MRP / Trib. AFL Round 20 charges - Steve Johnson cleared of misconduct for kneeing Scott Thompson

[MC Extra Dollop]

One of my (many) gripes with the system is that if you are going to use outcomes (i.e. the extent of injury) as a proxy for force - which they do - you have to apply that when there is no injury to conclude that there is insufficient force. It has to go both ways to be a fair system.

The issue with that though, is that there would also be follow-ups after the game, whether there's bruising/soreness in the area of contact. That's not an injury, but it's not insufficient either.

Generally my rule of thumb for impact (without taking into account post-game check-ups, which we really can't know about) is:

Dazed/winded/floored for a few moments, gets back up and continues on with the game: Low
Taken from the ground to be assessed/sticthed etc., comes back maybe 10 minutes later and plays out the game: Medium
Player takes no further part in the game (or wouldn't have, if it's an incident close to the final siren and the same incident had occurred earlier in the game): High
Player takes no further part in that game and is likely/certain to miss subsequent games: Severe

Now, the MRP does some creative book keeping there at times, when it's in its interests to let a case through to the keeper, but I don't think that's too far off. And I think that's about how the four different levels should be graded, too.

 

[dazbroncos]

Sam Mitchell elbows T Hunt in the throat. Reckless, high contact. Takes Taylor to the ground. Gets a free kick. Warning from umpires.

Let go.

I fail to see the difference overall between the 2. The system just simply does not work.

GO Catters

 

[Hoffy95]

The meltdown on here will be just about beyond belief when this (probably) fails.

I don't think anyone here will carry on at all.

We know how it works, we know we rarely have any chance of success, so we go in with no expectations and as a result we can never be let down, just surprised if we have a win.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

The meltdown on here will be just about beyond belief when this (probably) fails.

The only possible argument for me (that could actually work with the panel) would be 'insufficient force'. Which I think the MRP will suggest they have already considered and adjudicated upon. I don't accept that the MRP haven't covered off with some sort of statement from the Kangas doctor about Thompson's condition after the incident.

Even if the panel accept that Thompson focrced SJ to overbalance, I think they will probably suggest that he could have fallen onto Thompson without
leading with his knees.

And as soon as they establish that he had a reasonable alternative, I think our case collapses.

Will be delighted to be proven wrong, of course. Because the MRP (and appeals process) is Chooklotto at its finest.

So I would imagine the only thing of which we can be certain is this...

SJ will most probably learn absolutely nothing about how he needs to measure his behaviour on the field as a result of this latest incident.

Which is actually the most infuriating part of all of this for me.

The meltdown from the media would be significant as well. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if we took another swing at it to the appeals board. Ultimately, if they have a good crack, present a good case, it fails and Johnson gets two weeks, I can accept that. What I'd find hard to accept is our club collectively sticking out its bottom lip, while simultaneously accepting the decision. If you feel it's blatantly wrong, challenge. The reward far outweighs the risk, in my opinion.

 

[SpryCorpse]

Chris Scott on the radio just now putting a bit of psychological pressure on the tribunal mentioning the critical nature of these two upcoming games and the risk Geelong is taking with this move over Johnson's 'inconsequential' action.

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

The meltdown from the media would be significant as well. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if we took another swing at it to the appeals board. Ultimately, if they have a good crack, present a good case, it fails and Johnson gets two weeks, I can accept that. What I'd find hard to accept is our club collectively sticking out its bottom lip, while simultaneously accepting the decision. If you feel it's blatantly wrong, challenge. The reward far outweighs the risk, in my opinion.

Agreed. I think in this case the gamble is worth it, given we play Carlton next week who, if we want to consider ourselves serious contenders, shouldn't pose too much trouble, even without SJ. Had we not had the Carlton game, and instead played Fremantle then Hawthorn over the next two weeks, I would have probably erred on the side of caution and accepted the one week.

