Skull Face
Premiership Player
Lets not call a player ducking to draw a high contact free a victim thanks, disgusting.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 17
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 16 Winner: The Jet From Poowong
MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 16
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #402
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.
- Mar 20, 2017
- 10,071
- 34,084
- AFL Club
- Carlton
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.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 37,404
- 41,880
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
When only supporters of your own team see things the way you do, you are probably wrong. Thanks.
- Jul 13, 2015
- 37,404
- 41,880
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
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
Debutant
- Apr 13, 2024
- 148
- 425
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Almost as if a free kick would have sufficed...
Skull Face
Premiership Player
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.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 11,100
- 13,969
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Literally the post above this one is saying he did it deliberately to draw high contact, as did the carlton lawyers.
Skull Face
Premiership Player
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.
- Apr 17, 2010
- 7,442
- 10,366
- AFL Club
- Sydney
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)
Last edited:
- Mar 20, 2017
- 10,071
- 34,084
- AFL Club
- Carlton
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.
- Dec 9, 2015
- 6,787
- 11,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
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."
www.google.com
"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
Blues win 4hr Tribunal appeal marathon as AFL critical of ‘victim blaming’ case
www.google.com
Last edited:
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #417
That wasn't stated. That's supposition on your part.
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.
OnTheRocks
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 11, 2016
- 5,321
- 7,785
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
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
Norm Smith Medallist
- Mar 11, 2016
- 5,321
- 7,785
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Doubles down on the victim blaming, congrats.
- Feb 14, 2014
- 5,640
- 13,578
- AFL Club
- Richmond
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
- Mar 26, 2015
- 12,401
- 22,685
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Melbourne Tigers, Bendigo Braves, OKC
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.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
Blues win 4hr Tribunal appeal marathon as AFL critical of ‘victim blaming’ case
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
Club Legend
- Mar 19, 2022
- 1,007
- 956
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Short memory, last week - danger on Walsh, I think you know what I meant
Similar threads
