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

[Duckimus Prime]

I mistimed smother that ended someones career and resulted in 0 weeks, a mistimed tackle gets you 3 weeks.

Both Cripps & Maynard decisions are the worst in recent history, funnily enough both play for big Victorian clubs and had milestones riding on the outcome.

Cripps was found guilty. He got off, because the Carlton's lawyers went after the technicalities of the Tribunal process.

Gleeson as the Chair, ****ed up in his instructions to the jury. There was never any argument that what Cripps did was ok.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

AFL trying to tell players how to tackle after springing this on them with no consultation. 3 weeks for Toby Bedford is just outrageous.

Nic Natanui was suspended for a chase down tackle where he dove into his opponent and caused their head to hit the ground. In 2018.

I don't think anything has been sprung on the players.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

I don’t recall so many blokes getting hurt in tackles 20 years ago
Is this a new phenomenon? And an unforeseen result of other rule changes? Players are very good now at standing in a tackle & still disposing of the ball

I don’t have a problem with the Cameron one, definitely looked like some malice & intention to injure. Always thought Cameron an A grade sniper
Bedford one looked accidental, just momentum, very unlucky

I guess the takeaway is if you tackle vigorously & concuss your opponent you are done. Similar to bumping. I don’t have a problem with it so long as it is applied consistently

The ugliest action of the weekend received the lightest sentence, which is ironic

Imagine being stupid enough to call a player who has never been suspended until this bullshit an ‘a grade’ sniper. I thinking the ‘Handy’ bit comes from over use of the hand?

 

[fake tyrone]

I don’t recall so many blokes getting hurt in tackles 20 years ago
Is this a new phenomenon? And an unforeseen result of other rule changes? Players are very good now at standing in a tackle & still disposing of the ball

I don’t have a problem with the Cameron one, definitely looked like some malice & intention to injure. Always thought Cameron an A grade sniper
Bedford one looked accidental, just momentum, very unlucky

I guess the takeaway is if you tackle vigorously & concuss your opponent you are done. Similar to bumping. I don’t have a problem with it so long as it is applied consistently

The ugliest action of the weekend received the lightest sentence, which is ironic

This is a good question. I think there's elevated awareness from players, umpires, fans, and medical personnel about the effects of concussion, but that is only one part of it.

I also wonder if we have more tackling these days compared to decades past? I don't have the data at hand unfortunately but I believe the average number of tackles per game increased in the late 2000s. I'm not sure if this trend has reversed since, but you look at the number of players around the ball in the modern game and it seems on face value that there would be more tackling, therefore we would be seeing an uptick in concussions from tackling as a result of the overall number of tackles per game increasing.

I could be completely wrong on this data though. Happy for someone to correct me on this.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Your own team provided council that argued to the tribunal that "he was contesting the ball so the contact was reasonable and did not constitute a reportable offence."

Triple Tribunal Tuesday: Davies, Bedford, Cameron learn fates

All the outcomes from Tuesday night's triple Tribunal hearing

www.afl.com.au

You probably are dumb enough to think that is accurate reporting on afl.com.au and not just another example of incompetance by the copy-writer putting in the wrong team name.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

I don’t recall so many blokes getting hurt in tackles 20 years ago
Is this a new phenomenon? And an unforeseen result of other rule changes? Players are very good now at standing in a tackle & still disposing of the ball

Yes there were players getting hurt in tackles then. Its just that back then the response was to get the smelling salts out to wake the concussed player up and then telling them to shake it off before sending them back out.

Its why the AFL is looking at lawsuits now.

 

[Coasters7]

Completely and utterly clueless if you think they are anything alike.

It’s clear a few posters need to read the rules about dangerous tackles.

If anything the Daicos one is worse. Clear dumping motion to faceplant his opponent. Bedfords one was all momentum because Taranto fell forward, as was Cameron’s.

 

[Handyandy]

This is a good question. I think there's elevated awareness from players, umpires, fans, and medical personnel about the effects of concussion, but that is only one part of it.

I also wonder if we have more tackling these days compared to decades past? I don't have the data at hand unfortunately but I believe the average number of tackles per game increased in the late 2000s. I'm not sure if this trend has reversed since, but you look at the number of players around the ball in the modern game and it seems on face value that there would be more tackling, therefore we would be seeing an uptick in concussions from tackling as a result of the overall number of tackles per game increasing.

I could be completely wrong on this data though. Happy for someone to correct me on this.

Makes sense that there are more tackles per game now. Game is faster, more focused on defence, more congested, players have been told not to bump & receive more training on tackling technique
I just don’t recall players getting hurt so often in tackles in the old days, more bumps & hits.

 

[Handyandy]

Nic Natanui was suspended for a chase down tackle where he dove into his opponent and caused their head to hit the ground. In 2018.

