MRP / Trib. MRP and Tribunal - 2024 - Rd 23 - The Derby Dustup

[Hollow Knight]

Jon Brown has gone very hard On The Couch.

'Concussion Crusaders'.

Good on him.

Buckley too. Really good discussion from two really crucial voices in the topic.

1. Brown experienced significant head injuries in his career, and his cousin is Liam Picken. He knows how serious it is and the fact that even he thinks the AFL has gone too far is telling.

2. Buckley is as calm, rational and considered about footy as it gets. He’s not some Dermott Brereton chest thumper who romanticises thuggery in the game. He also believes a line has been crossed by the AFL.

 

[SHOGUN_31A]

Clubs should unite and demand Michael Christian stand down

Got no ********* idea Chrisso - and you're an ex player

Where is the logic that a blatant elbow is 1 week and two perfectly legal tackles that drew no free kick get 3?

The elbow should be 3 and the tackles a fine or 1 week at worst

A key issue is the constraint that the MRO is working under. Just like the umps, the MRO works within the rules/guidelines given to them.

A massive flaw currently is lack of distinction between football and non-football acts. The latter should start from a minimum two weeks IMO, and quickly scale up.

That being said, I just can't understand the Bedford grading by the MRO. Charlie Cameron's grading I can understand, but you have to look very hard to see it as a dangerous tackle. And even then, three weeks is a big punishment.

Multiple players are likely to be rubbed out from finals appearances this year with this new interpretation, for 'marginal offences'

 

[Hollow Knight]

Here’s Brown and Buckley.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Cameron was robbed!

He should take this to the institute of worthy causes!

I saw a front on tackle like that 3-4 weeks ago and the commentators went nuts about how big it was. The only difference is the outcome.

IF anyone can remember the tackle, let me know.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I saw a front on tackle like that 3-4 weeks ago and the commentators went nuts about how big it was. The only difference is the outcome.

IF anyone can remember the tackle, let me know.

Bruce Reville?

50 seconds into this video.

 

[Sherrinator]

Why in ****s name didn’t the ump call tackled on the Cameron tackle? The guy was held??

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Bruce Reville?

50 seconds into this video.

Yes, that's the tackle. That's not too different to Cameron but a different outcome.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

I've noticed Geelong are taking one arm in tackles as an obvious strategy. I think players need to learn how to strip the ball as opposed to tackling, or limiting the effectiveness of a disposal. Kind of line NBA. We know STeph curry can hit 100 3 pointers in a row and 45% unguarded, but guarded it's around 32-33%

 

[Orange Agent]

People are taking MRO verdicts too seriously. The system is flawed because of the process but is designed to take time away from having full tribunal hearings for trivial matters.

 

[Coasters7]

3 weeks for blokes all playing the ball. 1 for a sniper who elbowed someone in the back of the head. Standard MRO shenanigans.

 

[Obeanie1]

That being said, I just can't understand the Bedford grading by the MRO. Charlie Cameron's grading I can understand, but you have to look very hard to see it as a dangerous tackle. And even then, three weeks is a big punishment.

The Bedford tackle looks like a dozen tackles you see every game.

Cameron on Duggan was dangerous and its easy to see why. It doesnt matter if you tackle a player from the side, back or in this case front on. Its dangerous when you pin both arms and then drive a players head into the ground. And Cameron being the little campaigner he is could have rolled him or just held the tackle upright. But instead used his legs to drive and put him to ground with intent. The final driving motion was not needed at all and Duggan suffered his 2nd concusion this season. A few more tackles like that and it is career over.

You just cant pin arms and take the player to ground in a vulnerable position with excessive force and concuss them. Not hard to understand.

 

[Underarm]

The Heeney one was as Clear as day last week. The Dangerous tackle ones this week are a total coin flip. 3 weeks seems harsh for all of them.

 

[Obeanie1]

lot of bizarre posts itt insinuating that this act makes cameron someone of poor character / not a good bloke.

in what ways do an act without any malice / intent to hurt go to his character?

very disappointing, especially coming off NAIDOC week.

The final driving motion had intent to hurt his opponent. Pinned arms and drove his head into the ground and Duggan was in a vulnerable position.

The final driving motion wasnt needed at all. And that showed lack of care / breached duty of care.

