Qafl 2019

[Gazzaa]

The test is on for AFLQ today. With Haberfield reported, the MRP will review today and should be informing him of a set penalty. Should be 2 weeks, maybe reduced to 1. Could actually be judged as 3 depending on the viewpoint of the MRP. Do they want to remove actions like this from the game or is it just lip service?

Before you respond to this, consider what your position would be if Mallan had been concussed or suffered serious injury.

Intention and action should be proven before injury is taken into account. Only then, if an action or charge is proven, should the level of injury should be assessed and penalties set accordingly.

No player should ever have to take responsibility for injury caused for accidental or incidental contact. If the game continues down this path it will be a non contact sport in the not too distant future.

Re: Burge - So MRP views the incident, puts it on report and then offers a set penalty. Burge elects to take to tribunal which is his absolute right to do and no big deal. Players and clubs take decisions to tribunal regularly. Nothing to see here so far. All standard stuff.

The tribunal, with experienced panel members, chosen for their skillsets and experience by AFLQ, hear all the evidence including the field umpire closest who gives evidence in favour of Burge (ie the umpire believes he had no alternative course of action and he didn't feel that even a free kick was warranted) and lets be clear here that no medical evidence was even presented that Jewell was actually diagnosed with concussion (so this cannot be taken into account).

Considering these facts and other testimony the tribunal clears Burge of charge due to the explanation that he had no other alternative course of action and matter should be finalised.

But AFLQ appeal the decision of their own tribunal?? Citing that no reasonable tribunal could come to this decision in light of the evidence presented. Bit of a whack for the panel members hey?? and for their umpire?? Does this question the panel's judgement also in previous hearings??

Surfers Paradise has no right of appeal on this decision as per the rules, but lodge complaints from the club and Jewell's parents to the AFLQ. The league doesn't have the spine just to say the matter has been referred and heard and the outcome is final. And this is all due to injury outcome rather than the action itself. An injury which hasn't even actually been diagnosed by a medical practitioner!

Where is the justice in this?

Personally, I don't think it matters one way or the other if Burge or Haberfield play or don't play. There is no doubt surfers have improved greatly and deserve their spot in the GF and will likely take the game right up to the Lions. But the Lions should win this in any case.

And there is no comparison between this and prev Derrick appeal. That appeal was an appeal based on the severity of sentence due to an exemplary clean record as a player (this is the case with Derrick but plenty of other players would not be able to make that case) and the correct decision was made. Broadbeach should never have been allowed to appeal the appeal but there was no actual rule saying they couldn't. I believe this is now changed.

The league challenging a tribunal decision made by their own tribunal is unprecedented and outrageous. They are opening a can of worms here. How many times in your own personal experiences have you or your clubs disagreed with a tribunal decision. The clubs don't have a right of appeal in this regard ever but the league does??

Yeah righto Anne Cornish pipe down. PBC just threaten Supreme Court again worked last time lol

Haberfield will be suspended as well go the QAFL circus

 

[Dezario]

Well done to Frazer Neate on his grogan last night. A great clubman and I really love the way he plays. Looked like a close and exciting count. Still shocked that Thynne didn’t win but in the end to many team mates took votes off him.

 

[Dezario]

I know who you are Gazza. You are irrelevant on this forum.

 

[champion8796]

Yes congratulations to Frazer Neate a shock winner in my eyes!

Disappointing to see a repeat of 2017 but I wish Surfers & PBC all the best for Saturday. Hopefully a good atmosphere at Metricon this weekend. Well at least they don’t have to travel to Yeronga like we did...

 

[ablett]

Well done to Frazer Neate on his grogan last night. A great clubman and I really love the way he plays. Looked like a close and exciting count. Still shocked that Thynne didn’t win but in the end to many team mates took votes off him.

He did have a good year, the last two flags PB had the Grogan medalist play in the premiership, could this be the sign times are changing.

 

[Fleet footed]

He did have a good year, the last two flags PB had the Grogan medalist play in the premiership, could this be the sign times are changing.