I don't think anything has been sprung on the players.

I recall that one, on Amon from memory

 

[Handyandy]

Imagine being stupid enough to call a player who has never been suspended until this bullshit an ‘a grade’ sniper. I thinking the ‘Handy’ bit comes from over use of the hand?

Cheers
Fined 5 times including 3 for rough conduct & looking at his last report for lifting Lever in a dangerous tackle you can see he has form for trying to hurt people with spear type tackles
Where he lifts them & dumps their head into the deck deliberately with intent to cause serious damage
Sniper

 

[Obeanie1]

Dangerfields was the identical motion to Bedfords, and before we go down the “one was concussed and the other wasn’t” path, that didn’t seem to matter in Reid’s case either.

So where are we at? How can there be so much inconsistency and grey area open for manipulation

Some players are protected more than others.

That has been obvious for years.

What will be the shocking outcome from all this is finals and when the heat really gets turned up. How many players will get rubbed out due to slightly rough tackles?

Who will miss a flag because of the stupidity of the AFL?

I cannot see what else Bedford could have done other than not tackle his opponent. He rolled him and didnt drive him with his own body weight. It was more a whiplash that occcurred when his shoulder hit the ground first.

The Cameron tackle was worse and he did drive him and add his weight to the action, did not roll him or attempt to roll him.

All I can say is thank goodness my team is in rebuild, wont play finals so this ridiculous shift wont hurt us as much as others. And we all know the AFL will backflip and revise their interpretation......again. Likely when one of their favorite players is sited.

 

[SC_Power]

Cripps was found guilty. He got off, because the Carlton's lawyers went after the technicalities of the Tribunal process.

Gleeson as the Chair, ****ed up in his instructions to the jury. There was never any argument that what Cripps did was ok.

And this is where the bulls**t meter goes into overdrive.

The AFL can dictate that certain legal aspects do not apply to the independent tribunal (eg precedent) and yet some high paid KC’s underwritten by paper bag $$$ can force a technicality discussion onto said tribunal to get players off so they can win a Brownlow.

So why can’t these same legal eagles force a judgement based on precedent? Why can’t they be told that the intent of the law overrides the technicality discussion that is not considered when events take place on field? At what stage do KC’s on behalf of rich gamblers start suing the AFL for not applying their rules appropriately? Or members suing selectors or boards or football departments for not running their clubs in a reasonable fashion?

If we’re gonna treat the AFL on field as a business and apply all the legal technicalities therein, then maybe Aussie Rules can’t be played as we know it as a professional league because of the inherent risk.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Cheers
Fined 5 times including 3 for rough conduct & looking at his last report for lifting Lever in a dangerous tackle you can see he has form for trying to hurt people with spear type tackles
Where he lifts them & dumps their head into the deck deliberately with intent to cause serious damage
Sniper

Fined 5 times!! Jesus, baton down the hatches, what a phyco. Spear tackle didn’t get a week even in the current climate, doesn’t sound very ‘spearish’, A grade sniper- nil suspensions, adds up.

 

[Handyandy]

You probably are dumb enough to think that is accurate reporting on afl.com.au and not just another example of incompetance by the copy-writer putting in the wrong team name.

And apparently port gave evidence in defence of Rosas claiming Logan Evans forcefully struck him on the point of his elbow with the side of his head

 

[Handyandy]

Fined 5 times!! Jesus, baton down the hatches, what a phyco. Spear tackle didn’t get a week even in the current climate, doesn’t sound very ‘spearish’, A grade sniper- nil suspensions, adds up.

Sniper
We really need to get his defence lawyer though. Ports indigenous boys never get off
Brilliant to get such a sniper off 5 times in a row & to get the “good guy” defence going. Laughable really but didn't take him long to lift another bloke and dash his head on the deck

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Sniper
We really need to get his defence lawyer though. Ports indigenous boys never get off
Brilliant to get such a sniper off 5 times in a row & to get the “good guy” defence going. Laughable really but didn't take him long to lift another bloke and dash his head on the deck

Was right about the handy thing wasn’t I?

 

[western royboy]

This is a good question. I think there's elevated awareness from players, umpires, fans, and medical personnel about the effects of concussion, but that is only one part of it.

I also wonder if we have more tackling these days compared to decades past? I don't have the data at hand unfortunately but I believe the average number of tackles per game increased in the late 2000s. I'm not sure if this trend has reversed since, but you look at the number of players around the ball in the modern game and it seems on face value that there would be more tackling, therefore we would be seeing an uptick in concussions from tackling as a result of the overall number of tackles per game increasing.

I could be completely wrong on this data though. Happy for someone to correct me on this.

