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

[MiguelM]

The thing is the game is no clearer on dangerous tackles, in fact it is murkier.

The "error of law" means next time there will be no error and penalty will stand.

I think the initial assessment is where the system is wrong. As soon as a player is concussed it is graded severe (unless a teamate, then you are scott free!). There is no wiggle room once it is graded severe. 3 weeks automatic.

The one size fits all doesn't really cut it IMO.

The cynic in me wonders if AFL orchestrated a way to get them off to dodge backlash. I would.t put it past them.

 

[werdna78]

Just got home from training, Cameron and Bedford got off on legal technicalities?

Does this mean Lions supporters are going to stop whinging about Cripps winning the Brownlow after getting off doing the same?

No. Not the same.

Patrick Cripps was an illegal bump resulting in a concussion, should of been suspended.

Charlie Cameron was a legal tackle that caused a concussion, should not of been charged.

 

[Crankyhawk]

What an absolute farce. How incompetent is the tribunal? That’s three times now (including the Cripps case) they have stuffed up ‘points of law’. Are they really such idiots?

If I didn’t know better I’d say because of all the backlash this week, the AFL looked for a loophole and found one.

And can people stop saying they were perfect tackles because they weren’t. Someone was concussed in both cases and will miss at least one game. In a perfect tackle, no one is hurt. That’s not to say either was intentional.

Not true. Sometimes shit happens and people get hurt

 

[Crankyhawk]

The thing is the game is no clearer on dangerous tackles, in fact it is murkier.

The "error of law" means next time there will be no error and penalty will stand.

I think the initial assessment is where the system is wrong. As soon as a player is concussed it is graded severe (unless a teamate, then you are scott free!). There is no wiggle room once it is graded severe. 3 weeks automatic.

The one size fits all doesn't really cut it IMO.

The cynic in me wonders if AFL orchestrated a way to get them off to dodge backlash. I would.t put it past them.

It may lead to a change in grading system for tackles - separating from outcome and going back to the dangerousness of the action (which would then be in line with the rule being around the likelihood of injury)

 

[JackFlash]

Whatever decision they make it will be unpopular, the problem with the Cameron and Bedford cases was they were just playing the game they were taught to play and still are! There was no malice in their actions, no intent to hurt the other player, but plenty of attempt to prevent the opposition from clearing the ball away to their advantage. Surely players can still do that ? Neither action was reportable, so why were they suspended in the first place? The AFL either bans the tackle altogether or get ready to see all of this happen again? I'm not confident in Dillon & Kane being up to the task of handling all of this.

 

[Astro35]

Basically it's OK to suspend a player if there's potential to cause injury but dosen't, yet if you do cause injury but it's a good tackle then it's fine? This administration is crooked

 

[revo333]

3 weeks suspension turns into allowed to play this weekend.

What a joke of a competition.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

What an absolute farce. How incompetent is the tribunal? That’s three times now (including the Cripps case) they have stuffed up ‘points of law’. Are they really such idiots?

If I didn’t know better I’d say because of all the backlash this week, the AFL looked for a loophole and found one.

And can people stop saying they were perfect tackles because they weren’t. Someone was concussed in both cases and will miss at least one game. In a perfect tackle, no one is hurt. That’s not to say either was intentional.

You sound as confused as the AFL.

If the tackles laid by Cameron or Bedford ended up in an ACL or shoulder injury would they also be graded not perfect?

This is a contact sport, where all the participants involved knowingly expose themselves to some element of risk every time they cross the white line.

People can bang on about mitigation until the cows come home, but if you’re going to aggressively pursue that angle, be prepared for the collateral damage that it will inevitably cause.

 

[MiguelM]

It may lead to a change in grading system for tackles - separating from outcome and going back to the dangerousness of the action (which would then be in line with the rule being around the likelihood of injury)

Yeah, I think there will be a change to give more flexibility.

The AFL would not want a repeat of the offended it has received this week or constant negative talk around this issue.

 

[CarterS]

Jon Ralph with a horrible take on this whole situation and he has clearly no understanding of the role of the appeals board.

 

[HairyO]

The thing is the game is no clearer on dangerous tackles, in fact it is murkier.

The "error of law" means next time there will be no error and penalty will stand.

I think the initial assessment is where the system is wrong. As soon as a player is concussed it is graded severe (unless a teamate, then you are scott free!). There is no wiggle room once it is graded severe. 3 weeks automatic.

The one size fits all doesn't really cut it IMO.

The cynic in me wonders if AFL orchestrated a way to get them off to dodge backlash. I would.t put it past them.

I think its now very clear. To avoid lawsuits the AFL needs to be tough on tackles which lead to head injuries, and any time a player gets tackled and a head injury, no matter how dangerous the action, they will penalise. That keeps the lawyers at bay.

For the ones where it really wasnt that dangerous an action, but accidental head injury occurred, they will intenionally **** up the Tribunal/Appeal proceedings so that a legal challenge can be made and the player will be free to play. It worked perfectly for Cripps when they knew he was going to win the Brownlow, so now it is becoming their way of controlling Tribunal outcomes. This keeps the clubs and fans at bay.

Its just a shame they hadnt set up this system when Sicily got his 2 weeks.

 

[MiguelM]

I think its now very clear. To avoid lawsuits the AFL needs to be tough on tackles which lead to head injuries, and any time a player gets tackled and a head injury, no matter how dangerous the action, they will penalise. That keeps the lawyers at bay.