Last year the Broadbeach player Erickson won the Grogan medal

 

[FAN THE MAN]

I actually thought Smith was easily the best player at the Vultures and he would duke it out with Thynne and Howard for the Grogan.

Absolutely gobsmacked Howard didn't feature at the top of the leaderboard, without him Siders wouldn't even play finals he was that influential.

 

[champion8796]

I actually thought Smith was easily the best player at the Vultures and he would duke it out with Thynne and Howard for the Grogan.

Absolutely gobsmacked Howard didn't feature at the top of the leaderboard, without him Siders wouldn't even play finals he was that influential.

Agreed Brad Howard is a gun!

 

[smy1305]

The test is on for AFLQ today. With Haberfield reported, the MRP will review today and should be informing him of a set penalty. Should be 2 weeks, maybe reduced to 1. Could actually be judged as 3 depending on the viewpoint of the MRP. Do they want to remove actions like this from the game or is it just lip service?

Before you respond to this, consider what your position would be if Mallan had been concussed or suffered serious injury.

Intention and action should be proven before injury is taken into account. Only then, if an action or charge is proven, should the level of injury should be assessed and penalties set accordingly.

No player should ever have to take responsibility for injury caused for accidental or incidental contact. If the game continues down this path it will be a non contact sport in the not too distant future.

Re: Burge - So MRP views the incident, puts it on report and then offers a set penalty. Burge elects to take to tribunal which is his absolute right to do and no big deal. Players and clubs take decisions to tribunal regularly. Nothing to see here so far. All standard stuff.

The tribunal, with experienced panel members, chosen for their skillsets and experience by AFLQ, hear all the evidence including the field umpire closest who gives evidence in favour of Burge (ie the umpire believes he had no alternative course of action and he didn't feel that even a free kick was warranted) and lets be clear here that no medical evidence was even presented that Jewell was actually diagnosed with concussion (so this cannot be taken into account).

Considering these facts and other testimony the tribunal clears Burge of charge due to the explanation that he had no other alternative course of action and matter should be finalised.

But AFLQ appeal the decision of their own tribunal?? Citing that no reasonable tribunal could come to this decision in light of the evidence presented. Bit of a whack for the panel members hey?? and for their umpire?? Does this question the panel's judgement also in previous hearings??

Surfers Paradise has no right of appeal on this decision as per the rules, but lodge complaints from the club and Jewell's parents to the AFLQ. The league doesn't have the spine just to say the matter has been referred and heard and the outcome is final. And this is all due to injury outcome rather than the action itself. An injury which hasn't even actually been diagnosed by a medical practitioner!

Where is the justice in this?

Personally, I don't think it matters one way or the other if Burge or Haberfield play or don't play. There is no doubt surfers have improved greatly and deserve their spot in the GF and will likely take the game right up to the Lions. But the Lions should win this in any case.

And there is no comparison between this and prev Derrick appeal. That appeal was an appeal based on the severity of sentence due to an exemplary clean record as a player (this is the case with Derrick but plenty of other players would not be able to make that case) and the correct decision was made. Broadbeach should never have been allowed to appeal the appeal but there was no actual rule saying they couldn't. I believe this is now changed.

The league challenging a tribunal decision made by their own tribunal is unprecedented and outrageous. They are opening a can of worms here. How many times in your own personal experiences have you or your clubs disagreed with a tribunal decision. The clubs don't have a right of appeal in this regard ever but the league does??

The AFL did exactly this, this year. Not significantly different to a government appealing the decision of a court and changing it. Happens a bit I would suggest to not call it "outrageous".
I think accidental/incidental contact is really tough and not necessarily fair on players and we talk a lot about how it will reduce the game to netball. Considering that recent medical advice from practitioners involved with head injuries are stating that sports like AFL footy wont exist in 30 years due to the risk factors attached and therefore the liability then unfortunately we are stuck with accidental contact and the seriousness of the injury being a factor in determining a judgement.
What is poor is when players milk these situations for own / team benefit.