The way the guy acts on the field outside of this tackle says plenty about his character. Hough was handing him a hiding and he was getting pretty shitty about it. Decided to go just too far in that tackle.

 

[blinkd]

I said this before as a biased swans fan. Rub Heeney out and we are on a slippery slope to ongoing rule tampering to protect future CTE claims, making the game almost unwatchable. Rugby Union is a case in point - so many rules, no forceful contact, boring as with plummeting levels of viewership and participation.

I am looking forward to many more suspensions this year triggering outrage so we can finally fix this farce of a process.


I like fast players.

Is this in Australia or internationally too?

 

[Sherrinator]

The Bedford tackle looks like a dozen tackles you see every game.

Cameron on Duggan was dangerous and its easy to see why. It doesnt matter if you tackle a player from the side, back or in this case front on. Its dangerous when you pin both arms and then drive a players head into the ground. And Cameron being the little campaigner he is could have rolled him or just held the tackle upright. But instead used his legs to drive and put him to ground with intent. The final driving motion was not needed at all and Duggan suffered his 2nd concusion this season. A few more tackles like that and it is career over.

You just cant pin arms and take the player to ground in a vulnerable position with excessive force and concuss them. Not hard to understand.

Why do you think the umpire didn’t call held? Guy was wrapped up from the start

 

[Obeanie1]

Why do you think the umpire didn’t call held? Guy was wrapped up from the start

A faster whistle may have avoided the final unneccessary driving motion.

Who knows why umpires make some calls and not others?

 

[revo333]

Missing games for that is a disgrace.

Although if it happened in a Prelim final, I think they would find a way to not suspend him.

 

[mpal6]

Duggan starts leaning back and twisting to get Cameron off, Charlie hung on to the bear hug grapple. Once Duggan leant back as well as lost his feet and Charlie's foot was in the air, there is not much either can do apart from brace for impact.

Concussion is a bad outcome but it is a footy accident at best. It wasn't a driving tackle or "great danger" like David King is screaming about. All idiots who have a mike and opinion are smashing away as usual.

 

[SplintWhisky]

The Bedford tackle looks like a dozen tackles you see every game.

Cameron on Duggan was dangerous and its easy to see why. It doesnt matter if you tackle a player from the side, back or in this case front on. Its dangerous when you pin both arms and then drive a players head into the ground. And Cameron being the little campaigner he is could have rolled him or just held the tackle upright. But instead used his legs to drive and put him to ground with intent. The final driving motion was not needed at all and Duggan suffered his 2nd concusion this season. A few more tackles like that and it is career over.

You just cant pin arms and take the player to ground in a vulnerable position with excessive force and concuss them. Not hard to understand.

Take your West Coast goggles off mate. Switch the names and I could say the same thing about Bedford on Taranto. Both incidents were caused by the tackled player slipping and falling and the momentum forcing them into a heavier tackle.

This is a case of an incident that is going to happen from time to time in AFL and yeah it is bad for thr player but they went into this career knowing the injury risks. They are also well compensated for that risk.

 

[The J Dog]

A key issue is the constraint that the MRO is working under. Just like the umps, the MRO works within the rules/guidelines given to them.

A massive flaw currently is lack of distinction between football and non-football acts. The latter should start from a minimum two weeks IMO, and quickly scale up.

That being said, I just can't understand the Bedford grading by the MRO. Charlie Cameron's grading I can understand, but you have to look very hard to see it as a dangerous tackle. And even then, three weeks is a big punishment.

Multiple players are likely to be rubbed out from finals appearances this year with this new interpretation, for 'marginal offences'

The grading matrix is also too simple. How can 1) minor concussion symptoms and 2) a KO with convulsions and 3) a broken jaw and teeth knocked out all be graded the same way as "Severe"?

 

[Elixuh]

At what point is it reasonable to say that the AFL has done enough to reduce the incidents of CTE without completely compromising the fundamentals of a game that players willingly participate in?

Where does the slippery slope stop? Once you set a precedent that the outcome of a tackle is all that matters, the logical progression is an ever increasing stringency on tackles and what constitutes duty of care, that can only end in the abolishment of the tackle.

If that’s the AFL’s end goal, why not just say it? Do we have to have an infuriating 10 year weaning off process where they can just kill it by excruciating incremental interpretations by the tribunal system?

Sometimes shit just happens without someone being 100 percent financially/legally accountable.

