MRP / Trib. Geelong MRO & Tribunal decisions 2023

[Jhye Clark 13]

I’m more surprise people think Close shouldn’t have gotten anything than the people seeing Close get a week who didn’t expect it

I expected it. Once Ralph gave his opinion I knew it was a week.

The MRP is media driven. If people still can't see that they have rocks in their head.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Doesn't have to be - this is the tribunal guidelines:

3. Rough Conduct (Dangerous Tackles) The application of a tackle may be considered Rough Conduct which is unreasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the application of a tackle constitutes a Reportable Offence and whether the offence is Careless or Intentional, without limitation, regard may be had to the following factors, whether:
» The tackle consists of more than one action, regardless of whether the Player being tackled is in possession of the ball;
» The tackle is of an inherently dangerous kind, such as a spear tackle or a tackle where a Player is lifted off the ground;
» The Player being tackled is in a vulnerable position (e.g. arm(s) pinned) with little opportunity to protect himself;
» An opponent is slung, driven or rotated into the ground with excessive force.


The argument will be Close pinned the arms and Dawson had little opportunity to protect himself - I'd love for him to not have been reported & now for him to get off at the tribunal, but don't see how that happens based on all we've seen so far this season when teams have gone to the tribunal

Dawson drove himself forward. It was the perfect tackle. The game is dying.

 

[calder_daddy]

I expected it. Once Ralph gave his opinion I knew it was a week.

The MRP is media driven. If people still can't see that they have rocks in their head.

He would’ve got a week even if the media didn’t bring it up.
It’s exactly what they’re trying to stop

 

[cats_09]

Is there any enhanced vision of this?

That's all I've seen - normally the MRO have access to other footage that we don't necessarily see

They must be pretty certain that Dawson's head made contact with the ground - we've seen similar tackles this season & even from our match on the weekend such as the tackle on Holmes, but when there's no head to ground contact they seem happy to move on

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

He would’ve got a week even if the media didn’t bring it up.
It’s exactly what they’re trying to stop

I disagree. The tackle was perfect.

If this is the way the game is heading it won't be long until I start doing other things.

 

[cats_09]

I’m more surprise people think Close shouldn’t have gotten anything than the people seeing Close get a week who didn’t expect it

I can't remember who posted the footage, but there's a tackle by I believe Z. Guthrie from yesterday that I thought would get looked at, and I think on the distant footage shown it looked worse than Close's

Not sure if it was a free kick at the time, but maybe they deemed no head to ground contact as being the reason it wasn't cited

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

That's all I've seen - normally the MRO have access to other footage that we don't necessarily see

They must be pretty certain that Dawson's head made contact with the ground - we've seen similar tackles this season & even from our match on the weekend such as the tackle on Holmes, but when there's no head to ground contact they seem happy to move on

It did make contact with the ground..

 

[Badtemperedbadger]

And this is how it started with bumping, look at where that is now?
The AFL is jumping at shadows, we must and I believe will challenge this if only because we have so many missing.

The only reasonable way to look at this is to consider what Close could have done differently?
He didn’t drive him into the ground, momentum took both players to the ground.
He didn’t sling him.

The only thing he could have done was to let him run past without tackling, or absurdly, bump him, but that’s been as good as eliminated now

 

[cats_09]

It did make contact with the ground..

And in that case it'll be a week - been the same all season

 

[Generalissimo]

We've got a mixed record when it comes to challenging. Whether we win or lose, I think there needs to be a subtle but pointed comment from the club to the effect that people shouldn't be so quick to make decisions based on what they may have heard on TV commentary.

 

[Badtemperedbadger]

He would’ve got a week even if the media didn’t bring it up.
It’s exactly what they’re trying to stop

What tackling?
have to agree with that

 

[Cataholic]

Scott was very clear in his presser that Dawson slipping was what contributed to the landing — based on Scott’s demeanour and language post-game I’d be staggered if we didn’t challenge.

Van Rooyen from the Dees suspended for two for trying to spoil the ball, yet players are gut punching off the ball every week with no suspensions handed out, the balance is seriously wrong at the moment.

Close basically allows his tackle to slip from a front on position, to a rear tackle, by utilising Dawson's forward momentum, and attempt to sidestep, at which point Dawson goes down and takes Close with him.

I think the GFC has a solid position from which to contest the charge.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

And in that case it'll be a week - been the same all season

And it's wrong. No double movement. The perfect tackle.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

We should challenge that..dawson falls forward and drags close with him.

 

[Cataholic]

That's all I've seen - normally the MRO have access to other footage that we don't necessarily see

They must be pretty certain that Dawson's head made contact with the ground - we've seen similar tackles this season & even from our match on the weekend such as the tackle on Holmes, but when there's no head to ground contact they seem happy to move on

Found better vision just after I asked the question.

It gives the GFC a good reason to contest it imo.

 

[Cataholic]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DeLuSptlFD7A&ved=2ahUKEwjg6au36OL-AhXjpVYBHUGGCtIQ78AJegQIHBAB&usg=AOvVaw0SdOiPI7G7jHAc9T_IgDK1

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

We should challenge that..dawson falls forward and drags close with him.

Exactly.

 

[TEDDY24INC]

Exactly.

It was a deliberate attempt by Dawson to draw an in the back free kick, it worked and got our player suspended

 

[catempire]

I’ve been banging on about this for years but here goes again.

Punishing players at the tribunal is about deterrence. What are we trying to deter here?

Unless the answer we are after is deterring tackling itself then there is zero point to this suspension.

Nothing Close does is negligent. At no point after starting the tackle could he have adjusted and prevented head contact.

If this is a suspension it’s symbolic nonsense.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

It was a deliberate attempt by Dawson to draw an in the back free kick, it worked and got our player suspended

The Oliver one in round 3 was worse. Brownlow favourite at the time ... Nothing to see.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

I’ve been banging on about this for years but here goes again.

Punishing players at the tribunal is about deterrence. What are we trying to deter here?

Unless the answer we are after is deterring tackling itself then there is zero point to this suspension.

Nothing Close does is negligent. At no point after starting the tackle could he have adjusted and prevented head contact.

If this is a suspension it’s symbolic nonsense.

Awesome post.

 

[cats_09]

The Oliver one in round 3 was worse. Brownlow favourite at the time ... Nothing to see.

Is that tackle against Blakey?

One angle looks bad, the other angle shows no contact between Blakey's head and the ground which is why it wasn't reported

 

[Cataholic]

I’ve been banging on about this for years but here goes again.

Punishing players at the tribunal is about deterrence. What are we trying to deter here?

Unless the answer we are after is deterring tackling itself then there is zero point to this suspension.

Nothing Close does is negligent. At no point after starting the tackle could he have adjusted and prevented head contact.

If this is a suspension it’s symbolic nonsense.

I honestly believe you answered your own question within this (great btw) post.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that the AFL is very slowly, and deliberately, positioning itself to effectively eliminate tackling that takes a player to ground.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Is that tackle against Blakey?

One angle looks bad, the other angle shows no contact between Blakey's head and the ground which is why it wasn't reported

That's the problem. But Rohan got suspended when Jiath's head never hit the ground.

 

[Cataholic]

That's the problem. But Rohan got suspended when Jiath's head never hit the ground.

They went after 'potential'.......which is a slippery slope.