 

[LionsPBC]

Yeah righto Anne Cornish pipe down. PBC just threaten Supreme Court again worked last time lol

Haberfield will be suspended as well go the QAFL circus

Hilarious!... if you actually knew Anne, you would would know she is way too busy looking after the club to worry about posting here. She doesn't even like texting all that much.

SMY... agree with what you are saying about milking kicks just not sure that it comes in the context of either of these. But is a problem

Agree also we have an issue with accidental and incidental contact. generally because the injury determines the offence which is the cart before the horse.

Re outrageous and happens all the time, my information is that it has only happened once. And was in relation to Bachar Houli striking charge. There have been other appeals but these have been around the penalty (ie Derrick case) rather than challenging the whole decision

According to this wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Tribunal.

"In June 2017, the AFL challenged the tribunal's verdict for the first time in history, following an off-the-ball incident involving Richmond player Bachar Houli and Carlton's Jed Lamb: Houli was originally given a two-week suspension for striking Lamb during the first quarter of the Round 14 match at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Houli was reported for the incident, which saw Lamb sit out the remainder of the match, and sent straight to the tribunal the following day. When his case went before the tribunal that week, he was given the two-week suspension, but part of the reason the penalty was low was due to character reference statements given by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and media personality Waleed Aly. Following an announcement of the penalty, there was a public outcry about the length of the suspension. The following day the AFL announced they would challenge the decision, and the matter would be heard in front of the appeals tribunal. Following an extensive review hearing, Houli's suspension was doubled from two weeks to four weeks."

 

[LionsPBC]

PBC just threaten Supreme Court again worked last time lol

Not sure if you understand how things work. If you feel you have been unfairly dealt with you within your rights to take any action open to you to seek what you perceive to be a just decision.

And of course it worked, the club was in the right.

These thing's get decided by educated people not by a couple of bar flys.

 

[Krakour Magic]

Haberfield had no eyes for the ball, ran past the ball at high speed and shirtfronts Mallan with serious impact as he tries to get the ball, head high most likely but either way high level of impact. Mallan is a tough nut and gets up, a bit rattled but seems OK. And Haberfield put on immediate report by the umpire.

This type of contact is what the AFL is trying to get rid of. So lets see what happens here. By the AFLQ rules he should be offered either a 1 or 2 match suspension at the end of the game. Should be INTENTIONAL-MEDIUM-HIGH at minimum. So 2 weeks set penalty.

Note the last line Note – These are proposed base level impact guidelines. The impact can be raised under the potential to cause serious injury.

Clearly there was potential here for quite serious injury so should probably be 2 or maybe straight to tribunal. At least 1 week should be a given

It makes for a great comparison and good discussion of the set penalty rules. My read is that Haberfield will get a reprimand, even if it is graded intentional (I think it could be graded intentional). It's a big hit, but I think it will be viewed as a hit to the body and therefore not high (or groin). No impact on the game and Mallan continued to play, so likely graded low impact. AFLQ could certainly argue medium impact, but I don't think they will. They would need to go with medium impact and intentional to get 1 match. Hard to prove Haberfield's state of mind objectively, so a tough road to take.

Fortunately for Haberfield, Mallan is a tough nut - gets him the low impact rating.

The consideration of potential to cause injury is aimed at specific incidents like spear tackles, chicken wing tackles, head high contact when other player has head over the ball etc., but agree, it could be factored in.

Burge should also be no weeks in my view. I'd be interested to see what AFLQ's grounds for appeal are.

 

[LionsPBC]

It makes for a great comparison and good discussion of the set penalty rules. My read is that Haberfield will get a reprimand, even if it is graded intentional (I think it could be graded intentional). It's a big hit, but I think it will be viewed as a hit to the body and therefore not high (or groin). No impact on the game and Mallan continued to play, so likely graded low impact. AFLQ could certainly argue medium impact, but I don't think they will. They would need to go with medium impact and intentional to get 1 match. Hard to prove Haberfield's state of mind objectively, so a tough road to take.

