated to the revered position of "Untouchable" in the Australian Football Entertainment Federation.

 

[Devington]

I don't like the decision. He had both arms pinned, took him to ground, and he hit his head hard. One aspect of his action was taken, supposedly to minimize or avoid injury. What about the obvious actions that were taken that contributed to it though?

"Would it have been reasonably possible for Dangerfield to release one or both of Walsh's arms? Yes it would, but that's not the test.

The question is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances not to do so."

Of course it's unreasonable in this era. If you're taking a guy violently to ground with both of his arms pinned then he can't protect himself AT ALL.

 

[giantroo]

Commentary has been a ripper but this takes the cake:

 

[Mute Point]

Heeney should get a week for the backhander resulting in a busted nose but I'm sure the AFL will find a way to make it a fine

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[giantroo]

 

[Only Forwards]

View attachment 2041820

so it’ll probably get graded:

Intentional
High contact
Low impact
1 week

If they have the stones to do it it would be
Intentional
High contact
Medium

Which would be 2 weeks.

 

[JGreezy]

so it’ll probably get graded:

Intentional
High contact
Low impact
1 week

If they have the stones to do it it would be
Intentional
High contact
Medium

Which would be 2 weeks.

I think reckless, high and medium

It has to be medium for head contact but they'll argue that he was aiming to hit him in the chest or something

 

[Sillygit]

View attachment 2041820

"will usually" is gunna do some Atlas level lifting to get Heeney a fine.

 

[LB2Snake]

"will usually" is gunna do some Atlas level lifting to get Heeney a fine.

Yup. “Will usually” depend on the club

 

[Ashley B]

No way he will be suspended will be shocked.

 

[Roo202]

"will usually" is gunna do some Atlas level lifting to get Heeney a fine.

*unless it's the swans

 

[RHLK]

Surely the good bloke discount won't even be needed. Fecking Sydney.

 

[Nylex]

Websters head was at waist level… not sure if he lost his footing?.. contact was meant to be intentionally low, but got him recklessly/ carelessly high.
Careless, high contact, medium impact= 1 week