AFL Player #27: Mason Redman 🐕

Remove this Banner Ad

How can they trot out "potential to cause injury" after letting Franklin off with a swinging elbow to the head?

Gleeson trotted it out then as well*, and Gleeson and the MRO didn't let Franklin off, the tribunal did. In the end, there's nothing special about what's happened here. Christian has again tried to make a stand at the MRO, and been knocked back because his stand is inconsistent with what he's been doing for the rest of the season. I don't see how Christian can serve next season, he's taken a beating this season. I can't be bothered to find the numbers, but I reckon he would have had more judgements over-ruled this season than in like all of 2013 to 2018 combined, and cases like tonight and Buddy were so clearly going to be over-ruled. Time to go back to the MRP

(*"Mr Gleeson argued that strikes with a forearm or elbow were not typically graded as low impact under the Tribunal Guidelines, regardless of any injury sustained, due to the risk of serious injury.


"It was good luck and not good management that there wasn't an injury to the player (Ryan)," he said.
)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Despite every denial, there is an undoubting bias to his decision making. He sometimes hides behind the definition of the law but other times allows his deep bias to influence decisions made.

Be it the system he operates in, or the fact he is the only person to make these decisions, the current set up is an utter fail. In fact its never been worse. Michael Christianson is like it or not, central to the worst ever department to ever exist in AFL history.

Im not sure I should hate the guy because of the system he has to operate in, or because he has put his hand up to operate in such a dysfunctional system. I think because he continues to operate within such a biased system I dislike the guy.
 
I nominate Dustin Fletcher to be the next Match Review Officer.
 
Has anyone in the media posted that footage of th seemingly legal tackle on Merrett yet?
They talked about it on The Couch tonight and Lyon said how can they book Redman and not Smith. Others agreed
 
How can they trot out "potential to cause injury" after letting Franklin off with a swinging elbow to the head?
Excuse for the intrusion but how about Selwood running through a bloke with no intention of the ball. Serious "potential to cause injury". I don't care who is making the potential to cause injury statement , whether its the judge , jury, MRO, barrister, solicitor , tea lady, whoever they ALL need to be on the same friggin page.
 
Last edited:
Christ, I would get Barry Hall or David Rhys-Jones to do it given the way things are.
I like that idea, they know all the excuses, because they've used them all.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

"Jeff Gleeson, for the AFL, said the potential to cause injury from the tackle was significant because it could have caused a neck or spinal injury."

So HTF was his charge -medium impact- when it didn't happen?? Do they charge players now when they fly for a mark and knee someone in the back of the head as careless now? or pushing someone into a goal post (Hind). I could go on and on about this CLOWN Gleeson And Co
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_6.jpg
    Screenshot_6.jpg
    235.1 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:
Excuse for the intrusion but how about Selwood running through a bloke with no intention of the ball. Serious "potential to cause injury". I don't care who is making the potential to cause injury statement , whether its the judge , jury, MRO, barrister, solicitor , tea lady, whoever they ALL need to be on the same friggin page.

20210810_194412.jpg
 
That’s not building a case, it’s cheerleading one of the AFL choir boys.


I'm continually struck by how inappropriate it is for Gleeson to be speaking for the AFL spouting whatever drivel he can think of to support a suspension. No matter how inconsistent it is with the last thing he said.

It's not really consistent what happens in real life. Many of the government bodies which are consistently involved in litigation sign up to model litigant rules. The idea is to prevent immoral/unethical/objectionable/inconsistent/stupid positions being taken in the name of the government. The extent to which the model litigant rule have a practical effect is probably questionable but it's at least a recognition of a pretty important concept.

This is the wrong way for the AFL to make rules.
 
I'm continually struck by how inappropriate it is for Gleeson to be speaking for the AFL spouting whatever drivel he can think of to support a suspension. No matter how inconsistent it is with the last thing he said.

It's not really consistent what happens in real life. Many of the government bodies which are consistently involved in litigation sign up to model litigant rules. The idea is to prevent immoral/unethical/objectionable/inconsistent/stupid positions being taken in the name of the government. The extent to which the model litigant rule have a practical effect is probably questionable but it's at least a recognition of a pretty important concept.

This is the wrong way for the AFL to make rules.
I don't think they care haha

The rules are there to serve the AFL, not the other way around. They have their own investigative branch, they are judge, jury, executioner and lawmaker. If the rules no longer serve the needs of the AFL then they're ignored.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL Player #27: Mason Redman 🐕

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top