Fortunately for Haberfield, Mallan is a tough nut - gets him the low impact rating.

The consideration of potential to cause injury is aimed at specific incidents like spear tackles, chicken wing tackles, head high contact when other player has head over the ball etc., but agree, it could be factored in.

Burge should also be no weeks in my view. I'd be interested to see what AFLQ's grounds for appeal are.

Thanks for constructive comment rather than dribble.

For me its not even about the GF, its about consistency of decision and what is fair in each situation.

As per my previous post the grounds for there appeal is this " that no reasonable tribunal could come to this decision in light of the evidence presented "

As per evidence presented "evidence including the field umpire closest who gives evidence in favour of Burge (ie the umpire believes he had no alternative course of action and he didn't feel that even a free kick was warranted) and lets be clear here that no medical evidence was even presented that Jewell was actually diagnosed with concussion (so this cannot be taken into account).

So do you think that reasonable people presented with this evidence would make the same decision the tribunal made?

 

[Krakour Magic]

Thanks for constructive comment rather than dribble.

For me its not even about the GF, its about consistency of decision and what is fair in each situation.

As per my previous post the grounds for there appeal is this " that no reasonable tribunal could come to this decision in light of the evidence presented "

As per evidence presented "evidence including the field umpire closest who gives evidence in favour of Burge (ie the umpire believes he had no alternative course of action and he didn't feel that even a free kick was warranted) and lets be clear here that no medical evidence was even presented that Jewell was actually diagnosed with concussion (so this cannot be taken into account).

So do you think that reasonable people presented with this evidence would make the same decision the tribunal made?

I thought this could be the only grounds for appeal, given the other options are fresh evidence and some error in law/proceedings. Not sure how you could argue no reasonable tribunal could come to the decision. I'm surprised they're having a crack on this basis.

 

[LionsPBC]

I thought this could be the only grounds for appeal, given the other options are fresh evidence and some error in law/proceedings. Not sure how you could argue no reasonable tribunal could come to the decision. I'm surprised they're having a crack on this basis.

Be surprised... this is their one and only angle. They are gonna throw a few of their own people under the bus to appease complaints from Surfers and Jewell's parents.

I get why they SP and co are upset, and they want to protect their player. As should all clubs when there players are in a situation where they are injured. But injury alone does not require penalty.

I have shown footage of Burge/Jewell incident to a lot of footy people I know (lots of non PBC people too) and I haven't found anyone yet who thinks it should even have been cited by the MRP let alone given three weeks.

But OK. It got cited. It was taken to the judiciary and it was cleared. End of story

 

[Big man bathy]

Anyone know who won the grongen ?

 

[Qld footy fan]

Be surprised... this is their one and only angle. They are gonna throw a few of their own people under the bus to appease complaints from Surfers and Jewell's parents.

I get why they SP and co are upset, and they want to protect their player. As should all clubs when there players are in a situation where they are injured. But injury alone does not require penalty.

I have shown footage of Burge/Jewell incident to a lot of footy people I know (lots of non PBC people too) and I haven't found anyone yet who thinks it should even have been cited by the MRP let alone given three weeks.

But OK. It got cited. It was taken to the judiciary and it was cleared. End of story

I feel sorry if someone got hurt but it is a contact game ,,,,,I admire Jason and have watched the Bump what the hell could he do?
I can see where the parents are coming from But its just not anything in it...
He should have never been reported what a waste of everyone's time...Players will always get hurt by Accident it is a contact game

 

[Big man bathy]

Be surprised... this is their one and only angle. They are gonna throw a few of their own people under the bus to appease complaints from Surfers and Jewell's parents.

I get why they SP and co are upset, and they want to protect their player. As should all clubs when there players are in a situation where they are injured. But injury alone does not require penalty.

I have shown footage of Burge/Jewell incident to a lot of footy people I know (lots of non PBC people too) and I haven't found anyone yet who thinks it should even have been cited by the MRP let alone given three weeks.