The players are faster and fitter, the game more congested than ever, the increase in collisions / tackles is therefore inevitable

 

[Chaisa]

I'm going to be a bit controversial and argue that the Cameron tackle was a bit flawed. 3 weeks does seem rough but that's a flaw of the matrix than anything else. I still think it looked a pretty forceful tackle and had a bit of a driving/dangerous motion to it. Can see why it'd be sprung up.

As for Bedford, I suppose you could argue that he shouldn't pin both arms, but that on the other hand was probably the perfect tackle. Sometimes accidents happen in tackles, the AFL needs to deal with it.

 

[SplintWhisky]

Player safety is 'No.1, 2 and 3 priority': Dillon defends Tribunal

AFL boss backs heavy Tribunal bans for dangerous tackles, flags changes to NGA and draft bidding rules

www.afl.com.au

Just straight out shows how delusional is the AFL? This comment is telling of the mindset at the AFL. Mark my words 2030 - 2033 is when Tackling becomes sanitised and almost outlawed. After then it would only be a matter of time after that going up for a speckie will be outlawed as you are no longer allowed to raise your knees in a marking contest.

 

[Bucking Bronco]

I agree, handle lawsuits as they come. Pretty hard to prove the sport is totally responsible for your issues.

The term punch-drunk was coined in 1915.

Muhammad Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1984.

How players can put their hands out and expect to be remunerated to the tune of 16M each is staggering to me (reported suit was 60 players seeking 1 billion dollars).

These players were likely cavalier, and showed a disregard to the dangers of brain damage.

We all know these kind of low IQ alpha males that lightheartedly deride anyone with reservations and trepidation about concerns attached to risk-taking behaviour. Now a good portion of these people are looking to milk the AFL, because they choose to go back out onto the field after they got KOed, play the next week, or choose to continue their career despite showing early-onset symptoms.

Any intuitive being who pursued a career in the AFL from the 80s onwards would surely have known the risks attached to a sport that would see the average 200 game player get concussed 15 or so times over the course of their career.

It's like a UFC fighter suing the UFC in 10 years.

Yeah, you fought in a cage, where fighter's oftentimes get concussed 3/ 4 times a fight.

I don't really understand how the AFL is culpable.

There was no science on how to mitigate the after-effects of a concussion until very recently from what I understand.

 

[SplintWhisky]

The term punch-drunk was coined in 1915.

Muhammad Ali was diagnosed with Parkinson's in 1984.

How players can put their hands out and expect to be remunerated to the tune of 16M each is staggering to me (reported suit was 60 players seeking 1 billion dollars).

These players were likely cavalier, and showed a disregard to the dangers of brain damage.

We all know these kind of low IQ alpha males that lightheartedly deride anyone with reservations and trepidation about concerns attached to risk-taking behaviour. Now a good portion of these people are looking to milk the AFL, because they choose to go back out onto the field after they got KOed, play the next week, or choose to continue their career despite showing early-onset symptoms.

Any intuitive being who pursued a career in the AFL from the 80s onwards would surely have known the risks attached to a sport that would see the average 200 game player get concussed 15 or so times over the course of their career.

It's like a UFC fighter suing the UFC in 10 years.

Yeah, you fought in a cage, where fighter's oftentimes get concussed 3/ 4 times a fight.

I don't really understand how the AFL is culpable.

There was no science on how to mitigate the after-effects of a concussion until very recently from what I understand.

I believe the issue that the players are suing for is for negligent after care once the player was concussed. Essentially the club doctors/AFL made decisions that ran counter to the known research of concussion care. This is fair enough to sue over.

But if clubs and the doctors from now one are all 100% tip top in the after care and always follow adequate protocol then the players should not be able to sue. If the care is following all the accepted research then it is now on the players who made a decision and are compensated well for the risk of long term health consequences.

 

[CarterS]

I don't really understand how the AFL is culpable.

Ever seen the team doctor in the movie Any Given Sunday?

 

[CarterS]

Really struggle to see how the appeals will be successful considering they have to work within the rules, it's the rules themselves that are the issue.

AFL CEO talking at a CEOs convention, couldn't be more out of touch. Maybe he should sit in on SEN and listen to some talkback calls to see what the regular punters really think.

 

[BratPack]

Really struggle to see how the appeals will be successful considering they have to work within the rules, it's the rules themselves that are the issue.

AFL CEO talking at a CEOs convention, couldn't be more out of touch. Maybe he should sit in on SEN and listen to some talkback calls to see what the regular punters really think.

They won't succeed. The Appeals board can only rule on whether the law has been applied correctly. Anderson made it clear today it was.

 

[SC_Power]

And apparently port gave evidence in defence of Rosas claiming Logan Evans forcefully struck him on the point of his elbow with the side of his head

Ah, the old Tony Lockett defence in the Peter Caven incident.