- May 13, 2014
- 1,770
- 1,936
- AFL Club
- Geelong
McCartin took possession less than half a stride before Brown got there. It's a footy collision and the poor bugger will get about 4 or 5 weeks for it.
-
LIVE: Port Adelaide v Carlton - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Port at 63% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 12
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 11 Winner: denisp
Callum Brown bump on Tom McCartin
- Thread starter mouncey2franklin
- Start date
- Tagged users None
McCartin took possession less than half a stride before Brown got there. It's a footy collision and the poor bugger will get about 4 or 5 weeks for it.
- May 13, 2014
- 1,770
- 1,936
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Lol, a tackle, that was never an option in that scenario unless Brown just slowed down and let McCartin take possession.
- Oct 12, 2016
- 6,823
- 7,792
- AFL Club
- GWS
At the speed he was running at it was not possible to stop. This is why it should be graded careless. The ball is still in dispute a split second before he gets there. The impact grading will probably send it straight to the tribunal. MRO need to get the conduct grading because right because if this graded intentional there is a chance he could get zero.
He didn’t elect to bump. That won’t be the tribunal finding and doesn’t need to be for Brown to likely get 4 weeks.
Port went through this with SPP and Essendon with Wright. Hit someone in the head and cause a concussion and you are going to be held liable. His crime is approaching the contest in a way that resulted in the contact/concussion rather than the point of collision.
Feels like semantics but it means it doesn’t matter at all what his intent was given the outcome.
- Dec 19, 2015
- 2,261
- 4,201
- AFL Club
- Geelong
It's hard to tell in the vision but it looks like the ball bounces up and towards Mccartin, meaning Brown was very much in the contest until the ball bounces favouring Mccartin.
I don't agree with people saying he elected to bump, I don't think he did.
If he gets suspended, then I think we are setting a precedent in regards to the care which must be applied to opponents. I'm okay if we are, but that precedent means players can't solely focus on tracking the ball and need to change their efforts in pursuing it. Suspend him if it's for the good of that game but be consistent. In so many of the incidents this year which haven't resulted in suspension, the player has shown more intent to hurt or less care for protecting the opponent than Brown did in this scenario.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
How could an intentional grading (worse than a careless grading) lead to no suspension?
I don't think the MRP has ever grading a bump (or brace or collision) as intentional, so it's a moot point anyway. And even if some had been graded that way, I don't think this one would. There have been other bumps (or braces or collisions) far closer to intentional (eg Webster on Simpkin, Pickett on Smith last year) that weren't graded as such.
Based on previous decisions, he will probably cop a 3-match suspension.
3-4.
It’s within the SPP & Wright cases of chose to brace/bump, pick your word, and a heavy concussion was sustained.
Careless, high contact, severe impact.
To the tribunal.
Argue for 3-4 weeks.
I suspect 4 will be the end case.
It’s not a “dog act”, there was no intentional lining up or intent to hurt, but it’s not what is allowed in football anymore. If Brown walks away with 3 weeks I don’t think anyone at GWS would complain.
It’s within the SPP & Wright cases of chose to brace/bump, pick your word, and a heavy concussion was sustained.
Careless, high contact, severe impact.
To the tribunal.
Argue for 3-4 weeks.
I suspect 4 will be the end case.
It’s not a “dog act”, there was no intentional lining up or intent to hurt, but it’s not what is allowed in football anymore. If Brown walks away with 3 weeks I don’t think anyone at GWS would complain.
This is 0 chance it gets zero. If the MRO grades it intentional GWS will successfully argue it to “careless”, not “no case to answer”. He will still be getting a careless/high/severe rating as a minimum, it’s not “Michael Christian is a bit of a dickhead so you get to play next week”.
- Jun 2, 2015
- 3,912
- 4,467
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Essendon EEEEEEsports
1 week without concussion 3-4 with.
- Oct 12, 2016
- 6,823
- 7,792
- AFL Club
- GWS
I thought Hogan had no chance of getting zero weeks but it still happened. I'm not sure the MRO gets to bet each way on gradings.
Not sure what you mean by "bet each way on gradings", but were the MRO to assess it as intentional/high impact/severe contact (they won't), it would go straight to the tribunal. Then it would be up to the Giants to argue any or all of these gradings down. If they were successful in arguing it was careless rather than intentional (they won't need to), that doesn't make the charge suddenly disappear. They'd have to successfully argue that it was purely an accident and that Browne was genuinely contesting the ball, and contesting it in a reasonable manner.
I'm more than happy to accept that Browne didn't approach the contest expecting that to be the outcome. But he's given the MRO and tribunal no "out" because there is nothing in the way he approached the contest to indicate he was contesting the ball and just got it wrong - such as outstretched arms. I suspect he intended to body a ball he thought would be loose, knock it away from McCartin and then use his pace to run onto the ball and gather it (or see it roll over the boundary line). But because the ball was in McCartin's arms by the time he arrived, he needed to show some attempt to either punch the ball out of McCartin's arms or to tackle.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 11,008
- 13,861
- AFL Club
- Richmond
3 weeks. Feels right.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,348
- 10,158
- AFL Club
- Sydney
3 weeks, careless severe and high
Seems right
Feel like they'll challenge purely because everybody is challenging everything this year
I thought Severe and Intentional/High impact charges were sent straight to the tribunal automatically, did they change that for this season? Or possibly in the past 2 weeks?