For the ones where it really wasnt that dangerous an action, but accidental head injury occurred, they will intenionally **** up the Tribunal/Appeal proceedings so that a legal challenge can be made and the player will be free to play. It worked perfectly for Cripps when they knew he was going to win the Brownlow, so now it is becoming their way of controlling Tribunal outcomes. This keeps the clubs and fans at bay.

Its just a shame they hadnt set up this system when Sicily got his 2 weeks.

It is certainly hard not to be cynical when both cases had "error of law" and were thrown out for exactly the same technicality.

 

[_Mike_]

I think its now very clear. To avoid lawsuits the AFL needs to be tough on tackles which lead to head injuries, and any time a player gets tackled and a head injury, no matter how dangerous the action, they will penalise. That keeps the lawyers at bay.

To eliminate the risk the AFL has to show what control measures have been put in place to mitigate the risk of injury. In these cases the solution would amend rules to punish players for intentionally bring a player to ground during a tackle. Free kick against the tackler. A resulting injury to the player brought to ground, the action graded as severe impact with an automatic 3-4 week suspension.

With the nature of the game it's near impossible to eliminate all risk of injury.

 

[_Mike_]

I don't know if it's consistent with other results, but I'm glad Cameron got off. It didn't feel like a punishable offence to me.

Neither did Bedford's action IMO. It could not be shown that either of the players actions were likely to cause injury.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It is certainly hard not to be cynical when both cases had "error of law" and were thrown out for exactly the same technicality.

That part actually makes sense to me in that it was the same tribunal following their own process on the day and so falling in that same blind spot (incorrect application of the rules)

 

[MiguelM]

That part actually makes sense to me in that it was the same tribunal following their own process on the day and so falling in that same blind spot (incorrect application of the rules)

For the money these brainiac lawyers get they make a lot of errors.

 

[Dogflogger]

is there much difference between WWE and AFL? both some scripted.

 

[bungalow_bill]

everything's fine according to Dill.

 

[bungalow_bill]

No. Not the same.

Patrick Cripps was an illegal bump resulting in a concussion, should of been suspended.

Charlie Cameron was a legal tackle that caused a concussion, should not of been charged.

In other words we're not going to stop whinging

 

[astrowizzle]

For the money these brainiac lawyers get they make a lot of errors.

Not Essendon

They just say it can't be won and run away.
You gotta wonder for Wright and weiderman better lawyers might have meant more game time

 

[oak79]

No. Not the same.

Patrick Cripps was an illegal bump resulting in a concussion, should of been suspended.

Charlie Cameron was a legal tackle that caused a concussion, should not of been charged.

This a 100 times over.

If you do something illegal, you get suspended.
If you don't, you shouldn't get suspended - regardless if someone is hurt.

Tribunal needs to be action based, not outcome.

It's a contact sport, all players should understand the risk sometimes they may get hurt.

 

[Toump Ass]

Should be a "common sense" clause for tribunal hearings so if the right decision is made (ie: Cripps) the penalty remains.

Players getting off on technicalities is utter horseshit.

 

[Bucking Bronco]

I think its now very clear. To avoid lawsuits the AFL needs to be tough on tackles which lead to head injuries, and any time a player gets tackled and a head injury, no matter how dangerous the action, they will penalise. That keeps the lawyers at bay.

For the ones where it really wasnt that dangerous an action, but accidental head injury occurred, they will intenionally **** up the Tribunal/Appeal proceedings so that a legal challenge can be made and the player will be free to play. It worked perfectly for Cripps when they knew he was going to win the Brownlow, so now it is becoming their way of controlling Tribunal outcomes. This keeps the clubs and fans at bay.

Its just a shame they hadnt set up this system when Sicily got his 2 weeks.

How can they be legally culpable though?

The tackle is part of the game, and the players willingly pursued a career in the sport in which said tackling is a main component of the sport.

The sport is also a contact sport, which means that the tackles are usually of a high intensity, resulting in there being a live chance that any tackle applied could result in a concussion.



Please tell me how this sport, which is literally two meatheads clubbing each other until someone gets KOed, can start up in 2023, with no legal concerns at all??

Anyway, it looks like the AFL will be ensuring these tackles result in a long suspension next year:

The AFL recognised the Appeal Board's decision but indicated it would look to change the system at season's end.

"In the AFL’s view (shared by the independent AFL Tribunal on Tuesday) the tackles by Cameron and Bedford were dangerous tackles, principally because both of the tackled players had their arms pinned (resulting in vulnerability) and were additionally brought to ground with excessive force," the League said in a statement on Friday afternoon.

 

[werdna78]

In other words we're not going to stop whinging

As long as Patty Cripps has his Brownlow,
I won't get salt on my chips, because I'm still salty about it.

 

[My_Username]

The one size fits all doesn't really cut it IMO.

But that's been the philosophy of the VFL/AFL for decades.

I think it started with trying to get multiple umpires giving the same decisions rather than making their own judgement calls...well, that and a power trip by AFL house.

They try to define every aspect of the game, what is and isn't legal, and what the penalty is in each case to make sure everyone gets treated the same in every game and every situation by every official.

Except the more they try and define it, the more exceptions slip through. (and the more the officials struggle to remember, let alone enforce, all the intricacies of every ruling....and the paying public has no hope).

Multiple camera angles (etc), and legal constraints (e.g. concussion law suits) probably make it impossible to go back, but I think the game was better with 1 field umpire who had the capacity to adjust his rulings to adapt to the flow of the game.