MRP / Trib. Nankervis Straight To Tribunal

[Waca Jr]

He didn’t snipe him

Good likeness

 

[Wallaby]

Can someone explain this to me (from the AFL website):

"The AFL argued for a four-game suspension, saying Richmond was put on notice regarding high contact earlier in the season when Nathan Broad

35

Nathan Broad

Age

31

Ht

192cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.7

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

4.3

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

192.9

3star

D

12.3

3star

K

8.3

3star

HB

4.0

3star

M

4.1

4star

T

1.0

2star

MG

192.9

3star

D

12.8

4star

K

8.4

4star

HB

4.4

4star

M

3.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

was given four matches for a sling tackle"

First of all - a sling tackle is not high contact.
Second - was Richmond warned 'Any more shenanigans and we will come down harder on the club'? Maybe that's why Mansell got 3 for a football action.
Third - was only Richmond 'put on notice'? So other clubs got a freebie, and were only 'put on notice' after one of their players did something wrong?

I've never heard of a tribunal or the governing body warning a club, for the action of one of their players.

Bizarre.

 

[Truetiger]

Can someone explain this to me (from the AFL website):

"The AFL argued for a four-game suspension, saying Richmond was put on notice regarding high contact earlier in the season when Nathan Broad was given four matches for a sling tackle"

First of all - a sling tackle is not high contact.
Second - was Richmond warned 'Any more shenanigans and we will come down harder on the club'? Maybe that's why Mansell got 3 for a football action.
Third - was only Richmond 'put on notice'? So other clubs got a freebie, and were only 'put on notice' after one of their players did something wrong?

I've never heard of a tribunal or the governing body warning a club, for the action of one of their players.

Bizarre.

Even the tribunal and MRO have it in for us. They as you pointed out are two different incidents. Just shows how much of a farce they are.

 

[Lsta062]

Can someone explain this to me (from the AFL website):

"The AFL argued for a four-game suspension, saying Richmond was put on notice regarding high contact earlier in the season when Nathan Broad was given four matches for a sling tackle"

First of all - a sling tackle is not high contact.
Second - was Richmond warned 'Any more shenanigans and we will come down harder on the club'? Maybe that's why Mansell got 3 for a football action.
Third - was only Richmond 'put on notice'? So other clubs got a freebie, and were only 'put on notice' after one of their players did something wrong?

I've never heard of a tribunal or the governing body warning a club, for the action of one of their players.

Bizarre.

Wtf? Richmond was put on notice? That's bizarre. I get it if Broad was put on notice, but Nankervis' actions have nothing to do with Broad's actions.

Strange.

 

[Groupie_]

were pies put on notice when de goofey ripped the campaigners wig off ?

 

[a_fighting_fury]

Even the tribunal and MRO have it in for us. They as you pointed out are two different incidents. Just shows how much of a farce they are.

They hate us because of what we were able to achieve in spite of their interference .

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Can someone explain this to me (from the AFL website):

"The AFL argued for a four-game suspension, saying Richmond was put on notice regarding high contact earlier in the season when Nathan Broad was given four matches for a sling tackle"

First of all - a sling tackle is not high contact.
Second - was Richmond warned 'Any more shenanigans and we will come down harder on the club'? Maybe that's why Mansell got 3 for a football action.
Third - was only Richmond 'put on notice'? So other clubs got a freebie, and were only 'put on notice' after one of their players did something wrong?

I've never heard of a tribunal or the governing body warning a club, for the action of one of their players.

Bizarre.

I suspect by "Richmond was put on notice" she meant merely that the club - or all the players at the club, should have been given pause for thought after the Broad suspension. It was a red herring bit of nonsense she threw in to give the impression of making an argument. There was no real argument to be had for 4 weeks because the incident was too similar in nature to the Degoey incident, which had received a 3 week ban, only 5 weeks earlier. This incident had clearly been played and referred to by Richmond in the Nankervis defence, as some reports had the AFL advocate desperately trying to distinguish between the two incidents.

Basically, if Nankervis got a greater or lesser penalty than Degoey it would have been laughable, and really the AFL should have some mechanism for handing the player an instant 3 week penalty in this type of case(where the case is so similar to a recent precedent the tribunal has ruled on.)

 

[Dr Tigris]

I expected 4, but 3 a about right.

Nank really shouldn't have followed through like that - stupid and dangerous.

He does that sort of thing a lot, gives away frees and now a suspension. Love him but one little change and he'd be better.

 

[OFFtheBALL]

Can someone explain this to me (from the AFL website):

"The AFL argued for a four-game suspension, saying Richmond was put on notice regarding high contact earlier in the season when Nathan Broad was given four matches for a sling tackle"

First of all - a sling tackle is not high contact.
Second - was Richmond warned 'Any more shenanigans and we will come down harder on the club'? Maybe that's why Mansell got 3 for a football action.
Third - was only Richmond 'put on notice'? So other clubs got a freebie, and were only 'put on notice' after one of their players did something wrong?