In any case, great to see the club challenge. "Insufficient force" is such an arbitrary term, but if the force used by Johnson is deemed to be reportable, then I think it's almost time I gave this game away.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Oh, right. As I hadn't read the previous 15 pages, I was lacking context.

To answer your question, I believe that you should be either guilty, or not guilty of something and you should only serve time on the infringement which you're guilty of. If you do something which doesn't warrant a week off, then just move on. Activation points etc. just make it messy, whilst serving penalties in a non-linear fashion.

it's a bit like a suspended sentence in a way, if you commit a post plea offence that carries 350 points... only 300 of those points earns a 3 match ban and the left over 50 points is 'suspended' which won't matter if you don't do anything else wrong... as they are there to deter you from crossing that line again!.

I actually agree with the carry over points system, imo it's probably the most functional part of the MRP... if you have never done anything wrong you have no issue.... repeat offenders like SJ, and Ballantyne for that matter... would have no incentive to modify their conduct if the carry over points and loadings weren't there.

They could just continue to play recklessly and do stupid things knowing there is no deterrant.

 

[Catweazel]

for heavens sake...surely he wont get two weeks he'll get off

 

[Pollywaffle]

The thing about all this stuff is that is mainly retaliatory. Even the 2 Richmond player brainfades, however 'cowardly' they may have been ,were retaliatory. We need to get more serious about all this 'off the ball' niggling and nip it at the bud- early. It is not good for the game.
I can imagine a lot of today's soft 'kiddie centric' parents watching all this stuff and sending their kids to play roundball games instead.
I watched a junior league game the other day, and watching young teenagers niggling each other and emulating what they see on the TV was disturbing. If it is nipped early then the chance of later brainfades is minimised, and we get back to playing the ball and enjoying the most skillful game on the planet.
added bonus: also shuts up apologist, so called, commentators like BT, luke Darcy, Dermott Brereton,Lee Matthews etc who excuse a lot of these incidents by calling it 'love' taps, 'Jumper punches' etc etc. )

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Happy to hear they're contesting this ludicrous decision.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Agreed. I think in this case the gamble is worth it, given we play Carlton next week who, if we want to consider ourselves serious contenders, shouldn't pose too much trouble, even without SJ. Had we not had the Carlton game, and instead played Fremantle then Hawthorn over the next two weeks, I would have probably erred on the side of caution and accepted the one week.

In any case, great to see the club challenge. "Insufficient force" is such an arbitrary term, but if the force used by Johnson is deemed to be reportable, then I think it's almost time I gave this game away.

I'm hopeful/confident that the 'extra time' request was to contact North, considering the close ties between the coaches, Thompson and Geelong and the clubs in general (doing preseason sessions/scratch matches together etc.). I think there's reason to be upbeat here.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Boy…..some holier than thou's on this board these days. Looks like the handbags have passed from the Geelong players to some of the supporters on this board. The call to sack Johnson for his indiscretions takes the cake. What absolute nonsense.

No way in the world he should be cited for that in my humble opinion. The umpire was 3 feet away and didn't think it worthy of further action.

A harder hit from a dead Nana was the best quote I read.

As for his record, there are a few very soft suspensions, the one for elbowing Baker was justified, but SJ should have hit him harder, the off-the-ball bump v Hawthorn hardly deserved sanction, and happens multiple times every week, and the gut punch to Ballantyne was repeated just last weekend on SJ himself, with no mention of sanction for the perpetrator. Johnson cops plenty out there every week….yes it upsets team balance, yes it doesn't help cohesion and yes he's a champion and we need him on the park. But sometimes a player like SJ needs to draw a line, and some of his suspensions in the past have been just that.The action by SJ against Nathan Brown was poor admittedly, but I don't subscribe to the accusation that he's a cheap shot merchant. Conca?….that was a cheap shot….SJ on Thompson was a negligible action in a contact sport. Geelong should appeal.

Maybe I'm old school, but this is senior football, and the game has been sanitized enough without pissy citings like this.

