MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Grand Final

[Chief]

Friday

No charges were laid and there were no incidents requiring a detailed explanation.

Saturday



Sunday

 

[Chief]

Tribunal Round 16

Tribunal will sit tonight, Tuesday July 2, to determine the incident involving Jordan Boyd, Carlton.

Ben Long

22

Ben Long

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

D/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.9

3star

K

6.2

2star

HB

4.7

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.7

4star

MG

166.8

3star

D

12.8

3star

K

6.7

3star

HB

6.2

4star

M

3.3

3star

T

2.3

3star

MG

129.0

2star

D

13.4

4star

K

6.8

3star

HB

6.6

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

3.2

5star

MG

223.0

4star

, Gold Coast SUNS, will also challenge his charge through a written submission to the Tribunal with the outcome to be communicated, Wednesday 3rd July.

 

[HairyO]

Tribunal Round 16

Tribunal will sit tonight, Tuesday July 2, to determine the incident involving Jordan Boyd, Carlton.

Ben Long, Gold Coast SUNS, will also challenge his charge through a written submission to the Tribunal with the outcome to be communicated, Wednesday 3rd July.

View attachment 2036653

Boyd deserves a week. But the problem is, heaps of players charge head on at players bending over and make contact high.

Almost always a free kick but do we have any faith in the penalty then handed out by the MRO ?

If it was Cripps there is zero chance it would even have been a fine and we all know it.

 

[Stamos]

Boyd deserves a week. But the problem is, heaps of players charge head on at players bending over and make contact high.

Almost always a free kick but do we have any faith in the penalty then handed out by the MRO ?

If it was Cripps there is zero chance it would even have been a fine and we all know it.

This is so wrong.
1. It didn't deserve a week at all. It was 100% Mansell's fault, and it's that ducking action that the AFL needs to stamp out if they're serious about reducing concussion (and spinal injuries)
2. If it were Cripps, Christian 100% would have given him a week. Nick Daicos would have gotten nothing though.

 

[HairyO]

This is so wrong.
1. It didn't deserve a week at all. It was 100% Mansell's fault, and it's that ducking action that the AFL needs to stamp out if they're serious about reducing concussion (and spinal injuries)
2. If it were Cripps, Christian 100% would have given him a week. Nick Daicos would have gotten nothing though.

He was already low having been gathering the ball, and ducked because he saw a player charging at his head.

He didnt duck into it. He was always going to get hit.

Christian may have wanted Cripps to get a week but Kane would have overruled. The AFL wont let a Brownlow favourite get suspended. They will go to any length to ensure it, as we saw previously with Cripps.

 

[Stamos]

He was already low having been gathering the ball, and ducked because he saw a player charging at his head.

He didnt duck into it. He was always going to get hit.

Christian may have wanted Cripps to get a week but Kane would have overruled. The AFL wont let a Brownlow favourite get suspended. They will go to any length to ensure it, as we saw previously with Cripps.

Were you in a coma in 2022?

 

[Dazza the Viking]

The Merrett report is embarrassment to the AFL and Christian, Bombers didn’t appeal because Merrett just wanted to move on and focus on the next game, that hit wouldn’t of hurt a mosquito

 

[SplintWhisky]

He was already low having been gathering the ball, and ducked because he saw a player charging at his head.

He didnt duck into it. He was always going to get hit.

Christian may have wanted Cripps to get a week but Kane would have overruled. The AFL wont let a Brownlow favourite get suspended. They will go to any length to ensure it, as we saw previously with Cripps.

I think you need to watch it again.

1. Mansell was low to pick up the ball
2. After he possessed the ball he starts to rise and look up to see the on coming Carlton player
3. Instead of continuing to rise he ducks back down and accepts contact

There is a very fair argument to be made that Boyd running in like that was always going to get him high if he were faster. But the fact is Mansell ducked back down instead of continuing to rise.

It is a football incident that should of been a line ball free at most.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Boyd deserves a week. But the problem is, heaps of players charge head on at players bending over and make contact high.

Almost always a free kick but do we have any faith in the penalty then handed out by the MRO ?

If it was Cripps there is zero chance it would even have been a fine and we all know it.

