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

[Skull Face]

Christian Fails yet again trying to get another Carlton player rubbed out, I reckon thats about a 15% strike rate of anything he has thrown at us actually being upheld.

Surely this joker has to be removed from the job after this, if it wasn't already evident it's now clear cut he can't be impartial and has to go NOW.

 

[Skull Face]

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.

Lets not call a player ducking to draw a high contact free a victim thanks, disgusting.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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).

It's not blaming to state what happened. If it contributed, it contributed. You're making a giant assumption that he would have hit him in the face, if he didn't hit the head. His head would have been a lot higher. Boyd planted his feet and reached out with his hands to try to soften the contact.

Nobody is saying what Mansell did was a deliberate attempt to draw high contact. It's just a circumstance.

Neutral fans should be appreciative that these things can be taken into account, because if it were your player, you'd definitely claim it.

 

[BigFrizz36]

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.

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.

You actually said that the AFL " knew the votes and knew he was going to win". That is wrong, he was behind when it happened and the AFL couldn't have known he would get 3 votes in the last round.

Dress it up however you like, try and throw some other examples that have no relevance to this. But you were wrong. Pure and simple.

 

[DamoESP]

Would PMSL if Carlton now manage Boyd and give him a week off anyway just as a **** you to Christian

 

[HairyO]

Lets not call a player ducking to draw a high contact free a victim thanks, disgusting.

When only supporters of your own team see things the way you do, you are probably wrong. Thanks.

 

[Hippster]

Never deserved a week. Richmond guy got straight up and contributed. Seems reasonable.

 

[HairyO]

You actually said that the AFL " knew the votes and knew he was going to win". That is wrong, he was behind when it happened and the AFL couldn't have known he would get 3 votes in the last round.

Dress it up however you like, try and throw some other examples that have no relevance to this. But you were wrong. Pure and simple.

Replace "going" with "likely" and everything else I said is true.

And the AFL have done this many times. You lot arent special.

 

[Jacks Seething Rage]

Never deserved a week. Richmond guy got straight up and contributed. Seems reasonable.

Almost as if a free kick would have sufficed...

 

[Skull Face]

When only supporters of your own team see things the way you do, you are probably wrong. Thanks.

Yeah no ones sharing any of your opinions my man maybe you should quit while you are behind.

Have to be certifably braindead to suggest he was doing anything but ducking for a free kick like we have seen millions of times before and will continue to see a million times into the future because despite the rule change they keep sucking the umpires in.

 

[Underarm]

It's not blaming to state what happened. If it contributed, it contributed. You're making a giant assumption that he would have hit him in the face, if he didn't hit the head. His head would have been a lot higher. Boyd planted his feet and reached out with his hands to try to soften the contact.

Nobody is saying what Mansell did was a deliberate attempt to draw high contact. It's just a circumstance.

Neutral fans should be appreciative that these things can be taken into account, because if it were your player, you'd definitely claim it.

Literally the post above this one is saying he did it deliberately to draw high contact, as did the carlton lawyers.

 

[BF Tiger]

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.

Or concluded that Boyd was always going to make head high contact regardless of what Mansell did.

 

[Blues_Man]

Good outcome, Cue the salty nuffies

 

[Skull Face]

Replace "going" with "likely" and everything else I said is true.

And the AFL have done this many times. You lot arent special.

Unfortunately your logic of them not suspending him due to knowing the votes and not wanting an * winner denies the fact if they knew the votes they knew suspending him would mean he had a 0% chance to win the count as he was behind at the time.

You cannot have it both ways, accept defeat and move on.

 

[Maddo11]

Good outcome, Cue the salty nuffies

The only nuffies are the ones saying "he ducked" is a good enough reason to charge at someone who has their head over the ball.

(And hairyo banging on about cripps still)

 

[BigFrizz36]

Replace "going" with "likely" and everything else I said is true.

And the AFL have done this many times. You lot arent special.

Your argument is ridiculous. If the AFL knew the votes (as you claim they did) they know that cripps can't win the brownlow if the suspension stands because he's already behind and the two weeks suspension takes it through to the end of the home and away season.

And yet you claim that knowing that he was going to win they then deliberately throw the case to ensure that he does win it. So they have ESP and know that cripps would get three votes in the last game and Neale would only get one from the last two rounds?

Nobody's claiming that we are special. The case was poorly handled. The AFL were fuming that the tribunal hadn't dotted the i's and crossed the t's. They changed the rules at season end to ensure that it couldn't happen again.

Your initial hypothesis was just plain wrong no matter how furiously you try and backpedal.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Reasons:

"We find Boyd did commit the reportable offence with which he's charged.

Vision clearly captures Boyd making contact to Mansell from front on when Mansell had his head over the ball.

Such contact is deemed to be careless unless one of the stated circumstances apply. We do not find that either of the circumstances apply.

Boyd was not contesting the ball. He was running at Mansell to bump him in an effort to stop him from disposing of the ball. This is apparent from a careful review of the vision.

Boyd did not give evidence before the Tribunal.

Second, we do not consider that the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of Boyd, which could not reasonably be foreseen.

Mr Boyd made a decision to run at speed at Mansell to try and bump him. Mansell had possession of the ball and it was reasonably foreseeable that he may change direction or position in a range of different ways shortly before contact, including crouching down as Mansell did.

