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

[WilloTree]

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.

Tribunal had 2 possible outcomes - they chose the 3rd.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Mansell's head would have been a lot higher... hmmm, yeah nah.

Here's two stills from the video on the AFL website (https://www.afl.com.au/news/1163056/blues-defender-learns-fate-at). Mansell is at his highest point before lowering his head. Both players are moving towards each other, what do you think the closing speed would be? If Mansell goes to raise then his face or head is making contact with Boyd's upper chest/torso, or worse, Boyd's shoulder. There is no way known he is raising his head above impact in the split second from the moment of these stills to the point of impact.

View attachment 2037175
View attachment 2037178

I'm also curious about you claim that Boyd planted his feet and reached out with his arms to soften the contact.
These stills indicate nothing of the sort. It was only after contact that Boyd planted his feet and reached out.
View attachment 2037186
View attachment 2037189

So he can get his head from Boyd's neck height to stomach in a split second, which involves a change of direction, but he can't get it from shoulder height to head height in the same time by continuing his original motion?

Regardless of whether he was trying to draw a free, or instinctively went down to protect himself in a way that left him more vulnerable, his actions contributed to the contact. That doesn't absolve Boyd from his actions, or poor technique, but it removes part of the blame.

Anyway, turns out that automatically grading low impact hits as medium impact doesn't work and they came to the right result.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Tribunal had 2 possible outcomes - they chose the 3rd.

What were your 2 possible outcomes, if this was the 3rd?
I would've thought the only possible outcomes were 1 week upheld, or downgraded to a fine.


Good to see this result brings out all the Carlton haters though. Gotta give you guys something to do.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Short memory, last week - danger on Walsh, I think you know what I meant

Well then, you're just being ridiculous in that case. Walsh didn't do anything except get tackled. You and BT can go sit in a corner and tell lies to each other to your heart's content.

 

[Triniboy]

Perfect summation. IMO, it was never about trying to get Boyd 'off' but the grading of the impact. That was always the end game. There's simply no way he was getting off the charge and a fine is completely reasonable.

This finding though, shows that the system where they automatically grade any head contact as medium force, even if it isn't, is completely flawed and easily argued against.

Any contact to any part of the body, at any force level, has the potential to cause serious injury. As we've seen in recent weeks with a couple of knees to the mid sections of players. So just grade each one on merits as they come.

I think the narrative needs to shift from 'how good are Carlton's lawyers' to 'how bad is Michael Christian, and does he have a bias towards Carlton players?' If we can easily and successfully get most of our reports downgraded, then it suggests that he's grading them too high to begin with.
I mean the guy threatened to quit over the Maynard thing, but he has no bias at all...

don’t agree Christian has negative bias towards Carlton players…I agree he’s not up to standard…his interpretation of many charges are way off mark…it’s time the afl look to someone else.

 

[Triniboy]

Perfect summation. IMO, it was never about trying to get Boyd 'off' but the grading of the impact. That was always the end game. There's simply no way he was getting off the charge and a fine is completely reasonable.

This finding though, shows that the system where they automatically grade any head contact as medium force, even if it isn't, is completely flawed and easily argued against.

Any contact to any part of the body, at any force level, has the potential to cause serious injury. As we've seen in recent weeks with a couple of knees to the mid sections of players. So just grade each one on merits as they come.

I think the narrative needs to shift from 'how good are Carlton's lawyers' to 'how bad is Michael Christian, and does he have a bias towards Carlton players?' If we can easily and successfully get most of our reports downgraded, then it suggests that he's grading them too high to begin with.
I mean the guy threatened to quit over the Maynard thing, but he has no bias at all...

On reading that transcript the afl legals argument were hypotheticals rather that facts as O’Farrell stated.

 

[BF Tiger]

So he can get his head from Boyd's neck height to stomach in a split second, which involves a change of direction, but he can't get it from shoulder height to head height in the same time by continuing his original motion?

Regardless of whether he was trying to draw a free, or instinctively went down to protect himself in a way that left him more vulnerable, his actions contributed to the contact. That doesn't absolve Boyd from his actions, or poor technique, but it removes part of the blame.

Anyway, turns out that automatically grading low impact hits as medium impact doesn't work and they came to the right result.

View attachment 2037310

Because lowering his head in a split second was a movement generated mostly from the neck. To raise his head would have required raising of the torso. One is a bigger action and requires a longer movement (both distance and time), think waving from the wrist or waving from the elbow/shoulder.

Anyway, right result for Boyd, poor of the Carlton lawyer and support base to be blaming Mansell.

 

[HTPunter]

Because lowering his head in a split second was a movement generated mostly from the neck. To raise his head would have required raising of the torso. One is a bigger action and requires a longer movement (both distance and time), think waving from the wrist or waving from the elbow/shoulder.

Anyway, right result for Boyd, poor of the Carlton lawyer and support base to be blaming Mansell.

Why are so many Richmond fans & media personnel taking this as a personal attack on Mansell?

It’s not a character flaw. It’s not an attack. It’s not “victim blaming” for ****s sake - he wasn’t a “victim” even if he got hit high without ducking.

Mansell ducked, like hundreds of players before him. That’s NOT an attack. He contributed to the head high contact. That’s NOT an attack. If this was Selwood/Ginnivan/Lindsay Thomas, no one would have blinked at the defence. Instead we have Jack Riewoldt, Sam Landsberger & you all in tears that someone said “hey, the contact was partly Mansells fault” when it’s the complete truth and just an act that happened on a footy field, not some sort of huge personal character flaw.

