Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

[citizen-erased]

wait, i thought caminiti got time, what the hell.

any other player doing that would get a week lol

3 weeks down from 4
Afl wanted 5-6

 

[Beerfish]

Pane's argument is sound. Don't think he gets off.

I'd already moved this post you deleted.

I knew I should've just left it all in Merrett's thread

 

[jannissary]

3 weeks down from 4
Afl wanted 5-6

ah, was going to say, i think 3 is pretty "reasonable" insofar as he can't have a record but any senior playing doing that def deserves 5/6

 

[boncer34]

I'd already moved this post you deleted.

I knew I should've just left it all in Merrett's thread

I deleted it coz of what you said so all good.

 

[citizen-erased]

ah, was going to say, i think 3 is pretty "reasonable" insofar as he can't have a record but any senior playing doing that def deserves 5/6

You can push off an opponent without decking them them.
I dont see how its that different to gaff on brayshaw.

 

[Hamez]

Based on merrett’s case, this can’t stand due to ‘potential to cause injury’

 

[DallasCrane316]

Based on merrett’s case, this can’t stand due to ‘potential to cause injury’

Merrett’s ban was upheld purely on the potential of injury. This better not work for them.

 

[citizen-erased]

Merrett’s ban was upheld purely on the potential of injury. This better not work for them.

They've certainly considered it for longer than zach's
30m consideration and dismissed.
This has had an hour. Adams' presence far more needless. Zach was the only one in the sparrow tackle. Who's more prone - guy with two players already pinning him, or guy with none?

 

[DallasCrane316]

He’s going to be let off, isn’t he? FFS

 

[quotemokc]

Wouldn't Adams getting of be a good thing for us because we could then appeal?

 

[citizen-erased]

MRP / Trib. - Jai Newcombe in trouble?

Haven't really seen it mentioned anywhere, however, this tackle is a terrible look. Pins the arm and sticks the leg out to trip the player. Pretty bizarre action really, and quite dangerous.

www.bigfooty.com

This wasnt a week.
It was a fine.

Nothing between logue's head and the ground
Both arms pinned (one chicken winged for added spice) and absolutely no reason to take him to ground.

 

[DallasCrane316]

Wouldn't Adams getting of be a good thing for us because we could then appeal?

Aren’t we restricted on the second appeal? As in there has to have been an incorrect application of the charge or something like that?

We couldn’t use precedent from other cases I don’t think.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Adams free to play.

don't troll

 

[Schnitzengruben]

 

[DallasCrane316]

Adams will miss

 

[Old Campaigner]

looks like he's banned as well

 

[Hamez]

 

[TheGrizz]

Adams charge is upheld
Will miss ANZAC day

 

[Doss]

don't troll

My apologies - read some incorrect info there.

 

[eth-dog]

Good. It was a worse action.

 

[Lore]

Seb Ross was tackled by three players. Adams was the third player to join the tackle. He admits his tackle was dangerous and that his conduct was careless. He says impact was only low and not medium. Having carefully viewed the vision and the still shots, we find:​

​

1) There is no significant movement or momentum of Ross or McCreery or Mitchell to the ground before Adams and the tackle.​

2) Adams applied a very strong tackle to Ross and pulled Ross to the ground.​

3) The force that brought Ross to the ground was overwhelmingly the force applied by Adams​

4) McCreery and Mitchell did not contribute meaningfully to the force that resulted in or was constituted for Ross' head hitting the ground​

5) There was potential for a concussive injury and that combined with the actual force is sufficient to warrant a finding of medium​

impact.​

6) We accept Adams did not execute the tackle in a way that further increased the force of that which was already inherent in the dangerous tackle, but we are not sufficiently satisfied that he did enough to reduce the momentum or the force or to release Ross so as to minimise impact.​

​

The dangerous tackle was correctly classified as medium impact.​

link

 

[Call Me Cake]

"Doing enough to release" = "you're soft as piss!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Lore]

I actually think the idea of assessing for 'potential' is fair enough. Or at least in the sense that taking steps to prevent potential injuries is important, the same as near-miss incident reporting in an ordinary workplace.

I'm not sure if it should go as far as the tribunal assessing impact based on 'potential impact'. That seems like nonsense. But when there are near misses then there needs to be substantive measures taken to systematically prevent them before they happen, not scapegoating individuals after the fact.

Like if people are tripping over power cords in the workplace but no one got injured yet, do you write them up for not watching where they're walking, write up the guy who put the cable there, or do you make a rule that the cables can't be laid across walkways unless they're taped down and idk there's a warning sign posted at eye level?

 

[TheGrizz]

I actually think the idea of assessing for 'potential' is fair enough. Or at least in the sense that taking steps to prevent potential injuries is important, the same as near-miss incident reporting in an ordinary workplace.

I'm not sure if it should go as far as the tribunal assessing impact based on 'potential impact'. That seems like nonsense. But when there are near misses then there needs to be substantive measures taken to systematically prevent them before they happen, not scapegoating individuals after the fact.

Like if people are tripping over power cords in the workplace but no one got injured yet, do you write them up for not watching where they're walking, write up the guy who put the cable there, or do you make a rule that the cables can't be laid across walkways unless they're taped down and idk there's a warning sign posted at eye level?

The potential to cause injury should be built into the charge.
Football is inherently dangerous, even when played legally. So when an illegal action occurs it is a logical assumption that there is a potential to cause serious injury even if one didn't occur.

Instead of having the ability to bump a charge up on the basis of potential, just build it into the charge.
I.e = instead of low impact being a fine in the Merrett/Adam scenario, make the base charges:
Low (no injury but tackle dangerous) = 1 week
Medium (forced from field but later returned) = two weeks
High (player subbed/ruled out) = 3
Severe (catastrophic injury) = straight to the Tribunal.

That way the only way to avoid a week off is arguing the illegal tackle charge.

 

[Ati Tude]

Very tough for players. Not only do they need to run 10 to 15 kms a game and have journos and fans assessing everything they do, somehow in the heat of the battle they need to be wary of what damage they might do to the opposition in a contact game. We obviously don't want concussions and lawsuits (well, more of them) but you have to feel for the players who are going to get labelled as soft if they dont go in hard enough.

Being suspended over potential to injure just seems harsh. Would rather a 2 or 3 strikes type system. Did discounts for good records get removed or something?