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,917
- 41,087
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
It was careless not intentional. I assume there will come a time when if you choose to protect yourself or bump it will be intentional, but we arent there yet.
And I thought severe impact was sent straight to the tribunal anyway.
Had to be 4 weeks based on the precedent set this year.
Would love to hear why this is 3 and SPP/Wright get 4.
Would love to hear why this is 3 and SPP/Wright get 4.
That has been changed. If it's a 'vanilla' careless/high/severe that attracts three weeks, the MRO can now grade it as such without sending it straight to the tribunal.
Amendments to AFL Rules
The League has confirmed several rule amendments ahead of the 2024 season
www.afl.com.au
The relevant section is just past half-way of this section (Procedural Amendments).
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,917
- 41,087
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
That has been changed. If it's a 'vanilla' careless/high/severe that attracts three weeks, the MRO can now grade it as such without sending it straight to the tribunal.
Amendments to AFL Rules
The League has confirmed several rule amendments ahead of the 2024 season
The relevant section is just past half-way of this section (Procedural Amendments).
Yep its more if something is Severe +
Where the standard grading doesnt fit
Or if it isnt even Low but is worthy of a serious penalty.
Ball bounces up instead of forward as Brown reasonably expected it to do.
McCartin attempts to stop or change direction instead of running forward as Brown reasonably expects him to do.
McCartin changes levels rather than staying at the same height he was running at as Brown reasonably expected him to do.
Brown takes one step towards where he expects the ball to bounce, McCartin having slowed and/or changed direction is now in the line he was running. Brown braces for imminent contact.
There is a split second between McCartin taking the ball, and the contact between the two players. I would guess somewhere between 0.2-0.3 seconds based on a single stride being taken. I don't think that is enough time to expect a player to take action that doesn't result in a collision or make a tackle. If there is time for Brown to change the course of events, then there is also time for McCartin protect himself, which no one expects him to do in the same amount of time they are giving Brown to protect McCartin and not just himself.
If this is a suspendable offence then I see no reason why concussing someone when your knee hits them in the head during a marking contest is not an immidiate suspension.
Jake Waterman was subbed off with concussion, why isn't the AFL looking at the hit that caused the concussion? Is it not within the AFL's duty of care that the look at the footage to see the incident that caused the concussion?
If Maynards dangerous tackle is not worth a suspension because he did not act unreasonable and the Owies contributed to the action and/or outcome, then in the same vein McCartin's change of direction or attempt to stop, impact the contest in exactly the same way.
Then we can always get into the incident last year that ended Brayshaw's career. The same reasoning given in this article
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/te...n/news-story/769da7a37ca089ae1f6287605abfc24f
Part of Maynards successful defence was the split second he had before the collision. Brown had even less time.
McCartin attempts to stop or change direction instead of running forward as Brown reasonably expects him to do.
McCartin changes levels rather than staying at the same height he was running at as Brown reasonably expected him to do.
Brown takes one step towards where he expects the ball to bounce, McCartin having slowed and/or changed direction is now in the line he was running. Brown braces for imminent contact.
There is a split second between McCartin taking the ball, and the contact between the two players. I would guess somewhere between 0.2-0.3 seconds based on a single stride being taken. I don't think that is enough time to expect a player to take action that doesn't result in a collision or make a tackle. If there is time for Brown to change the course of events, then there is also time for McCartin protect himself, which no one expects him to do in the same amount of time they are giving Brown to protect McCartin and not just himself.
If this is a suspendable offence then I see no reason why concussing someone when your knee hits them in the head during a marking contest is not an immidiate suspension.
Jake Waterman was subbed off with concussion, why isn't the AFL looking at the hit that caused the concussion? Is it not within the AFL's duty of care that the look at the footage to see the incident that caused the concussion?
If Maynards dangerous tackle is not worth a suspension because he did not act unreasonable and the Owies contributed to the action and/or outcome, then in the same vein McCartin's change of direction or attempt to stop, impact the contest in exactly the same way.
Then we can always get into the incident last year that ended Brayshaw's career. The same reasoning given in this article
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/te...n/news-story/769da7a37ca089ae1f6287605abfc24f
Part of Maynards successful defence was the split second he had before the collision. Brown had even less time.
The reason it's not is because the AFL rules don't make it so.
Many years ago they said "you can bump, but if you bump you are accountable for any head high contact that you cause".
They haven't yet said "you can raise a knee in a marking contest but if that causes severe contact to an opponent's head, you are accountable for that contact". They might in the future. It's a discussion that will become louder regardless of which way the AFL falls on it. But at this stage, the rules don't say you are accountable for such contact.
The reason Maynard got off at the tribunal was because the AFL didn't explicitly say in their rules "if you attempt to smother and cause head high contact you are accountable". They change the wording of the rules to make it explicit that now you are accountable.
Does anyone seriously think Brown’s intention was to bump? At no point did he make the decision to bump, the ball and McCartins movements meant there was no chance but for them to make contact. It is not reasonable in that situation to expect that Brown had time to react any differently than he did.
Maynard got off at the tribunal because it was a final, if it’s during the season he gets suspended. He meant to put body on Brayshaw but got it wrong.