I've never heard of a tribunal or the governing body warning a club, for the action of one of their players.

Bizarre.

That is absolutely obscene!
Imagine if we were to now judge prisoners individual crimes differently because 'his mates' were convicted in unrelated incidents?

'Put on notice'?! The AFL is f*rrrrrrrked!

 

[tiger_tough]

Can someone explain this to me (from the AFL website):

"The AFL argued for a four-game suspension, saying Richmond was put on notice regarding high contact earlier in the season when Nathan Broad was given four matches for a sling tackle"

First of all - a sling tackle is not high contact.
Second - was Richmond warned 'Any more shenanigans and we will come down harder on the club'? Maybe that's why Mansell got 3 for a football action.
Third - was only Richmond 'put on notice'? So other clubs got a freebie, and were only 'put on notice' after one of their players did something wrong?

I've never heard of a tribunal or the governing body warning a club, for the action of one of their players.

Bizarre.

Actually high contact is exactly what Broad was charged with.......Careless conduct, severe impact, high contact.

 

[Truetiger]

That is absolutely obscene!
Imagine if we were to now judge prisoners individual crimes differently because 'his mates' were convicted in unrelated incidents?

'Put on notice'?! The AFL is f*rrrrrrrked!

Realistically we have been on notice since the incident on the Gold Coast off field. AFL have hated us more so from that and impacts every area from umpiring to the tribunal.

 

[Danw0w]

I just still can't believe Dangerfield got off

 

[Sir_Loin]

I just still can't believe Dangerfield got off

That was before concussions were bad for you

 

[Lacustrus]

Realistically we have been on notice since the incident on the Gold Coast off field. AFL have hated us more so from that and impacts every area from umpiring to the tribunal.

What exactly happened @ GC ? Does anyone actually know? Is it kept with Lynch’s goal video ?

 

[Harrison Bergeron]

Pfft..in the old days it would've been nothing more than great anecdote for sportsman's nights where the protagonists would describe each other as "ripping blokes".

 

[All Aust]

Can someone explain this to me (from the AFL website):

"The AFL argued for a four-game suspension, saying Richmond was put on notice regarding high contact earlier in the season when Nathan Broad was given four matches for a sling tackle"

First of all - a sling tackle is not high contact.
Second - was Richmond warned 'Any more shenanigans and we will come down harder on the club'? Maybe that's why Mansell got 3 for a football action.
Third - was only Richmond 'put on notice'? So other clubs got a freebie, and were only 'put on notice' after one of their players did something wrong?

I've never heard of a tribunal or the governing body warning a club, for the action of one of their players.

Bizarre.

The AFL arguer sounds like a grade 5 teacher who has lost the plot at the boys in the playground.

 

[Do the Dew]

I suspect by "Richmond was put on notice" she meant merely that the club - or all the players at the club, should have been given pause for thought after the Broad suspension. It was a red herring bit of nonsense she threw in to give the impression of making an argument. There was no real argument to be had for 4 weeks because the incident was too similar in nature to the Degoey incident, which had received a 3 week ban, only 5 weeks earlier. This incident had clearly been played and referred to by Richmond in the Nankervis defence, as some reports had the AFL advocate desperately trying to distinguish between the two incidents.

Basically, if Nankervis got a greater or lesser penalty than Degoey it would have been laughable, and really the AFL should have some mechanism for handing the player an instant 3 week penalty in this type of case(where the case is so similar to a recent precedent the tribunal has ruled on.)

Why did it even need to go to the tribunal? The clear precedent was De Gropey's bump, how hard is it for Michael Christian to just give Nank 3 weeks and be done with it, let us challenge if we had wanted to rather than wasting time.

Michael Christian seriously has the easiest job in the world. Probably gets paid a shitload to not do much and any somewhat difficult decisions he just passes on to the tribunal.

 

[DickieKnee]

Can someone explain this to me (from the AFL website):

"The AFL argued for a four-game suspension, saying Richmond was put on notice regarding high contact earlier in the season when Nathan Broad was given four matches for a sling tackle"

First of all - a sling tackle is not high contact.
Second - was Richmond warned 'Any more shenanigans and we will come down harder on the club'? Maybe that's why Mansell got 3 for a football action.
Third - was only Richmond 'put on notice'? So other clubs got a freebie, and were only 'put on notice' after one of their players did something wrong?

I've never heard of a tribunal or the governing body warning a club, for the action of one of their players.

Bizarre.

Very bizarre. If the club had a constant record of high contact maybe yes. But putting the club on notice because of one incident is a worry, and have all other clubs with one incident been put on notice? I.e. pies with DeGoey's bump?

 

[STRONGandBALD]

3 weeks is a fair result. Was worried we wouldn’t get him back for the dogs game which is a season defining game.

 

[Truetiger]

3 weeks is a fair result. Was worried we wouldn’t get him back for the dogs game which is a season defining game.

Shame we won't have him for the Melbourne game. Pathetic should have only been the 2 weeks lol