Great post, DtC! Just looking at that list of SJ's charges- he's been found guilty of "attempted striking"....FFS!!! They'd be 20 of those PER GAME if the MRP chose to look. Yeah, it was back in 2009 but it's still in the rules, should they wish to exercise them.

The AFL/MRP/Tribunal are similar to a secret men's club- like the Freemasons. They probably even have a special Secret Handshake. Everything is done according to their rules- which are fluid and ever-changing ("tweaked" as needed). There is absolutely NO consistency in their application of their rules, whether it be within games or between games, with the umpiring, or after games with the MRP or Tribunal- both in which players are being cited for which actions and which players are being penalised (or not) for these actions.

Players and Clubs are not allowed to openly criticise any actions or decisions emanating from Headquarters, for fear of undermining the system. However, if the system was more open and accountable, there probably would be no need to question decisions.

Stevie J is not what I would call a "dirty" player. Yes, he HAS pushed, shoved, whacked, shoved a knee in, etc. but I would argue that MOST of his actions are retaliatory and, if it was any other player (yes- I believe he is being victimised), the MRP would either not cite him for the actions or they'd let him off with their catch-all "insufficient force" ruling. And I'm sure that if I started a thread about all the MRP rulings of insufficient force that our posters strongly disagreed with, we'd fill 20 pages in the one day. Likewise a thread on incidents that weren't cited but should have been.

Regarding SJ's retaliatory whacks, etc- if the umpires were umpiring the game properly- and don't we have one umpire behind the play and one in front who are MEANT to be looking our for these incidents??- if they were umpiring properly, they'd be handing out a few quick and early free kicks to players a la the 2nd quarter vs North Melbourne and the instigators of the incidents would quickly pull their head in.

When we played Freo last time, I understand that there was a camera focused entirely on Crowley and Johnson. Strangely, despite all the hype and interest in this match up, we never saw any footage of the off the ball incidents. And, judging by Crowleys attitude when SJ went to shake his hand at the end of the game, there were plenty.

Why do the Foxtel/Ch 7 cameras show some incidents over and over and over- from 10 different angles (maybe they should be the ones in charge of camera angles used in score reviews?) but, strangely, other incidents are never re-shown or supposedly not even captured by the cameras apart from via dodgy camera #785, which was set up outside the park and obscured by 6 players in front of the incident. I found it very difficult to find footage of Max Bailey vs Blicavs last year when Blicavs came off the ground holding his jaw after an off the ball incident. Everyone saw him holding his jaw but nobody knew what had happened. And the Sam Mitchell throat chop which sent Taylor Hunt to the ground- funnily enough, the MRP never found footage of either of these incidents.

Do the AFL have their own agenda- and manipulate things via the MRP/umpires/Tribunal- or is this a fair and open system in which everyone and their actions are accountable?

 

[dazbroncos]

He'll get the 2 weeks now for sure.

At least he won't get suspended while playing Freo giving them the satisfaction.

And we can now bring in Bews to go with the little pissant

GO Catters

 

[Jimbos1]

How did Merrett get off..

 

[catempire]

The issue with that though, is that there would also be follow-ups after the game, whether there's bruising/soreness in the area of contact. That's not an injury, but it's not insufficient either.

Generally my rule of thumb for impact (without taking into account post-game check-ups, which we really can't know about) is:

Dazed/winded/floored for a few moments, gets back up and continues on with the game: Low
Taken from the ground to be assessed/sticthed etc., comes back maybe 10 minutes later and plays out the game: Medium
Player takes no further part in the game (or wouldn't have, if it's an incident close to the final siren and the same incident had occurred earlier in the game): High
Player takes no further part in that game and is likely/certain to miss subsequent games: Severe

Now, the MRP does some creative book keeping there at times, when it's in its interests to let a case through to the keeper, but I don't think that's too far off. And I think that's about how the four different levels should be graded, too.