There's simply no way the contact was medium force.
He got straight up, took his kick and played out the rest of the game. He didn't have a concussion test and his teammates didn't really remonstrate like it was dangerous or anything.
Low impact and a fine.
And the AFL needs to remind players not to lead with the head (not what he did here) or to duck their head when looking to absorb impact.
Attempting to trun his body side on would've been the right course of action.

 

[SplintWhisky]

There's simply no way the contact was medium force.
He got straight up, took his kick and played out the rest of the game. He didn't have a concussion test and his teammates didn't really remonstrate like it was dangerous or anything.
Low impact and a fine.
And the AFL needs to remind players not to lead with the head (not what he did here) or to duck their head when looking to absorb impact.
Attempting to trun his body side on would've been the right course of action.

The AFL could end up with a major problem on their hands if they don't try and outlaw the leading with the head motion.

Hypothetically, let's say there is a situation where a player (Player A) has the ball and is fully upright in some space. He has a player (Player B) oncoming at speed to lay a tackle. At the last moment Player A lowers their head to try and protect himself and maybe drive through Player B. There is a mistake and both players go down. In the wash of the event the medical staff find that

• Player A (who had the ball and ducked): was left with a concussion and severe spinal cord trauma that ends in paralysis.
• Player B (one who made contact) ended up with Testicular injuries that has left him infertile.

Where should the AFL act? Player A by ducking caused the injury but he had the ball and was protecting himself. Does he have a duty of care to Player B? Player B made the contact with Player A but didn't turn or try and protect himself because the AFL has said that is wrong.

It is taking a ducking scenario to the extreme but any ruling made on the easy ones should make litigating the extreme scenarios easy.

 

[HairyO]

Were you in a coma in 2022?

When the AFL deliberately screwed up the Tribunal process and told Carlton the grounds to appeal on?

I remember it well.

 

[Stamos]

When the AFL deliberately screwed up the Tribunal process and told Carlton the grounds to appeal on?

I remember it well.

 

[HairyO]

Surely you remember. Cripps got 2 weeks for something literally every player gets 2 weeks for. Then during the Tribunal the AFL "forgot" to mention anything about the incident and the charge and just said 2 weeks.

Then after the Tribunal gave 2 weeks Carlton appealed because the AFL failed to actually set out the case so the Appeal was upheld.

Then the AFL went "ooopsies" and decided not to go through the process properly and actually enforce their penalties.

Then a month later Cripps won the Brownlow.

The AFL knew the votes and knew he was going to win and found a way to manufacture him getting away with it.

They dont seem so careless and quick to surrender when its guys who arent winning the Brownlow.

 

[astrowizzle]

I think you need to watch it again.

1. Mansell was low to pick up the ball
2. After he possessed the ball he starts to rise and look up to see the on coming Carlton player
3. Instead of continuing to rise he ducks back down and accepts contact

There is a very fair argument to be made that Boyd running in like that was always going to get him high if he were faster. But the fact is Mansell ducked back down instead of continuing to rise.

It is a football incident that should of been a line ball free at most.

Bit like weiderman. The player he took high illegally took his legs out to create the high contact. Gone. And here we are a few weeks later. There is no feel for the game in there at all. They need to scrap this and start all over again. Even if it's a panel making the decision instead of one ****ing moron

 

[Tonythetiger]

The Boyd/Mansell one is so line ball. I think a free kick is fine, but not a suspension. You have to give Mansell the benefit of the doubt as it appears that he just instinctively goes back down in the split second and Boyd was coming front on for a player who was bending over so was more likely than not going to give away a free. Suspension is sending the wrong message I think.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Bit like weiderman. The player he took high illegally took his legs out to create the high contact. Gone. And here we are a few weeks later. There is no feel for the game in there at all. They need to scrap this and start all over again. Even if it's a panel making the decision instead of one ****ing moron

This is a phrase that should never be said by media or fans because it muddies the water way too much. Rules are rules and they need to be adjudicated and applied as such in game.

I understand that in this context when you say "feel for the game" you mean basic common sense of cause and effect. Without sounding like the Merovingian from the second Matrix film, I completely agree with you. If a player has an action taken on to them by an outside party that has forced them to break the rules then they should not be pinged for it. I am a nerd and love DnD and there is this thing called an "Opportunity Attack". Basically if you are in melee range of an enemy and attempt to leave that range they can try and get a "free hit" on you. But if you are forced to move against your will the enemy can't make this attack. To tie it back DnD understands and has cavets for cause and effect yet the AFL is unable to comprehend it at all.

 

[Stamos]

Surely you remember. Cripps got 2 weeks for something literally every player gets 2 weeks for. Then during the Tribunal the AFL "forgot" to mention anything about the incident and the charge and just said 2 weeks.

Then after the Tribunal gave 2 weeks Carlton appealed because the AFL failed to actually set out the case so the Appeal was upheld.

Then the AFL went "ooopsies" and decided not to go through the process properly and actually enforce their penalties.

Then a month later Cripps won the Brownlow.

The AFL knew the votes and knew he was going to win and found a way to manufacture him getting away with it.

They dont seem so careless and quick to surrender when its guys who arent winning the Brownlow.

So you were in a coma.
Or you just have a shit memory.

There was no case, which was why the appeals board threw it out, but Christian, and the AFL through the tribunal still tried to rub him out.

 

[Fadge]

So you were in a coma.
Or you just have a shit memory.

There was no case, which was why the appeals board threw it out, but Christian, and the AFL through the tribunal still tried to rub him out.

You're completely unaware of the details of the case, you've been told what happened, and you're still doubling down?

 

[Stamos]

You're completely unaware of the details of the case, you've been told what happened, and you're still doubling down?

I know exactly what happened

“The finding was unreasonable and did not comply with the requirements of procedural fairness,” Kellam said, adding there was “an error of law”.

“We concluded [that the] finding of the jury was unreasonable.”
Kellam also said: “Failure to afford procedural fairness amounts to error of the law. Because we’re unable to identify the evidentiary basis of the finding, ‘the actions of Cripps were in the bumping of an opponent’, we conclude findings of the jury were unreasonable”.

Appeal won: Patrick Cripps in the clear over rough conduct charge

Patrick Cripps has sensationally been cleared to play this weekend after the AFL appeals board overturned Tuesday night’s tribunal decision to ban him for two matches on a rough conduct charge.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Fadge]

I know exactly what happened

Appeal won: Patrick Cripps in the clear over rough conduct charge

Patrick Cripps has sensationally been cleared to play this weekend after the AFL appeals board overturned Tuesday night’s tribunal decision to ban him for two matches on a rough conduct charge.

www.theage.com.au

Which is what the original poster said, which is very different to your 'no case to answer' version of events.

 

[Stamos]

Which is what the original poster said, which is very different to your 'no case to answer' version of events.

Huh?

Kellam said the finding of the jury on Tuesday night was unreasonable as both players, Cripps and the player he collided with, Brisbane’s Callum Ah Chee, were contesting for the ball, resulting in the collision.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

I think you need to watch it again.

1. Mansell was low to pick up the ball
2. After he possessed the ball he starts to rise and look up to see the on coming Carlton player
3. Instead of continuing to rise he ducks back down and accepts contact

There is a very fair argument to be made that Boyd running in like that was always going to get him high if he were faster. But the fact is Mansell ducked back down instead of continuing to rise.

It is a football incident that should have been a line ball free at most.

Gee it’s good to see someone put club allegiance aside and make a commonsense post like this.
Well done

 

[Dazza the Viking]

The Merrett report is embarrassment to the AFL and Christian, Bombers didn’t appeal because Merrett just wanted to move on and focus on the next game, that hit wouldn’t of hurt a mosquito

Was a different incident than shown last night, so the real incident it would of hurt a Cat

 

[Maddo11]

From side on it definitely looks like Mansell ducks into it, but from behind you can see he's down for the ball, his shoulders are turning back into the field of play before he sees Boyd at all

Onus should be on Boyd to anticipate the a player picking the ball up along the boundary line will probably turn back into the field of play and not towards the crowd.

Definitely a careless action, will be interesting to see their argument.

Ban stands imo

 

[Blues_Man]

Boyd deserves a week. But the problem is, heaps of players charge head on at players bending over and make contact high.

Almost always a free kick but do we have any faith in the penalty then handed out by the MRO ?

If it was Cripps there is zero chance it would even have been a fine and we all know it.

Thanks for once again confirming your total ignorance , Mansell should be fined for ducking, his actions are similar to May's last week.