This is one reason why choosing to bump rather than tackle an opponent is risky.

Boyd submitted that Mansell deliberately ducked to get a free quick kick. We do not make that finding on the evidence before us.

We now move to impact. The guidelines state that any careless, forceful front on contact which was high and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as medium impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

If not for Boyd taking several steps immediately before contact to reduce the impact, we would have upheld the medium grading.

Vision captures the following: Boyd decelerated as he realised that high contact was about to be made, he significantly reduced the actual impact to Mansell. Boyd moved his arms in a position to try to cradle Mansell. Boyd used his hands to try to stop Mansell from falling backwards. These actions helped to minimise the actual impact of the contact, which was low.

Importantly, they also helped to reduce the potential for injury. For these reasons, we find the impact to be low."

Blues win 4hr Tribunal appeal marathon as AFL critical of ‘victim blaming’ case

‘Shouldn’t be a fine’: Blues win 4hr AFL Tribunal marathon... but ‘garbage’ reasoning slammed

www.google.com

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Or concluded that Boyd was always going to make head high contact regardless of what Mansell did.

That wasn't stated. That's supposition on your part.

 

[BF Tiger]

It's not blaming to state what happened. If it contributed, it contributed. You're making a giant assumption that he would have hit him in the face, if he didn't hit the head. His head would have been a lot higher. Boyd planted his feet and reached out with his hands to try to soften the contact.

Nobody is saying what Mansell did was a deliberate attempt to draw high contact. It's just a circumstance.

Neutral fans should be appreciative that these things can be taken into account, because if it were your player, you'd definitely claim it.

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.




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.

 

[Blues_Man]

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

Your boy is a ducker, accept it and move on .

 

[OnTheRocks]

3. Instead of continuing to rise he ducks back down and accepts contact

As opposed to keeping his head up and copping it in the face.
You tell me what your preservation instinct is when something (someone) comes rushing towards your face?
He comes in with momentum & a poor tackling technique, collecting the ball carrier high.
Lucky to get off on appeal but overall a correct finding by the tribunal.
Good to see the victim blaming called out as well, hopefully you noticed it to?

 

[OnTheRocks]

It's not blaming to state what happened. If it contributed, it contributed. You're making a giant assumption that he would have hit him in the face, if he didn't hit the head. His head would have been a lot higher. Boyd planted his feet and reached out with his hands to try to soften the contact.

Nobody is saying what Mansell did was a deliberate attempt to draw high contact. It's just a circumstance.

Neutral fans should be appreciative that these things can be taken into account, because if it were your player, you'd definitely claim it.

Doubles down on the victim blaming, congrats.

 

[SplintWhisky]

As opposed to keeping his head up and copping it in the face.
You tell me what your preservation instinct is when something (someone) comes rushing towards your face?
He comes in with momentum & a poor tackling technique, collecting the ball carrier high.
Lucky to get off on appeal but overall a correct finding by the tribunal.
Good to see the victim blaming called out as well, hopefully you noticed it to?

It is an easy answer to what I would do. Either put an arm out to soften the impact or my instinct would be to turn so it isn't head on.

The second move back down after Mansell raised up and saw Boyd is what says he contributed to the issue.

Last victim blaming is also ok when the victim contributes to their bad outcome. If some dickhead kicks a lion in the balls and gets mauled to death, I am going to laugh at his stupidity

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Reasons:

"We find Boyd did commit the reportable offence with which he's charged.

Vision clearly captures Boyd making contact to Mansell from front on when Mansell had his head over the ball.

Such contact is deemed to be careless unless one of the stated circumstances apply. We do not find that either of the circumstances apply.

Boyd was not contesting the ball. He was running at Mansell to bump him in an effort to stop him from disposing of the ball. This is apparent from a careful review of the vision.

Boyd did not give evidence before the Tribunal.

Second, we do not consider that the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of Boyd, which could not reasonably be foreseen.

Mr Boyd made a decision to run at speed at Mansell to try and bump him. Mansell had possession of the ball and it was reasonably foreseeable that he may change direction or position in a range of different ways shortly before contact, including crouching down as Mansell did.

This is one reason why choosing to bump rather than tackle an opponent is risky.

Boyd submitted that Mansell deliberately ducked to get a free quick kick. We do not make that finding on the evidence before us.

We now move to impact. The guidelines state that any careless, forceful front on contact which was high and that has the potential to cause injury will usually be graded at a minimum as medium impact, even though the extent of the actual physical impact may be low.

If not for Boyd taking several steps immediately before contact to reduce the impact, we would have upheld the medium grading.

Vision captures the following: Boyd decelerated as he realised that high contact was about to be made, he significantly reduced the actual impact to Mansell. Boyd moved his arms in a position to try to cradle Mansell. Boyd used his hands to try to stop Mansell from falling backwards. These actions helped to minimise the actual impact of the contact, which was low.

Importantly, they also helped to reduce the potential for injury. For these reasons, we find the impact to be low."

Blues win 4hr Tribunal appeal marathon as AFL critical of ‘victim blaming’ case

‘Shouldn’t be a fine’: Blues win 4hr AFL Tribunal marathon... but ‘garbage’ reasoning slammed

www.google.com

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...

 

[Bunnings]

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?

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