MRP / Trib. Mansell Suspended 3 Weeks - Suspension Upheld

[tiger_tough]

No real surprise there.

 

[SunshineBoy]

What a sham this Organisation is

 

[banana_bus]

haha

 

[Siberiantiger]

Did anyone seriously expect a different verdict?

Whether it's extreme micro-management or corruption hardly matters. The game does not belong to the people. It belongs to the suits.

There is consistency in the process

They do what suits their agenda. Consistently.

 

[lllscroatlll]

RIP

 

[Do the Dew]

Someone tell me how the **** Mitch Duncan didn't get reported for his hit against Sydney earlier this season?

I know the MRO is completely incompetent, but you'd at least think the tribunal and appeals board are somewhat competent. Guess not.

 

[lllscroatlll]

more than mozzie stickit

laughable

tragic

 

[TigerTime17]

This is a travesty of justice. Is there any chance of threatening the AFL with taking this to court? I just cannot handle this decision - it is manifestly wrong.

Fcuk you AFL, you corrupt assholes. I bet no one else gets that time for similar this year.

 

[banana_bus]

Our lawyers suck massive donkey ****. The arguments they presented were shit. This thread would have done a better job.

 

[Groupie_]

 

[Waca Jr]

Absolute bullshit. Does that mean a savage hit like De Goey's is now worth 10?

 

[DickieKnee]

Not watching any AFL this weekend. Only way is to hit em in the hip pocket with TV ratings. **** em.

 

[smasha]

Disgrace the AFL now the CFL.

Farking joke.

Have not apologised for the disgraceful umpiring last week,the stand rule brought in,well every rule brought in to stop Richmond.

And to top it off they appoint another serial offender umpire Deboy in this week.

A sham of an organisation.

Mansell braces for contact with his eyes on the ball gets 3 weeks.

A rort by the CFL and their MRP puppets.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

AFL didn't even take the time to hide their sham investigation...
Years ago appeals took hours to sort through...
Now the all mighty give their opinion, nothing more counts!
Well done Prez of the AFLPA for speaking out...not!

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Not watching any AFL this weekend. Only way is to hit em in the hip pocket with TV ratings. * em.

Just listen to the Rad-di-oĥhh!
And buy the Seasons games played on DVD...
Feck 'em!

 

[lllscroatlll]

 

[AstuteTiger]

What a dead set joke the appeal failed.
We can all see he had eyes for the ball until the last second. He did what we’ve always been taught to do and that is turn to protect yourself.

Young Tiger learns fate after suspension appeal

Rhyan Mansell has faced the AFL Appeals Board in a bid to have his three-week suspension overturned

www.afl.com.au

 

[tiger_tough]

Someone tell me how the * Mitch Duncan didn't get reported for his hit against Sydney earlier this season?

I know the MRO is completely incompetent, but you'd at least think the tribunal and appeals board are somewhat competent. Guess not.

Because Fox ran past the ball and imitated contact with Duncan. It was his own fault....

 

[Downtown06]

And u would think a footballer like Aish would have awareness and brace himself with the potential of someone coming the other way??? Isn't that what we are taught???

 

[SavDog23]

 

[beema limapep]

I am ****ing seething.

 

[k31th]

text form:

"It is submitted on behalf of Mansell that the Tribunal applied the incorrect test of whether or not the action of Mansell was a bump or not by asking itself whether the contact was simply reflexive or involuntary. In our view, the premise on which ground one is based is flawed. We consider that it's clear from a reading of the Tribunal’s brief reasons that it did not apply any such test. The reasons make it clear that the Tribunal relied upon video footage in coming to the conclusion that a meter or two from impact, Mansell turned and bumped his opponent. This was the primary finding of the Tribunal.



It was submitted by the AFL that finding this action was not simply reflexive or involuntary was a secondary finding. The Tribunal’s reasons make it clear that this finding was not the sole test in the consideration of whether or not there was conduct amounting to a bump.



There was no error of law on the part of the Tribunal.



The other argument is that the Tribunal erred in resolving the issue of whether Mansell was contesting the ball, by considering whether the actions of Mansell involve the bumping of the other player. It was argued on behalf of Mansell that the Tribunal erred in that it relied upon its finding that there had been a bump in then determining whether the ball was in contest at the time.



Whilst the reasons of the Tribunal are brief, in our view it’s clear from those reasons that the Tribunal did adopt a two-stage process of considering the issue before it.



It determined that Mansell had bumped his opponent, the Tribunal went on to state, ‘The question then arises as to whether Mansell was contesting the ball.’ It determined that he was not doing so on the basis that, from a meter or two prior to the collision, he had turned and bumped and that his hands were not reaching out for the ball.



Similarly, the Tribunal found that at the time of impact the ball was not in contest. Mansell conceded as much in his evidence. When he was asked as to whether he was seeking to pick up the ball or knock it out, he said ‘No, I was just trying to protect myself and I mentioned that before and I thought I couldn't impact the ball, so I protected myself.’



Over the fact that the same findings or at least similar findings of fact establish to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that there was a bump and that the bump occurred when there was no longer when Mansell was no longer contesting the ball does not mean that the Tribunal erred as argued by Mansell. In our view, there is no error of law.



We observe Mansell has a heavy onus to discharge in establishing that the findings of the Tribunal were so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to the decision.



We observe also that the Tribunal included highly experienced members with a long history of involvement in Australian rules football at the elite level.



The Tribunal, as is clear from the reasons, relied upon the video evidence before it in coming to their conclusions. With respect to grounds two and four, we do not consider in either case the heavy onus carried by the appellant has been satisfied in this application before the Board.



It was open on the evidence for the Tribunal to find that Mansell engaged in bumping his opponent, and it was open to the Tribunal to conclude on the evidence that Mansell was not contesting the ball at the time of impact.



Those findings in our view were well within the range of possible outcomes of the evidence before the Tribunal.



We dismiss the appeal, and we confirm the findings of the Tribunal."

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Soccer will eventually Bury the AFL...
And they deserve it after this bull tish!

 

[beema limapep]

 

[Michaels]

What a ****ing joke.

Basically saying the expectation of players is to attack the ball and each contest leaving yourself wide open for head to head / face to face contact at high speed.

What a sad day for the sport.