Where does insufficient force fit into your taxonomy? How do you judge it if not by the absence of any meaningful effect on the player subjected to the alleged conduct? I was using the term 'injury' loosely. I mean it to include bruising/soreness etc.

 

[DV2000]

Bull - Ballas or Crowley would get pinged for that so let him miss. I hope he gets the 2, they lose both and we stay a game clear on the ladder. Peace and love Cats fans.

If it' some likes that you're after mate, I can tell you that that isn't the best way to go about it.

 

[Teriyakicat]

The contact area for a knee and a fist after wrist deflection is more in the vicinity of 125% to 150% of fist size, regarding elbows you are bang on though.

The Merrett incident was all about eyes on the ball, arguing about timing of the contest.

We saw Billie Smedts, eyes on the ball, get done for a low impact late spoil to the side of the head. Could've been insufficient force, eyes on the ball, clumsy spoil- but it wasn't. I'm only bringing up one example in which the MRP have booked a player for a similar offence- but it happens every game. Some they book, some they don't. It's the inconsistency that shits me more than anything else.

 

[rooie]

cant believe we are contesting! not saying we shouldnt, but i think the headbut earlier in the year was even more of a bullshit report than this one. talk about insufficient force!

 

[Teriyakicat]

Where does insufficient force fit into your taxonomy? How do you judge it if not by the absence of any meaningful effect on the player subjected to the alleged conduct? I was using the term 'injury' loosely. I mean it to include bruising/soreness etc.

And how does the medical staff look at a bruise after a game and pinpoint the exact stage of the game that the bruise was sustained? These boys are always colliding during games - I would bet that, by the end of the game, unless they had a particularly heavy impact at one stage, they wouldn't have a clue where they sustained any of their bruises. And they probably wouldn't care, either.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Thank you so much DV, the wonderfully talented Bobby_ made it for me

It's VERY bright. No wonder you get migraines

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Where does insufficient force fit into your taxonomy? How do you judge it if not by the absence of any meaningful effect on the player subjected to the alleged conduct? I was using the term 'injury' loosely. I mean it to include bruising/soreness etc.

A glancing blow that the player brushes off pretty much instantly (within a couple of seconds or less).

 

[Teriyakicat]

smelt like it !!

Sure it wasn't an armpit??

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

And how does the medical staff look at a bruise after a game and pinpoint the exact stage of the game that the bruise was sustained? These boys are always colliding during games - I would bet that, by the end of the game, unless they had a particularly heavy impact at one stage, they wouldn't have a clue where they sustained any of their bruises. And they probably wouldn't care, either.

If it was an incident that was worthy of consideration by the MRP, the player would remember.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

I've just watched the cats TV presser with CS talking about the SJ challenge.

basically Chris Scott said they:

"now take a conservative view of these things now, especially given the potential cost of him missing 2 games"

"ïf we do decide to take it up especially at this stage of the year with the stakes on offer then we would be absolutely sure that this incident didn't constitute a reportable offence"

"My position is that we would have to be absolutely adamant that there's been a travesty of justice here for us to even consider risking losing Steve for another game,"

"Given the fact that there was a 300-game umpire two metres away, and he didn't see the need to even pay a free kick, then I think that would work strongly in our favour,"

"The way the system works, for us to plead our case on this one, in what is a very innocuous incident, we have to risk Steve not only missing the biggest game of the season for us this week, but missing a really big game the week after for something that is, in the way footy's played, absolutely inconsequential."

As for whether the Match Review Panel system should be reviewed, Scott said: "I think the prevailing view across the competition at the moment, if I'm reading it accurately, is that given some of the other incidents across the weekend, the Steve one doesn't meet scrutiny.

http://www.geelongcats.com.au/video/2014-08-05/scott-on-johnson-charge-r20

 

[Teriyakicat]

Exhibit A vinum coupe.

But a player can't go home, put a mask on, and come back playing the game the following week in a different guernsey, can he?