I’m not necessarily saying that line has officially been crossed today with Cameron and especially Bedford, but if not now, when?

I sat through a lecture from the brain institute earlier this year - only way to remove CTE from the game is to go to touch and not allow players to take speccys etc.

I agree that at some stage the AFL needs to draw a line in the sand and find an appropriate balance so they’re not punishing incidental head contact associated with reasonable actions. At the moment they appear to have adopted a blanket policy which ignores factual realities.

Their ‘reasonable alternatives’ argument is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons. In the Cameron case the AFL is arguing that Charlie had a reasonable alternative being holding up the tackle but it fails to recognise that in the vision Duggan turns his body and tries to break the tackle. It assumes the tackler has 100% control over the tackle.

I think we are also in a place now where the AFL can demonstrate it is doing all that can reasonably be done within the framework of AFL footy + there is enough known about the likelihood of concussion and consequences of concussion that players can given informed consent to those risks. Like people do when exercising judgement about assuming risks in other contexts.

 

[Obeanie1]

Take your West Coast goggles off mate. Switch the names and I could say the same thing about Bedford on Taranto. Both incidents were caused by the tackled player slipping and falling and the momentum forcing them into a heavier tackle.

This is a case of an incident that is going to happen from time to time in AFL and yeah it is bad for thr player but they went into this career knowing the injury risks. They are also well compensated for that risk.

Bedford is nowhere near the same. Not even close. A chase down tackle from behind and he rolled Toranto onto his side so he ensured he didn't drive him in the back face first into the ground. I actually do not see what he could have done differently other than not bother tackling him.

Cameron pinned both arms and used his legs to drive Duggan backwards and he kept driving with his body and legs as Duggan hit the ground. No attempt to roll him on the side or to mitigate impact to the head. The last milliseconds Cameron drove his weight and increased the level of impact. Exactly how my coach taught us 35 years ago to legally hurt your opponent. In the modern game it is no longer legal and is dangerous. The outcome proves that.

Feel free to counter my views with something more than sweeping statements or open the other eye. The two tackles were vastly different.

 

[Obeanie1]

I sat through a lecture from the brain institute earlier this year - only way to remove CTE from the game is to go to touch and not allow players to take speccys etc.

I agree that at some stage the AFL needs to draw a line in the sand and find an appropriate balance so they’re not punishing incidental head contact associated with reasonable actions. At the moment they appear to have adopted a blanket policy which ignores factual realities.

Their ‘reasonable alternatives’ argument is fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons. In the Cameron case the AFL is arguing that Charlie had a reasonable alternative being holding up the tackle but it fails to recognise that in the vision Duggan turns his body and tries to break the tackle. It assumes the tackler has 100% control over the tackle.

I think we are also in a place now where the AFL can demonstrate it is doing all that can reasonably be done within the framework of AFL footy + there is enough known about the likelihood of concussion and consequences of concussion that players can given informed consent to those risks. Like people do when exercising judgement about assuming risks in other contexts.

Cameron was driving his opponent backwards with pinned arms. Is it not reasonable that he attempt to roll his opponent onto his side to mitigate the chance of his head hitting the ground?

At least Bedford rolled his opponent and landed alongside him when they hit the ground. Not throw his entire body weight on top of the player with arms pinned driving with his legs.

Cameron's was a pretty decent rugby tackle, unfortunately the AFL doesn't like driving tackles with pinned arms and players dropping their body weight into a tackle where the head hits the ground.

 

[Elixuh]

Cameron was driving his opponent backwards with pinned arms. Is it not reasonable that he attempt to roll his opponent onto his side to mitigate the changes of his head hitting the ground?

At least Bedford rolled his opponent and landed alongside him when they hit the ground. Not throw his entire body weight on top of the player with arms pinned driving with his legs.

Cameron's was a pretty decent rugby tackle, unfortunately the AFL doesn't like driving tackles with pinned arms and players dropping their body weight into a tackle where the head hits the ground.

So you’re agreeing with me then that a mitigating factor is Duggans movement in the tackle and that Cameron doesn’t have 100% control over the tackle to hold the tackle up like the AFL will argue.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

People are taking MRO verdicts too seriously. The system is flawed because of the process but is designed to take time away from having full tribunal hearings for trivial matters.

It's doing the reverse opposite! There's been more hearings for small matters this year