But OK. It got cited. It was taken to the judiciary and it was cleared. End of story

......................... I’ve watched the footage of the burger / jewell
Incident . Can’t see a problem tbh . Besides getting a hip bone to the skull other than that nothing in it

 

[ablett]

Not sure if you understand how things work. If you feel you have been unfairly dealt with you within your rights to take any action open to you to seek what you perceive to be a just decision.

And of course it worked, the club was in the right.

These thing's get decided by educated people not by a couple of bar flys.

You obviously don’t have much experience with the Courts, it’s not about right or wrong it’s about who has the most money to pay the best solicitors whom find loopholes and twist the facts to win the case.
Palm Beach get Adrian Anderson on their side to scare the league.

 

[ablett]

Anyone know who won the grongen ?

Frazer Neate from Vultures by a vote

 

[LionsPBC]

You obviously don’t have much experience with the Courts, it’s not about right or wrong it’s about who has the most money to pay the best solicitors whom find loopholes and twist the facts to win the case.
Palm Beach get Adrian Anderson on their side to scare the league.

Ok...lets play that game then

did he twist the fact that Surfers failed to provide a concussion diagnosis?

did he hold the umpire down and have him testify that Burge had no other alternative option?

take your blinkers off

 

[2010premier]

The rule these days is if you choose to bump you are held responsible for the outcome. The Haberfield incident as Mallan got up took his kick and played the game out he gets off.

The Burge jewel incident jewel is concussed out for the match and the following week. On that basis Burge gets suspended unless PBC can successfully argue there were mitigating circumstances ( croad pushed him into it etc) That’s a 50/50 call imo, personally I’d give Burge the benefit of the doubt.

As for league appealing, I believe they learned from the Derrick incident and actually showed leadership. The league do have a duty of care around concussions, and they did the right thing if they believe the tribunal got it wrong as they should have 3 years ago. My club were made out to be villains with the Derrick incident as we were forced to do the leagues work for them, when 1 week was way unders given the incident and the extent of Bloods injuries (brain bleeding etc)

 

[ablett]

Word is Haberfield cleared, Jack Anthony is very disappointed!

 

[ablett]

Ok...lets play that game then

did he twist the fact that Surfers failed to provide a concussion diagnosis?

did he hold the umpire down and have him testify that Burge had no other alternative option?

take your blinkers off

Geez that’s the pot calling the kettle black , I’m a natural observer unlike your bias opinion.
No other club calls on x AFL personnel to get players cleared.......bunch of sooks.

 

[LaggingBehind]

The rule these days is if you choose to bump you are held responsible for the outcome. The Haberfield incident as Mallan got up took his kick and played the game out he gets off.

The Burge jewel incident jewel is concussed out for the match and the following week. On that basis Burge gets suspended unless PBC can successfully argue there were mitigating circumstances ( croad pushed him into it etc) That’s a 50/50 call imo, personally I’d give Burge the benefit of the doubt.

As for league appealing, I believe they learned from the Derrick incident and actually showed leadership. The league do have a duty of care around concussions, and they did the right thing if they believe the tribunal got it wrong as they should have 3 years ago. My club were made out to be villains with the Derrick incident as we were forced to do the leagues work for them, when 1 week was way unders given the incident and the extent of Bloods injuries (brain bleeding etc)

Totally agree Premier. Whether we like it or not when the modern day player elects to bump they now have a duty of care for his/her opponent. Burge was probably unlucky as Jewel was off balance but that's the point, don't bump or you'll face the consequences.

However its been amateur hour from the league. The league tells its clubs that MRP provides it ruling from a matrix (which we are meant to have faith has been fairly & consistently considered by impartial administrators) but if you like you can take your chances at the 'Independent' tribunal (and most of us would with a GF at stake) but expect extra penalties if you don't make your case. In this case the tribunal says no case to answer and PBC are justified in their cause of action. Then the league appeals the decision of the Independent tribunal. This is the same tribunal that the administration says the clubs can go to for consideration if they feel the MRP has got it wrong. The lawyers in the house may say its all good but that doesn't instill much confidence in me.