Toughen up.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It's the correct call, come off it why are fans (both sides) wanting every unfortunate action a suspension. Suspend the poor ones and I'm a big supporter of the dangerous tackles being suspended. However can we not suspend these types, it's a clumsy action, if he was fined on Monday would anyone have cared? I don't love Carlton and I sure want Boyd out of the team this week so it's easier for the Giants but come off it it's not worth a suspension.

Post season I want them to look at this though, we have way too many players every week missing for lets just say it minor infractions, I'd honestly be happy with every 1 weeker right now being a fine. Anything more suspend them but as fans do we not want more players actually available?

 

[astrowizzle]

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.

Merrett is most unimpressed at butters who he believes punches like a2 year old

 

[BF Tiger]

Why are so many Richmond fans & media personnel taking this as a personal attack on Mansell?

It’s not a character flaw. It’s not an attack. It’s not “victim blaming” for ****s sake - he wasn’t a “victim” even if he got hit high without ducking.

Mansell ducked, like hundreds of players before him. That’s NOT an attack. He contributed to the head high contact. That’s NOT an attack. If this was Selwood/Ginnivan/Lindsay Thomas, no one would have blinked at the defence. Instead we have Jack Riewoldt, Sam Landsberger & you all in tears that someone said “hey, the contact was partly Mansells fault” when it’s the complete truth and just an act that happened on a footy field, not some sort of huge personal character flaw.

Toughen up.

OK, so if I run a red light and t-bone you at an intersection I can't partly blame you because you braked and not accelerated. Excellent.

Fact is Boyd was always going to take Mansell high regardless of what Mansell did.

 

[Chief]

Mansell ducked, like hundreds of players before him. That’s NOT an attack. He contributed to the head high contact.

I don't really think he did.

I think Boyd thought Mansell was getting up quicker than he actually was and Mansell tried to avoid damage. Both mistimed it and unfortunately collided awkwardly. Boyd tried to pull up just as it happened but too late.

I think this "he tried to get head contact" or "he drove his own head into the ground" stuff is a bit overblown.

Free kick to Mansell and carry on. But it's easy for me to guess at their state of mind.

 

[Chief]

Round 17
Friday:
Nothin.
Saturday:

Sunday

 

[p4p1]

Round 17
Friday:
Nothin.
Saturday:
View attachment 2042800
Sunday
View attachment 2042801

I think Keane is lucky, third tripping offence and it was a full soccer style tackle.

 

[HTPunter]

Cameron drives Duggan into the ground. Can’t be suspended though because last time he got suspended, he got let off because he hadn’t been suspended before, thus continuing his haven’t been suspended streak even though he has done things worthy of being suspended (I.e the tackle that got him 1 week prior to hearing that he’s a good bloke). So this time he will get a week, but because he hasn’t been suspended it’ll get downgraded.

 

[HTPunter]

I don't really think he did.

I think Boyd thought Mansell was getting up quicker than he actually was and Mansell tried to avoid damage. Both mistimed it and unfortunately collided awkwardly. Boyd tried to pull up just as it happened but too late.

I think this "he tried to get head contact" or "he drove his own head into the ground" stuff is a bit overblown.

Free kick to Mansell and carry on. But it's easy for me to guess at their state of mind.

It’s not about Saying Mansell ducked to get a free kick. Mansell ducked. Whether he did it to avoid damage & mistimed it, or did it to draw a free, are irrelevant. He didn’t stand up straight did he? So what’s the opposite of that? He may have even tried to do a Shai Bolton esque shrug & did it poorly - either way, it was a duck that invited head contact.

 

[JackHiscoxWasFast]

Cameron drives Duggan into the ground. Can’t be suspended though because last time he got suspended, he got let off because he hadn’t been suspended before, thus continuing his haven’t been suspended streak even though he has done things worthy of being suspended (I.e the tackle that got him 1 week prior to hearing that he’s a good bloke). So this time he will get a week, but because he hasn’t been suspended it’ll get downgraded.

But he’s a good bloke so no chance of serving time unlike that criminal Heeney

 

[JackHiscoxWasFast]

Fadge what are your thoughts on that intentional dastardly act by Tom Stewart ?

 

[Fadge]

Fadge what are your thoughts on that intentional dastardly act by Tom Stewart ?

To be honest, I couldn't even recall the incident from the match, so had to google it.

He didn't get cited for that, did he?

 

[JackHiscoxWasFast]

To be honest, I couldn't even recall the incident from the match, so had to google it.

He didn't get cited for that, did he?

No but should he have ? No such thing as accidental any more. If krueger was a bleeder, he would have been cited I reckon.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

But he’s a good bloke so no chance of serving time unlike that criminal Heeney

Good bloke potentially charged twice in a season you can’t make it up

 

[BF Tiger]

Do people seriously want Cameron charged for the Duggan tackle?

 

[JackHiscoxWasFast]

Do people seriously want Cameron charged for the Duggan tackle?

100. And Stewart whilst they’re at it.

The tribunal needs to be thrown out for the farce it is and reinvented or we will end up like Rugby Union - a crap, boring spectacle with no force allowed with rules written by lawyers for fear of CTE claims.

 

[Astro35]

Do people seriously want Cameron charged for the Duggan tackle?

Agreed. Better to suspend some one for potential to cause harm than for actually causing harm.

 

[Fadge]

Do people seriously want Cameron charged for the Duggan tackle?

Just saw the Cameron tackle. Appears Duggan lost balance in the tackle?

Watching First Crack, and as Kingy says 'Who Knows?'

Which is a terrible state for the game to be in.