Review Round 18, 2024 - West Coast vs. Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter ZoBlitz
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Gadzorks
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 23, 2015
- 9,360
- 16,391
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
By definition being a bf member equals nerd.
Or do we need the lawyers to appeal that statement?
Last edited:
Dizzle
As seen on the internet
Veteran
Brisbane Lions - Charlie Cameron Player Sponsor 2020
Brisbane Lions - Cam Rayner Player Sponsor 2019
Brisbane Lions - Cedric Cox Player Sponsor 2018
Brisbane Lions - Hugh McCluggage Player Sponsor 2017
Brisbane Lions - Ben Keays Player Sponsor 2016
Brisbane Lions - Jayden McGrath Player Sponsor 2015
Brisbane Lions - Nick Robertson Player Sponsor 2014
- Jun 6, 2009
- 587
- 1,886
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
I say play Country Roads after every goal for the whole game.
mpal6
Norm Smith Medallist
GWS need our lawyer.
Pride of lions
Team Captain
- Nov 21, 2015
- 412
- 1,361
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Winneke is one of the top barristers in the country. It is amazing that we could get him to act on our behalf on such short notice. Anderson is nowhere near his level.
Bedford lawyers presented a fantastic case too; that is that the Tribunal didn’t allow procedural fairness is basically saying that Bedford was suspended only because Taranto was concussed ie putting the cart before the force.
Just heard them say on the radio that 16 other clubs will now be making a beeline for him in future cases such that he has elevated himself tonight. Carlton obviously only use Peter Farrelly.
It shows how far removed from the sport the tribunal is these days... though that's not necessarily on the AFL, it's also on the clubs.
In the end the result for Charlie was not about if the tackle was legal or not, it was that the tribunal didn't address the clause in the AFL laws to determine if Charlie's tackle was indeed rough conduct. So to that point, the players are really in no better position than they were before regarding what is a fair tackle. If a player was to come out next week and lay the exact same tackle, the AFL only need address that point in their tribunal argument, and then the whole thing needs to be tested again.
...hopefully for the players there's something more conclusive that comes out of the Bedford appeal (for which the appeal board are now deliberating).
mpal6
Norm Smith Medallist
Good to see they're adapting
rye
⠀
- Apr 24, 2022
- 3,721
- 10,178
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
i dont know why we give this shitshow the veneer of being a legal process
Suck a big one AFL, MRO, Ralph and its hack tribunal
Bedford off too on the same error of law. Great that he got off. We still know nothing more on the legality of the tackle!
Hi-five Giants
(and you're welcome on the tactic. we'll send you a bill for 50% of Winneke's fee!).
- May 3, 2015
- 15,819
- 18,571
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
So because the tribunal was focused on what he should’ve done instead of what he did that’s the reason he got off?
Or is it more that what he did wasn’t necessarily dangerous but just the fluke circumstance?
Or is it more that what he did wasn’t necessarily dangerous but just the fluke circumstance?
- Jul 22, 2007
- 2,043
- 5,186
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Isn't is as simple as - under the laws of the game the tackle was legal, therefore the result while unfortunate doesn't change the fact the tackle was legal.
No different to having a car accident at 55 in a 60 zone. If what you were doing was legal the outcome can't change the fact your actions were legal by letter of the law.
No different to having a car accident at 55 in a 60 zone. If what you were doing was legal the outcome can't change the fact your actions were legal by letter of the law.
- May 3, 2015
- 15,819
- 18,571
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Driving a player head first like Ralphy described isn't legal though
A little more in the verbage of the appeal board decision regarding Bedford:
We must say that in coming to that view, we've also looked closely at the video of the incident to see whether any inference could be drawn about whether or not conduct of the player was likely to cause injury. We have to say that we were unable come to a view that that inference ought to be drawn.
I read that to say that they looked at the footage of the tackle, and they can't assess from the footage whether the tackle was likely to cause injury, so perhaps some concession that the tackle was legal.
We can probably guarantee that the laws will be modified in the offseason that taking a player to ground with arms pinned is considered likely to cause injury. One more loophole closed...
- Jul 22, 2007
- 2,043
- 5,186
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Who made Ralphy judge and jury? Hence the long drawn out and costly process we just endured. It just goes to show how open to interpretation the rules are that it got this far.
But for me that's the reality of the game. These cases are with us to stay from here on in.
- Jul 22, 2007
- 2,043
- 5,186
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Yep reckon you are spot on - if the conduct wasn't to deliberately cause injury it has to be legal.
As for that loophole closing, another will open somewhere else - like the once banned chicken wing that's now OK - it's almost a certainty. Welcome to the future of AFL...
He's not the only one. Dwayne Russell (who is usually pretty balanced IMO) was also pretty adamant that Charlie drove Duggen into the ground with unnecessary force. Dwayne Russell is correct though - if the penalty was 1-week for an accidental tackle resulting in injury, then we would have all accepted it and moved on.
If the AFL were to make such an amendment, I wonder if anyone is willing to take a look at the statistics of the number of such tackles resulting in injury. If there's 1000 tackles where a players is taken to ground with arms pinned, and 10 of those tackles result in concussion, then that's a 1% chance of getting concussed from such a tackle. That doesn't make it likely to happen in my book.
Last edited:
