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

[Blues_Man]

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

Blind Freddy could see the second ducking action, free to play imo

 

[Bunnings]

Oh the irony of Blues saying a player accented contact to draw a free resulting in a report

 

[Underarm]

I don't think the force was enough for a week, but gee the Carlton lawyers are laying it on thick.

If Mansell hadn't have ducked, Boyd still would have made head high contact.

 

[HairyO]

I don't think the force was enough for a week, but gee the Carlton lawyers are laying it on thick.

If Mansell hadn't have ducked, Boyd still would have made head high contact.

Exactly. Boyd charged in head on. Mansell ducked to avoid being hit directly on the head.

The idea that a player trying to reduce the impact of a reckless action by another player should mean they get the blame and the other player gets away with it is ridiculous.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Oh the irony of Blues saying a player accented contact to draw a free resulting in a report

Are your suggesting that if any team has had a player duck into a tackle, then they shouldn't be allowed to use it as a tribunal defence? Are Carlton the flagship for these sort of incidents suddenly?

 

[BigFrizz36]

Are your suggesting that if any team has had a player duck into a tackle, then they shouldn't be allowed to use it as a tribunal defence? Are Carlton the flagship for these sort of incidents suddenly?

We don't lose too many.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Good test case for the tribunal.
Two very compelling sides to the story.

On one hand there is Boyd who is approaching the ball player at a strong intensity, which results in Mansell ducking his head IMV to protect himself. Which argument is stronger..

Won't be surprised or outraged at whatever outcome is reached.

Meanwhile, he's losing it.

 

[Maddo11]

Poor Zita

Tribunal actually made up its mind 2.5hrs ago, they've just had four separate lawyers look at their wording of the finding to make sure there's no Cripps rule of law loophole

 

[HairyO]

Poor Zita

Tribunal actually made up its mind 2.5hrs ago, they've just had four separate lawyers look at their wording of the finding to make sure there's no Cripps rule of law loophole

Or they are looking for a way to insert a flawed finding.

Do they get paid by the hour?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

We don't lose too many.

I mean, for acentuating contact. That was the implication.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Poor Zita

Tribunal actually made up its mind 2.5hrs ago, they've just had four separate lawyers look at their wording of the finding to make sure there's no Cripps rule of law loophole

Or they are looking for a way to insert a flawed finding.

Do they get paid by the hour?

Plot twist: No one is there, they're all at the pub.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Poor Zita

Tribunal actually made up its mind 2.5hrs ago, they've just had four separate lawyers look at their wording of the finding to make sure there's no Cripps rule of law loophole

No, they're weighing up whether they are going to give an incentive to duck, or whether all players will use ducking as an excuse. You don't see many where a player ducks to get the ball, rises, then ducks again. They shouldn't be worried about precedent.

 

[HairyO]

Plot twist: No one is there, they're all at the pub.

Makes sense. Its where the MRO submits his reports.

 

[BigFrizz36]

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.

That's a kind of bizarre and easily disproven theory. Cripps got "suspended" with 2 rounds left against Brisbane. Lachie Neale got the three votes in that game which put him one vote ahead. Cripps got 3 votes in the last game against Collingwood and Neale got 1 which meant that Cripps won by 1 vote. So Cripps was behind when he got rubbed out and would have had no chance of winning if the suspension held. If the suspension held Neale would have won by one vote from Touk Miller with Cripps third.

 

[HairyO]

That's a kind of bizarre and easily disproven theory. Cripps got "suspended" with 2 rounds left against Brisbane. Lachie Neale got the three votes in that game which put him one vote ahead. Cripps got 3 votes in the last game against Collingwood and Neale got 1 which meant that Cripps won by 1 vote. So Cripps was behind when he got rubbed out and would have had no chance of winning if the suspension held. If the suspension held Neale would have won by one vote from Touk Miller with Cripps third.

1 vote off and if gone for 2 weeks the VIC media would have had a field day with outrage over Cripps being robbed of a chance of a lifetime.

If he was 10 votes off the AFL would have ensured he got his 2 weeks.

They absolutely treat players differently. A few years before Fyfe got the maximum number of fines meaning the next would be a week off and the AFL stopped pinging him when doing clearly sanctionable things - in one game late in that season2 gut punches and a dropped knee on a player.

 

[Skull Face]

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.

Except if cripps missed 2 weeks he wouldnt have got the 3 votes vs collingwood that won him the brownlow in the final rounds and someone else would have won it.

There is delusional and there is high as a kite on drugs off your face levels of madness and I suspect you fall under the latter.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

1 vote off and if gone for 2 weeks the VIC media would have had a field day with outrage over Cripps being robbed of a chance of a lifetime.

If he was 10 votes off the AFL would have ensured he got his 2 weeks.

They absolutely treat players differently. A few years before Fyfe got the maximum number of fines meaning the next would be a week off and the AFL stopped pinging him when doing clearly sanctionable things - in one game late in that season2 gut punches and a dropped knee on a player.

2017 Dusty punched players in 3 separate games. No suspensions. Brownlow medalist.
2024 Butters has been charged by the MRO 4 times for punches. Nothing but fines.

 

[Jacks Seething Rage]

Are your suggesting that if any team has had a player duck into a tackle, then they shouldn't be allowed to use it as a tribunal defence? Are Carlton the flagship for these sort of incidents suddenly?

View attachment images (2).mp4

 

[HairyO]

2017 Dusty punched players in 3 separate games. No suspensions. Brownlow medalist.
2024 Butters has been charged by the MRO 4 times for punches. Nothing but fines.

The irony of protecting Brownlow favourites is they wouldnt be Brownlow favourites if treated equally.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Plot twist: No one is there, they're all at the pub.

After seeing the dude on Kayo, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[SplintWhisky]

2017 Dusty punched players in 3 separate games. No suspensions. Brownlow medalist.
2024 Butters has been charged by the MRO 4 times for punches. Nothing but fines.

Pretty sure your mixing up Dusty with Cotchin in 17. Cotchin had 3 fines and the AFL said back then it was 3 fines then 1 week. That is why everyone loses their mind about the preliminary final.

I am pretty sure Dusty got his second fine against Brisbane in the 3rd last round against the Red head dude Robertson (or some variation of the name) and then didn't do anything again.

 

[BF Tiger]

Geez, people blaming Mansell is a bit rough. He was already definitely low gathering the ball and Boyd comes in quickly. Mansell goes to rise, sees Boyd and IMHO instinctively looks to protect himself and ducks the head. It was possibly the wrong action but he chose to cop it in the head than in the face. If he copped it in the face he probably had more chance of injury (jaw, teeth, nose, cheekbone, concussion) but by ducking the head he risked a greater injury (neck, concussion).

 

[Maddo11]

Downgraded from medium to low, so guilty but a fine instead of a week off

Cool

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

They've had a bet each way. Reduced the impact, instead of acknowledging the second lowering of the head. They must have been at a deadlock.

 

[HairyO]

Downgraded from medium to low, so guilty but a fine instead of a week off

Cool

That took 4 hours ?

At least they didnt victim blame. But how do they downgrade this but enforce 1 week for tackles where the player suffers no penalty?

A Magic 8-Ball would be better than what we have.